Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Sensitive Biscuit
Comments
-
IGN paid for the rights to be the first ones to put out a review. That's the difference. In doing so, they guaranteed a massive traffic volume from fans who wanted to read about the game, almost guaranteeing it would get a polarized review. Nobody pays a load of cash out then writes about how a game is "okay". If it was good, they'd say it was absolutely brilliant, if it was average, they'd say it was garbage.
In this case, though, it was almost definitely a soundly calculated approach. Everyone in the industry knew it was going to be a great game having played it fairly extensively pre-launch.
It's basically just the idea of paying to prevent anyone else getting hits for a certain time period for the review that rankles. Obviously anyone with deep enough pockets can do it though
if you had the money and the deal was offered to you would you refuse it?0 -
if you had the money and the deal was offered to you would you refuse it?
Personally, yes. It's a waste of money that could be invested much better in any company. I doubt the agreed figure between 2K and IGN, however it was structured, was cheap. Most likely it'd have paid for a couple of staff writers for a year at least0 -
The two are completely different though and he was correct in calling you out on that. Reviewers get early copies of games in the vast majority of cases, the only thing they are required to do from that point is write a review of the game.My main issue is TBs criticism of IGN for accepting this prerelease review deal when it is a practice he often engages in himself, as do many other reviewers, on a more inclusive yet still exclusive basis.
In IGN's case they got an exclusive review from the publisher and as such, would have been required to do something else outside of simply writing a review. The something else part is what I assume TB (and indeed I) would have a problem with. This could be anything from securing the front cover of a print publication or page of an online one, to paying a decent chunk of money knowing it will be worth it based on click-through revenue (as COYVB stated) to the other end of the scale of ensuring the score is over a certain percentage.
As it happens, Batman: Arkham Asylum also suffered from both of these if memory serves me correctly and while the game turned out to be utterly fantastic, Eidos still bizarrely saw fit to draw negative attention to its release by engaging in that kind of marketing.
He was an ass based on the way he dealt with it.My second issue is to point out what an ass he was when i asked about it and to ask you wether it was deserved or not.
Then again, so were you for essentially calling him a hypocritical sell-out on a public forum based on what appears to be a misunderstanding of what happened.0 -
The two are completely different though and he was correct in calling you out on that. Reviewers get early copies of games in the vast majority of cases, the only thing they are required to do from that point is write a review of the game.
In IGN's case they got an exclusive review from the publisher and as such, would have been required to do something else outside of simply writing a review. The something else part is what I assume TB (and indeed I) would have a problem with. This could be anything from securing the front cover of a print publication or page of an online one, to paying a decent chunk of money knowing it will be worth it based on click-through revenue (as COYVB stated) to the other end of the scale of ensuring the score is over a certain percentage.
As it happens, Batman: Arkham Asylum also suffered from both of these if memory serves me correctly and while the game turned out to be utterly fantastic, Eidos still bizarrely saw fit to draw negative attention to its release by engaging in that kind of marketing.
But that's the thing. Do you know they were required to do anything? You are assuming based on what they did. But all of that could just as easily have been their own choice to make more money from it. In the same way someone could assume an early access review copy could also come with requirements if a long lasting relationship between reviewer and publisher was to continue. Whatever about the possible dangers of an agreement like that, there is nothing to suggest they did anything they wouldn't have done with a non exclusive agreement.He was an ass based on the way he dealt with it.
Then again, so were you for essentially calling him a hypocritical sell-out on a public forum based on what appears to be a misunderstanding of what happened.
It's only public when he replies though isn't it. If he had ignored it instead of having a fit it wouldn't have gotten any publicity.0 -
I know they're required to do something because it was an exclusive review.But that's the thing. Do you know they were required to do anything? You are assuming based on what they did. But all of that could just as easily have been their own choice to make more money from it. In the same way someone could assume an early access review copy could also come with requirements if a long lasting relationship between reviewer and publisher was to continue. Whatever about the possible dangers of an agreement like that, there is nothing to suggest they did anything they wouldn't have done with a non exclusive agreement.
Did you not want him to reply so?It's only public when he replies though isn't it. If he had ignored it instead of having a fit it wouldn't have gotten any publicity.
Personally, if I was him I would have either ignored the tweet because I reckon, as he appears to, that you misunderstand the difference between the two scenarios or attempted to calmly explain the difference between the two, for awhile at least.
His first public tweet, where he referred to you as a "****ing idiot fan" was completely uncalled for, despite the above. However based on pretty much every comment section on every games related forum I have the displeasure of flicking through, I can't help but agree with the rest of what he said.0 -
Advertisement
-
the other end of the scale of ensuring the score is over a certain percentage.
I have encountered this on three occasions in a relatively short career so far, so it's definitely something that's commonplace. You'll be told the embargo date is X, but if the game scores 90% or higher, the date is actually Y, which is earlier
On every occasion I've passed up on the opportunity to run a review pre-X embargo, as everyone in the industry would know that you'd taken the opportunity from a shady deal0 -
But that's the thing. Do you know they were required to do anything? You are assuming based on what they did. But all of that could just as easily have been their own choice to make more money from it. In the same way someone could assume an early access review copy could also come with requirements if a long lasting relationship between reviewer and publisher was to continue. Whatever about the possible dangers of an agreement like that, there is nothing to suggest they did anything they wouldn't have done with a non exclusive agreement.
Based on the fact they secured world exclusive review rights, they would likely have paid either straight up cash money, or agreed to offset a large amount of advertising for the game in a contra deal
They got an exclusive deal because it was monetarily advantageous to either 2K Games or their PR people to greenlight it. Otherwise the embargo date would've been the same for everyone0 -
I know they're required to do something because it was an exclusive review.
Did you not want him to reply so?
Personally, if I was him I would have either ignored the tweet because I reckon, as he appears to, that you misunderstand the difference between the two scenarios or attempted to calmly explain the difference between the two, for awhile at least.
His first public tweet, where he referred to you as a "****ing idiot fan" was completely uncalled for, despite the above. However based on pretty much every comment section on every games related forum I have the displeasure of flicking through, I can't help but agree with the rest of what he said.
No you are assuming they were required to do something. You don't actually know what requirement, if any, was on IGN other than to release a timely review. It's very possible that 2K simply wanted the first review to be a professional one from a big name. Maybe they learned from the likes of Colonial Marines and Sim City and wanted the hype to come from a trusted source. They obviously knew what a quality game they had so what benefit would there be from them giving exclusivity on condition of good reviews or hype? The hype was there and the positive reviews were going to come in anyway.
So try not to be so condescending. I am not stupid. I understand what you are saying but what I am saying is there is no evidence to support your assumption. It is just as likely that the deal was for legitimate reasons.
And yes I did want him to reply. I thought he could be adult about it though so I didn't see why I shouldn't tweet it to him. It's not like he refrains from using twitter to question other people or answer questions. That was my mistake obviously.0 -
No you are assuming they were required to do something. You don't actually know what requirement, if any, was on IGN other than to release a timely review. It's very possible that 2K simply wanted the first review to be a professional one from a big name.
Look, from someone who has worked in the industry for 5 years, I can assure you that you're a million miles off the mark here.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Based on the fact they secured world exclusive review rights, they would likely have paid either straight up cash money, or agreed to offset a large amount of advertising for the game in a contra deal
They got an exclusive deal because it was monetarily advantageous to either 2K Games or their PR people to greenlight it. Otherwise the embargo date would've been the same for everyone
It was monetarily advantageous to IGN but there are plenty of other advantages that 2K may have gotten out of the deal that are in no way shady. As i mentioned above, they may have wanted to ensure that the first review people read was from a popular and trusted source so people would be more likely to believe it. Is that a bad thing?0 -
It was monetarily advantageous to IGN but there are plenty of other advantages that 2K may have gotten out of the deal that are in no way shady. As i mentioned above, they may have wanted to ensure that the first review people read was from a popular and trusted source so people would be more likely to believe it. Is that a bad thing?
No, it was monetarily advantageous to 2K - IGN would've paid THEM or their PR company either in straight up cash, or via advertising. IGN would then have the opportunity to monetize through additional click throughs
You have a very innocent view of how the industry works, as shown by the second part of that quote. 2K don't care about the professionalism of a site, nor that it's a trusted or popular source. No publisher or their PR team intentionally limits the exposure of a title through a scattered embargo unless there's a very good (financial) reason to do it - it's completely at odds with the PR function. In fact, the very opposite is usually true, people are LESS likely to believe a world exclusive review of anything because they're almost always completely positive0 -
Yup
$$$$$$$$$$$$$
But again, how is that any different from other pre-release review copies? The publishers get extra hype and pre-orders and the people who review it get extra traffic from people who want to look before they buy. In fact, would exclusive review rights deals not be more reliable because the reviewer knows that if they don't do the job right then their reputation will take a big hit due to the level of reliance on them.0 -
Just to clarify here. Reviews are not bought. It doesn't happen. World exclusive reviews ARE bought - but they're bought by the media outlet, not the developers or publishers of the game in question. The purpose of buying a world exclusive is to generate a huge amount of web traffic over a short period of exclusivity - so the opinions in the reviews are almost always overwhelmingly positive (in the case of anything better than an average game) or overwhelmingly negative (in the case of anything worse than an average game). These extremes are how the hits are gained. IGN, nor any major website, does not care about providing the public with top class, balanced coverage. They care about selling ads and generating page impressions - it just happens that the best way to generate page impressions in this industry is with good quality, exclusive content. So while it may look like the latter is the focus, it's 100% driven by the former0
-
But again, how is that any different from other pre-release review copies? The publishers get extra hype and pre-orders and the people who review it get extra traffic from people who want to look before they buy. In fact, would exclusive review rights deals not be more reliable because the reviewer knows that if they don't do the job right then their reputation will take a big hit due to the level of reliance on them.
Everyone got the game before release, but they were legally obliged not to write about it until IGN's exclusivity window expired. Publications get copies of most games, because that's how the PR system works. You send as many copies out to as many people as possible so they generate as many inches as possible for you.
This is where the exclusivity thing doesn't fit. The above is how PR works, generate all that hype and spin from a huge amount of sources. Restricting it to one source is counter intuitive unless there's a benefit there, monetarily, to allow a single outlet to offer the only opinion for 24-48 hours. In doing that, you're crippling the total coverage your product is getting, so that reduction in coverage needs to be offset by something of an equal or greater value than 24-48 hours of every publication and outlet in the world covering your product at the same time
With an exclusive review deal, you need to generate traffic for your outlet to make up from the money spent on acquiring exclusivity rights. The most obvious way to do that is with a great review calling a game brilliant, or the polar opposite. Both of which will attract a huge amount of traffic, generating a massive 48 hour spike in click throughs
Big gaming journalism at the level of IGN is a business based 100% around ads. You need to realise that first and foremost0 -
That's simply being naive in the extreme. Why give it to just one site? Why not give it to an online site and a print publication? Game Informer, for instance? A massively popular publication in the US who are owned by none other than GameStop.No you are assuming they were required to do something. You don't actually know what requirement, if any, was on IGN other than to release a timely review. It's very possible that 2K simply wanted the first review to be a professional one from a big name. Maybe they learned from the likes of Colonial Marines and Sim City and wanted the hype to come from a trusted source. They obviously knew what a quality game they had so what benefit would there be from them giving exclusivity on condition of good reviews or hype? The hype was there and the positive reviews were going to come in anyway.
You're right though, I don't know what the requirement is and that's what makes me suspicious. When it comes to reviews I look for transparency, honesty and in some cases, a bit of humour (oh how I miss the days of Charlie Brooker writing for PC Zone). In this particular instance it has failed the first criteria and called the second one into doubt, pretty much par for the course with most IGN pieces if I'm being honest.
I'm not being condescending and I don't think you're stupid. I simply think you legitimately don't understand the difference between the two cases. As for the legitimacy of the reasoning behind it, well I guess it depends on what you're looking from from your games reviews and in this case, ours clearly differ since I see no legitimate reason for one review site to get an exclusive review at the behest of a publisher.So try not to be so condescending. I am not stupid. I understand what you are saying but what I am saying is there is no evidence to support your assumption. It is just as likely that the deal was for legitimate reasons.
Well then we're back to you publicly accusing him of being a hypocritical sell-out and how you think he should react to that when it's rather clear it's based on a misunderstanding of the issue at hand.And yes I did want him to reply. I thought he could be adult about it though so I didn't see why I shouldn't tweet it to him. It's not like he refrains from using twitter to question other people or answer questions. That was my mistake obviously.0 -
Just to clarify here. Reviews are not bought. It doesn't happen. World exclusive reviews ARE bought - but they're bought by the media outlet, not the developers or publishers of the game in question. The purpose of buying a world exclusive is to generate a huge amount of web traffic over a short period of exclusivity - so the opinions in the reviews are almost always overwhelmingly positive (in the case of anything better than an average game) or overwhelmingly negative (in the case of anything worse than an average game). These extremes are how the hits are gained. IGN, nor any major website, does not care about providing the public with top class, balanced coverage. They care about selling ads and generating page impressions - it just happens that the best way to generate page impressions in this industry is with good quality, exclusive content. So while it may look like the latter is the focus, it's 100% driven by the former
Personally I think 2K have earned a bit of respect for some great releases and little controversy. I think it's worth giving them the benefit of the doubt on this one because its the kind of behaviour I would like to see more often. (i.e. more trustworthy reviews as explained above). I understand your cynicism though and perhaps you are right. It is a practice that is open to the abuse you said but I'd just rather see a bit of proof of what 2K was getting out of it.0 -
That's simply being naive in the extreme. Why give it to just one site? Why not give it to an online site and a print publication? Game Informer, for instance? A massively popular publication in the US who are owned by none other than GameStop.
You're right though, I don't know what the requirement is and that's what makes me suspicious. When it comes to reviews I look for transparency, honesty and in some cases, a bit of humour (oh how I miss the days of Charlie Brooker writing for PC Zone). In this particular instance it has failed the first criteria and called the second one into doubt, pretty much par for the course with most IGN pieces if I'm being honest.
I'm not being condescending and I don't think you're stupid. I simply think you legitimately don't understand the difference between the two cases. As for the legitimacy of the reasoning behind it, well I guess it depends on what you're looking from from your games reviews and in this case, ours clearly differ since I see no legitimate reason for one review site to get an exclusive review at the behest of a publisher.
Well then we're back to you publicly accusing him of being a hypocritical sell-out and how you think he should react to that when it's rather clear it's based on a misunderstanding of the issue at hand.
i wasn't accusing him of being a sellout though. I was trying to point out that he should not be calling others sellouts based on so little evidence as the same accusation could be levelled back on him. He may not have had exclusive access but he and his network certainly had massive amounts of access and gave it massive hype.0 -
Personally I think 2K have earned a bit of respect for some great releases and little controversy. I think it's worth giving them the benefit of the doubt on this one because its the kind of behaviour I would like to see more often. (i.e. more trustworthy reviews as explained above). I understand your cynicism though and perhaps you are right. It is a practice that has been open to the abuse you said but I'd just rather see a bit of proof of what 2K was getting out of it.
2K has done nothing wrong here. IGN would've offered to buy exclusivity, 2K wouldn't have gone to them seeking it out. Why wouldn't a business take something that benefits them either in cash or ads?0 -
He may not have had exclusive access but he and his network certainly had massive amounts of access and gave it massive hype.
Of course he did, because evidently he liked the game, and as it was a big release, people were interested in reading/hearing about it, which means clicks. There's nothing hypocritical in bigging up a game you're looking forward to, and then lambasting a company for buying a world exclusive and preventing an assortment of varied independent reviews0 -
Advertisement
-
2K has done nothing wrong here. IGN would've offered to buy exclusivity, 2K wouldn't have gone to them seeking it out. Why wouldn't a business take something that benefits them either in cash or ads?
Ok well now I am confused. If 2K did nothing wrong then the only bad guy is IGN. And all they did was get one over on their competition. And I'm not aware of any untruths in their review. Are you sure it isn't just IGN competitors feeling hard done by because they lost out to someone with more money and influence?0 -
Ok well now I am confused. If 2K did nothing wrong then the only bad guy is IGN. And all they did was get one over on their competition. And I'm not aware of any untruths in their review. Are you sure it isn't just IGN competitors feeling hard done by because they lost out to someone with more money and influence?
Buying exclusivity I'd bad form whoever does it0 -
Just to clarify here. Reviews are not bought. It doesn't happen. World exclusive reviews ARE bought - but they're bought by the media outlet, not the developers or publishers of the game in question.
But we can demonstrate that they are, as was mentioned before Batman:AA was a bought review, was it over 80% score and a full cover advertisement and you get to review our game?
If that's not buying a good review I don't know what is.0
Advertisement