The journos at the Games Media Awards (GMAs) who tweeted a hashtag in exchange for a PS3 have cast a renewed -- and unflattering -- look at games journalism.
The rum bottle makes that image authentic.
I prefer whiskey while I work, personally.
I prefer dark beer. Duvel ! ( belgium beer)
Is that Brian Williams?
Maybe. But that you and other sites get their money from the very industry you report on suggests that you're compromised. Have been from the very beginning.
Direct from the article. "Accepting a gift like a PS3 in exchange for selling my integrity would get me fired." did you read the article, he even stated that they would fire people in his company for doing stuff like that. Just because he works for a gaming news outfit doesn't mean he is doing all this crap too.
I'm pretty sure they don't turn down any review copies or event tickets, or the swag that comes with these. Accepting such things kinda makes this article a bit hypocritical. How can I trust a review from a site that gets a free copy of a game? Unless they spent their own $65 for the game how can they possibly tell me if it's worth my hard earned money? This is why I take these sites' reviews with a grain of salt, and use Youtube user reviews as well as friends also.
Calm down kid, don't you know how to have civil discussions? I did read the article, but my opinion stays the same. There's a saying, "free food always tastes better." This saying fits reviewers perfectly. Lets take MOH:W for example. I got a free Redbox rental for it. I really enjoyed it, and am glad I played it. However, if I didn't have a free rental and had to pay, or worse, buy the game, my outlook on it would have been totally different. See what I'm getting at, no need to have a meltdown.
@darktower A: not a kid, im probably older than you. B: how is having a free redbox coupon anything like this article? This article is about game industry journalists staying non biased by obstaining from taking unsolicited gifts from developers and publishers so as not to appear to being "bought" by said developer and appear to have some sort of profesional integrity. I dont see how that is anything like you having a redbox coupon.
I'll try to break my point down further, maybe I did a bad job of that. Many people put their trust in the gaming media for reviews of games, peripherals, etc. We want to know if these thing are worth spending our money on or not. We rely on UNBIASED reviews, correct? This is especially important when talking about a game as opposed to a new peripheral. Peripherals can be reviewed on sound quality, durability, weight, etc, all factual things. Game reviews on the other hand entirely rely on an UNBIASED opinion. The second a FREE review copy is accepted a BIAS has been created. How can a reviewer possibly tell me if a game has enough value to warrant a purchase when they themselves did not purchase anything. You were right earlier, the game is necessary to review it, but a FREE game isn't. Until the bias has been removed from a review, it will truly hold no credibility. This deals with reviewers integrity directly. How can this journalist throw stones when he's guilty himself, not as blatantly, but guilty nonetheless. Now tell me, who's review would hold more weight? A reviewer who paid for his own copy, or the one that got it for free? These journalists have sold their credibility and integrity so long ago that they don't even realize it.
Your point doesnt make sense unless they only give free copies to the ones that give them good reveiws. If they do get a review copy, which any reputable gaming journalist probably gets, you can only deduce that it would be biased or result in a conflict of interest if the reveiwers that get those review copies all give it good scores because they got it for free. Thats rediculous because everyone that gets a free copy to review doesnt always give a good reveiw. The reveiwers themselves shouldn't be making money off of the games and should be making money off of the advertising revenue within their respective magazine/website. When your talking about tens of thousands of advertising dollars are what make up the salaries of these individuals I seriously doubt a prerelease copy of a game is going to sway their opinion. Now if some company gets their review copy of say AC3 and every person on the staff goes home that day in ubisoft shirts hats and gift certificate in thier pocket for a free dinner you might have some weight to what your saying. But IMO any reputable reviewer is going to have the integrity to not accept any of that just to assure that the public does not have any doubts about wheather or not they are in a devs pocket with their reviews.
@Dark Tower A free review copy which, due to fiscal realities is necessary to do our job, is a radically different concept than freebies or swag, which has nothing to do with necessity and is all about personal gain and influencing the critics' judgement. That's where I draw the line. If the item in question is necessary to do one's job, then it's acceptable. But when are freebies ever necessary? When is the swag at a show like E3 ever required to perform our job? Such extraneous crap give the clear perception of bias. It's for this reason that outlets like Bitmob and GamesBeat disclose to the reader when they receive a free review copy, even if it's a necessary job component, and express forbid accepting gifts over a certain amount. What you're talking about is citizen journalism which, while admirable, doesn't tend to produce the professional copy or depth and breadth of coverage that a professional outlet does.
This is a very good article and a big problem in the gaming journalism industry. Next lets tackle the supposed journalists that have a rediculous amount of gramatical errors and spelling mistakes. C'mon if your a profesional you will proofread your article.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.