Topic: Forbes article talking about the gaming press and publisher influence

[scottws]

I read an interesting article on Forbes earlier this morning.  It was written by an Erik Kain.  I haven't bothered with games publications since Greg Kasavin left Gamespot, so I don't know who this guy is.  Apparently he works in the gaming press somewhere and also writes a blog for Forbes.

The article is sort of meandering, at times slamming gaming press practices and other times defending it.  But he really hit me when he said, "The gaming press is deeply distrusted by its readership."  So true!  Even if what he says is true, that a vast majority of the reviews available are completely unbiased, the fact that there have been obvious cases of publisher influence on reviews and review scores is enough to cast a shadow on the whole industry.

Frankly, I disagree with this guy that most reviews are unbiased.  If they are, why is a 6/10 a bad score?  That should be above average.  Where are the 4/10 scores meaning slightly below average?

I feel that the publishers frankly own the gaming press, and the press has no use other than to act as another form of PR for the publishers almost as an extension of the publishers themselves.

[MysterD]

There's been a hell of lot of madness going on this week, after Rab resigned from Eurogamer b/c of his {now edited} article.

NeoGAF has been doing a hell of a job of keeping up w/ it...w/ who's been talking about it, who hasn't, who won't, and their thoughts on the ordeal.
NeoGAF got a HUGE thread on the whole thing here.

EDIT:

The article is sort of meandering, at times slamming gaming press practices and other times defending it.  But he really hit me when he said, "The gaming press is deeply distrusted by its readership."  So true!  Even if what he says is true, that a vast majority of the reviews available are completely unbiased, the fact that there have been obvious cases of publisher influence on reviews and review scores is enough to cast a shadow on the whole industry.

Frankly, I disagree with this guy that most reviews are unbiased.  If they are, why is a 6/10 a bad score?  That should be above average.  Where are the 4/10 scores meaning slightly below average?

I feel that the publishers frankly own the gaming press, and the press has no use other than to act as another form of PR for the publishers almost as an extension of the publishers themselves.

I think one thing is that so many different websites use so many different styles of scoring & use their scales so differently often. GameSpy now uses 5 stars scale w/ 1/2 stars allowed; PCG uses 100% system (all points allowed); 1Up uses the school-grading system; GameSpot now uses a system w/ 10 points allowed w/ half-points; Eurogamer uses a 10 point system w/ no half-points allowed; some sites use NO SCORE (RockPaperShotgun); etc etc. When you factor all of this into Metacritic, which many companies depend so much upon, you then have to do the math...and it can wind-up looking all over the place on Metacritic. Pretty much - that's a mess!

I think it might've been Que here (Que, was it you?) - but, I know someone here likes a score-less system - and the more I see the messy scoring, I can see why. Just let the reader read the review or view the entire video...and for themselves interpret what is being said and draw their own conclusions. Many probably look at the score - and think that's the bottom line. While I do look at the score, what's said and shown often can matter to me WAY more so than the score. I might see a game is hella-buggy and still decide if I should buy it now if it has something VERY unique to it...or just wait. (Most of the time, I wait nowadays). I think the pub's and dev's also might want ALWAYS high-scores - as I'm sure that can HEAVILY influence sales. Example - When I was younger, I probably would've never bought Black & White 1 so close to its release, if it wasn't for the high-as-Hell scores everybody was giving - I'm not usually big on strategy games!

[Cobra951]

I read an interesting article on Forbes earlier this morning.  It was written by an Erik Kain.  I haven't bothered with games publications since Greg Kasavin left Gamespot, so I don't know who this guy is.  Apparently he works in the gaming press somewhere and also writes a blog for Forbes.

The article is sort of meandering, at times slamming gaming press practices and other times defending it.  But he really hit me when he said, "The gaming press is deeply distrusted by its readership."  So true!  Even if what he says is true, that a vast majority of the reviews available are completely unbiased, the fact that there have been obvious cases of publisher influence on reviews and review scores is enough to cast a shadow on the whole industry.

Frankly, I disagree with this guy that most reviews are unbiased.  If they are, why is a 6/10 a bad score?  That should be above average.  Where are the 4/10 scores meaning slightly below average?

I feel that the publishers frankly own the gaming press, and the press has no use other than to act as another form of PR for the publishers almost as an extension of the publishers themselves.

I haven't read the article yet, but I want to weigh in on your questions.  The grading scale is not linear.  It's etched into our consciousness since elementary school, where 60% is failure and less than 80% is questionable.  No one will look at a 6/10 or 60% score on a gaming review and think the game is worth getting.  Instinctively, the reaction will be "eew!"  I don't think there's any problem with how the scale is weighted by readers and reviewers per se.  The problem is that no one seems to spell it out, as I just did.  It should be.

90% - A
80% - B
70% - C
60% - Deficient
50% or less - Don't even think about it.  The lower it goes from here, the more the reviewer hated it.

[idolminds]

I guess that would be a reason to get rid of the 100 point system. I still think 5 stars is a good way to go. People know it and you get a more general idea of quality. Because really, whats the difference between 83% and 85% scores? Give it 4 stars and knock it off.

Back to the original topic, Giantbombs take.

[MysterD]

I haven't read the article yet, but I want to weigh in on your questions.  The grading scale is not linear.  It's etched into our consciousness since elementary school, where 60% is failure and less than 80% is questionable.  No one will look at a 6/10 or 60% score on a gaming review and think the game is worth getting.  Instinctively, the reaction will be "eew!"  I don't think there's any problem with how the scale is weighted by readers and reviewers per se.  The problem is that no one seems to spell it out, as I just did.  It should be.

90% - A
80% - B
70% - C
60% - Deficient
50% or less - Don't even think about it.  The lower it goes from here, the more the reviewer hated it.

You're definitely right - not every site spells out what their scale is.

Worse is - not everybody that does reviews uses the scale the same as others!

Example: Angry Joe considers a 1 is "WTF?"; 2 is "garbage"; 3 is "terrible"; "5" is average; "6" is decent; "7" is good"; "8" is awesome; "9" is must own; "10" is Legendary. He really does uses that entire scale. Many reviewers - eh, you hardly see the entire range of the spectrum used so often. Joe doesn't use half-points, though.

When I see a GameSpot review - a lot of their scores seem to hit 7.0 & above. Though, GameSpot got rid of using the entire tenths decimals; they just uses half-point, too - so they act more or less like the grading system. Very rarely, do you get a brutal review like RE6 with a say 4.5 score.

Then, you have IGN - they use any number in the first part of the decimals. So, you might see something like a 8.8 score, like Hotline Miami received.

On the grading system - for each tier (except F), if the modifiers are used - you have sometimes a minus (for low-end); flat grade (for middle); and a plus grade (for top of that pack) - you get more sections onto that system. 70% (C- grade) is decent. Most games, I think - probably do hit in that range, if you use this system. "D" grade is usually a game that is very broken. "F" - forget it; it fails in pretty much every regard.

It's a freakin' mess - especially when pub's and dev's, for some reason, have decided to depend TOO much on Metacritic scores. All Metacritic is going to do is divide the numbers in the scale up - and get a score that turns into a percentage score.

EDIT:

Back to the original topic, Giantbombs take.

Back to original topic - I found Total Biscuit's take (19 mins) on this game journalism interesting.

[Cobra951]

You're definitely right - not every site spells out what their scale is.

Worse is - not everybody that does reviews uses the scale the same as others!

. . .

In this day of aggregate sites like Metacritic, to use anything besides the implicitly expected weighting promotes inaccuracy (regardless of how little accuracy may be possible in subjective reviews to begin with).  The reality is that most potential game buyers are going to want evaluations boiled down to a single number.  We can talk all we want about how unrealistic that is, or how opinions need to be read, not averaged.  It won't matter.  There's nothing wrong with the scale per se, as I already said.  It's just a matter of spelling it out clearly, so there can be no confusion for anyone concerned, including reviewers.

The article is terrific.  I highly recommend reading every bit of it.

[gpw11]

In this day of aggregate sites like Metacritic, to use anything besides the implicitly expected weighting promotes inaccuracy (regardless of how little accuracy may be possible in subjective reviews to begin with).  The reality is that most potential game buyers are going to want evaluations boiled down to a single number.  We can talk all we want about how unrealistic that is, or how opinions need to be read, not averaged.  It won't matter.  There's nothing wrong with the scale per se, as I already said.  It's just a matter of spelling it out clearly, so there can be no confusion for anyone concerned, including reviewers.

The article is terrific.  I highly recommend reading every bit of it.

I agree with this whole-heartily.  It's funny, around the time Mass Effect 3 came out I noticed that Forbes was writing about video games a lot.  Not only that, I noticed that they were doing a really good job of it.  Hell, they're not only doing a good job covering the industry, they're doing the best job of anyone out there and quite possibly the only ones actually doing it, save when a big controversy breaks.  It might all be this one guy, but I think it says a lot about the video game press and relates to the issues brought up directly.

Why does Forbes do such a bang-up job? Because they're fucking Forbes. Because in order to write for Forbes you have to adhere to the strict guidlines which are a part of writing for a top-tier publication and, more than anything, you have to be fucking good enough to write for Forbes, not just know a lot about video games. That's huge.  So, when the Mass Effect 3 ending "story" broke, Forbes covered it.  They covered it like they cover anything else, they researched, they interviewed, they investigated a bit and they published stories with the perfect amount of evidence and conjecture.  They made a story about a bunch of whiners (lets be serious, the ending sucked, but this was pretty much a month of bylines in every site and blog...it was a bit unwarranted) actually interesting and informative.  Everyone else just swapped links and recycled the same story multiple times over. Forbes put some leg work in.

What's the difference between the two?  Forbes is legitimate, and as popular as Gamespot, Giant Bomb, and Kotaku are they're pretty much just giant blogs. The people working there aren't REALLY journalists and don't really function as such. And that's really the issue here. From the article:

Is there a difference between journalist and host/entertainer? Or between journalist and blogger?

On most sites, not really. Honestly, look at the content and the level of work that goes into it and you can see it's pretty mediocre. Sure, there are some shining stars, but all in all it's pretty much a barren wasteland of integrity and journalistic professionalism.  They've never had to roll that way and it's costly to do so. Hire some jack of all trades idiots who love video games and can write and you don't even have to pay them a lot because "fuck yes, I'm doing what I love!". It's the same all over and you can get away with it, so why step up.

I obviously don't work anywhere in the industry so I can't really say if the close relations between publishers and the press leads to bias, but I do know that other industries aren't all that different...yet the allegations of corruption or conflict of interest are few and far between.  So, what's the difference between, say, Consumer Reports or Car and Driver and Gamespot or Kotaku?  Both are "established" in their fields and have a lot to lose should their credibility be diminished. Both sell ad space to the very products they cover, and both have to, by nature, maintain good relations with those who put out those products. So, what gives?

I think it's because the former publications are held to a higher standard by their user base, their competitors, and themselves. They're far more professional and far more skilled at what they do. Open an issue of Car and Driver or visit their site and you'll find all kind of coverage on the industry.  Reviews, industry trends, "previews", fucking financial assessments, industry analysis.  What do you get with pretty much all examples of the gaming press?  Reviews, previews, regurgitated byline stories, and fucking amateur hour.  Talent is low, professionalism is low, and overall industry coverage is pretty much limited. That's not their fault really, it's mostly what the consumer wants - but it's also one of the reasons behind all of the bullshit that goes on.  The bullshit that the consumer complains about.

Symbiosis between press and producer in the video game industry is remarkably similar with that of the automobile industry. The press in both cases rely entirely on advertising dollars and access granted by the producers, while the producers rely on feedback and exposure from the press.  More importantly, both have a history of the two entities involved having very tight relations involving gifts, free trips, combined award shows, and areas in which the lines "may be blurred".  Yet, it's viewed completely differently in each case. Probbaly because in the case of the automobile press, the lines aren't actually blurred at all and everyone knows this.  Because they have faith in the publication and, more importantly, faith in those working for it. Yet, there is virtually no faith in the publications or staff for the video game industry, and it is a bit weird but, at the end of the day, it probably comes down once again to the lack of professionalism of those they hire (and again, the fans are all for this) and the low level of actual journalistic talent there.

It's not surprising that Capcom's marketing teams are sending out promotional gifts to publications. That fucking happens everywhere, in every industry, and it's kind of the name of the game. What IS surprising and what I view as a reflection of the problem as a whole is how many "games journalists" (bloggers) react. I've seen videos of these idiots showing off the swag and basically chastising the marketing teams for trying to buy their opinion. Which is fucking weird and the only real reason behind it is that the "journalist" wants to show off a.) how important they perceive themselves to be and b.) how incorruptible they are. They may want to show off how the actual reviewers have to put up with conflict from both their own side and that of the publisher in order to provide a  non-biased product, but you know what it really showcases? How much they actually suck at being journalists and how much they want to actually be personalities. It's a giant testament to how juvenile and unprofessional the video game press is, and that's ultimately more detrimental to the public's perception of their journalistic integrity than anything else.

I KNOW Porche, Ford, Toyota, KIA, and Lamborghini are giving out gifts and flying motherfuckers all over the world, it's very well documented. But I also trust that the editors and, equally if not more importantly, the  (real) journalists at automobile publications have an excellent understanding of the inner workings of their industry and the journalistic integrity and professionalism to do their job. So does most of the public. So, why is that not repeated with the games industry, especially when the (kinda) journalists go so far out of their way to show how much integrity they have?  Because they're amateur hour hacks for the most part and we have little trust in them regardless of publisher interaction.

[Cobra951]

Good post, man.  I hadn't thought about it, but you're probably right.  Do you think that happens because so much of gaming journalism has shallow roots into websites, as opposed to deep roots into traditional hard-to-get-into print media?  The culture is more freeform, chaotic, unregulated?

[MysterD]

More are weighing in...
Penny Arcade
Jim Sterling of Destructoid.
Tom Bramwell of Eurogamer's reflections.

[gpw11]

Good post, man.  I hadn't thought about it, but you're probably right.  Do you think that happens because so much of gaming journalism has shallow roots into websites, as opposed to deep roots into traditional hard-to-get-into print media?  The culture is more freeform, chaotic, unregulated?

Sorry for the delay, work is a bitch. I think that's probably a large part of it, but far from the only thing to blame.  From a comment on the Destructoid article above:

I've been a (freelance) game journalist in my time, earning my stripes at the UK Official Playstation Magazine. Although in those rosy days, it was an oft-mentioned "myth" that there existed some people who were frankly whores to certain studios, we never came across it.

Of course, in the career journalism sense it was rather hard to hide up such bias - it would inevitably show up in your articles, and most likely your editor would pull you over the coals about it. In short, it's not something you'd do if you wanted a LONG career in gaming journalism.

Nowadays, I'm not so sure. The advent of online bloggers and bedroom journalists have grown exponentially, as well as the industry. I've no doubt it goes on now, and is probably more prevalent ....

It then goes on to highlight that this is indeed an important story.  And he's probably right for the most part - part of the big downfall is the proliferation on online blogs and "enthusiast press" (hilariously, this term is only used in a good way in gaming - Mainly by Destructiod).

But I think it goes a lot further than that.  Actually, I think it's almost the perfect fucking storm of environmental factors that could lead to poor journalism. It's a job a bunch of idiots revere, it's a job with minimal barrier to entry, the target market is generally made up of juvenile people (*cough* commenters), it's entirely ad-space dependent, and the market is utterly saturated.  Also, there really aren't that many interesting stories to cover.  That's not to say that there aren't interesting stories involved in the video game industry, it's just that when you do see them, they're in Forbes or Wired.

The personalities involved in the industry are just as much to blame (as a whole) as the readers and the publishers.  That's not to say that they're all "corrupt" it's just to say that very very few of them are all that professional.

Coming back to what you said, it certainly IS more unregulated, free form, and chaotic.  But people seem to want it that way and they WANT fluff. I've read all the articles posted here, and despite the fact that Kotaku has gotten a lot of heat for not covering the story, I understand why they did so - no one is covering any new ground. At all. Like 6 articles echoing the same thing. Who the fuck cares if it's not seven articles at that point?  And yet, Kotaku is getting heat and no one seems to be commenting that no one is saying nothing new. "Press  should keep the marketing team at arms length"!  Sure.  How, why, and why isn't it that way already. There's a fucking article right there. But, and this is the main thing, I think people just like the shit storm.  It somehow validates their interest in a very "light" industry. It gives them something to read apart from 8 other stories on Capcom's latest DLC scheme and what shitty games are coming out next week. And the journalists capitalize on that by putting the most minimal amount of work in - by rewriting what they've read and inputting what they think.  Yet, even with this dirth of editorials, nothing new is coming out.  And that's a sign of the poor state of health of the video game press.

It's an underdeveloped "industry" (the press) and it's one that focuses on some of the least consequential material ever. Yet, interestingly, if you compare it with the Technology press, the later blows the former out of the water. Why the fuck is that? Why are Anandtech, Tom's Hardware, and (many, certainly not all) tech sites and sources so much better at what they do?  You know why I think it is?  It's kind of a dick thought, but I think it's because the video game press has never HAD to be good at what they do.  People just want a review over Halo 4 they can argue over and a couple of jokes they can LOL at in the comments.  They don't want to hear WHY Hellgate London ended up like shit, although I'm sure there's a very informative and interesting story there, they just want to joke about it. And the people who DO want that kind of stuff get it....again, from WIRED. 

Jim Sterling is seen as respectable in the industry.  I just read his article posted above and backclicked to a video he claimed got him blacklisted from Konami for "Informing and Entertaining viewers".  The video was shit - a rant about how Konami was going down hill. Sure, nothing wrong with that, right?  I mean, these are the stories you're supposed to cover - trends - and Konami must be total assholes to black list him for that!  Here's what he covered:

-They had a shitty, weird press conference where some didn't speak English so well. 
-"Fuck Konami" while he shook his jowels in his plump fingers
-MGS HD collection released the same day as CoD
-MGS HD collection cannibalizes sales from MGS 3 on the 3DS
-3 Silent Hill games in one month!  Sure, three different systems, but what the fuck?!!?!?!!?! LOL
-One of the Silent Hill games got delayed! LOL (You'd think that'd counter the above point)
-Some game I've never heard of wasn't promoted

He then went on to say that they "Don't stand a fetus' chance in hell" and ponders why they are in business.  Seriously, what does stand a fetus' chance in hell even fucking mean? You just strung some words together to appeal to something or someone and all it does is make me think that you're a dumbass and your regular audience probably is too. Like, it's not that it's offensive, it's just that it's weird and really not at all funny in context (there is no context, it's just not funny).

As to why they are in business, a quick Google search has told me that they're in business because they consistently turn profit.  Like, during the period this article covers and since, their profit ratio has actually increased. Why the fuck couldn't Jim Sterling do that google search?  More importantly, why couldn't his readers? In any other sector of press the comments would be filled with "Check your facts, they're making money" regardless of the fact that it's an op-ed.

More importantly, what is the purpose of the article?  There doesn't seem like there was one. MGS and Silent Hill saturation and sales cannibalization would be a great topic for an article...if you were a concerned share holder or if there was some empirical data to go along with it or even speculative conclusions. But all he's doing is saying that they suck because they used to release big franchises farther apart. Like, that they suck, not that it's dangerous, but they (a company) sucks (for their product release schedule). 

Oh, and he dropped maybe 37 "fucks" in the video.

Now, I love the f-bomb and don't think anything of it, but really? Are you that passionate about Konami's recent "blunders"?

And here's the thing:  why the hell would I ever take this guy seriously? Like, he's one of the more well-known, ARGUABLY respected personalities in the industry and he's shit. How could I possibly watch that or read some of his other articles and then take his call to integrity seriously? He MAY have it, but his lack of effort (or talent?) and lack of professionalism counters it at every turn.  Basically, all I'm getting is "We're a serious industry and we need to make sure that everyone takes it very seriously.  Oh, and tune in tomorrow for my rant about how shoulder buttons fucking suck balls. LOL"

Honestly, how can you be surprised that a 21 year old girl might be tempted to take part in a tweeting contest or take publisher gifts a little too seriously when these are her role models and mentors?


Sorry, that was way longer than I intended

[scottws]

Everything you just said validates why I stopped reading videogame-related "journalism" years ago.  Except for this Forbes article that I stumbled across in Flipboard.

The only people who I have any respect for at all are the guys at Penny Arcade.  Even then, I can barely tolerate them.

[Pugnate]

Everything you just said validates why I stopped reading videogame-related "journalism" years ago.  Except for this Forbes article that I stumbled across in Flipboard.

The only people who I have any respect for at all are the guys at Penny Arcade.  Even then, I can barely tolerate them.

[gpw11]

It's actually amazing how bad it all is and how no one ever seems to call the lot of them out on it.

[Pugnate]

So ever since I started contributing to newspapers and magazines, I have learned something... Your stuff *is* going to get edited to suit the publication. I have no doubt that a lot of review scores are edited to read well with the review, which these contributors take very personally.

The whole image of the magazine is on the line, so they can't risk some reviewer having an off day. In the end a review isn't just a reviewer's opinion, but a publication's opinion. So if some reviewer is completely off base with a review score, I have no problem with a magazine editing the score.

They aren't actually buying your "review", they are buying something print worthy that is enjoyable to read. If they paid you to do a review, and you fucked things up (in their eyes), or you wrote something, or scored in a manner that doesn't make sense to their staff, they will edit it.

Will they go out and have someone else review it? No. They have deadlines. They don't have the time. So scores will be edited, and sometimes words will be as well.

Of course writers have giant egos, so this doesn't sit will with them. Naturally, a review has been edited because the publication 'sold out'.

That being said, these gaming publications often do sell out. True story bro.

It goes both ways.

edit:

I am just saying it is really naive for these experienced contributors to expect their 'reviews' to be published unedited. When you write a review as a contributor, it isn't your review, but a magazine's piece. It has to make sense to the editorial staff.

[Cobra951]

Actually, I'm surprised you are saying that.  If a writer's article or numeric conclusion is altered significantly, the publication needs to make that clear.  Otherwise, for all intents and purposes, they're slandering the writer.

[gpw11]

Actually, I'm surprised you are saying that.  If a writer's article or numeric conclusion is altered significantly, the publication needs to make that clear.  Otherwise, for all intents and purposes, they're slandering the writer.

Common practice basically dictates that if you edit a substantial portion of a piece or alter the overall impact (ie by changing a final score or something, I guess) you have a few options as editor:

-Make special note of it
-put the editor's name in the byline as co-author
-remove the author's name from the byline
-send final proof to the author and see if they're okay with you publishing the article in it's final form without taking any of the above options.

At least that's common with freelance. No idea how it would work with staff. And it's not really something that HAS to be done, it's just the commonly accepted way things SHOULD be done.  If an author feels slighted their only real recourse is to complain and/or make it publicly known that the finished work isn't what they intended, but there's a definite power differential there and it's probably not the best idea unless you're well known enough to have your name carry a positive reputation with it.

There's also generally an accepted list of guidelines as to why an editor should edit something and to what extent. Same as above, it's pretty much just "professionally accepted ethics" and probably not hard coded into anything. If it becomes known that an editor is going beyond those, it's really only going to sully their name a little bit unless there's good reason attached, and even then it's always arguable whether or not they handled it in the best possible way.

Of course, those are all ideals and in the real world I’m sure that there are a lot of other factors that come into play and pressures that complicate this.  Peeps do what they have to do and peeps understand that different levels and tiers of publications are going to abide by different standards.
As for video game publications, I’m sure some do sell out.  It’s probably the nature of the beast.  There’s not a lot of money there, really, and it’s probably pretty competitive. You need those advertising dollars and you need that inside access to stay competitive.  I’m just saying that other sectors of “journalism” do a much better job of balancing everything.  I’m also saying that the sector is so fucked and ridiculous that the possibility of undue influence from games publishers is the least of its concern when it comes to credibility.  Even in a world where there was absolutely no possibility of publications “selling out” I wouldn’t have any more faith in them because the overall lack of professionalism, integrity, and actual journalism supersedes that.  If anything, we’d probably just be arguing if writers or publications are altering scores to appeal to virulent fans instead of advertisers.

Seriously, where the hell else does this shit happen?

[Cobra951]

I don't think the power differential makes a lot of difference.  To alter a writer's article so that it ends up saying something different, without explicitly noting the editorial intrusion, is the same as an outright lie.  And lies will kill a publication's reputation, regardless of how they're outed.

[Pugnate]

I will respond in detail later, but it is how it seems to work at major publications. It is why often these publications don't credit a writer.

PC Gamer's notorious exclusive "Hell Gate London" review, gave the game an 89. The score was 15% more than most publications, but the review content itself was moderately positive. The score didn't match the review.

Later it turned out the review was by Gregg Vederman before he left Future Inc. (publisher of PCG), but unusually, his name wasn't part of the article. This is an example of something evil though.

It isn't as heavy handed as I made it out to be. When I send in an article, I am sent back highlighted paragraphs, that I am asked to rework by the staff.

As for scores, they aren't changed without discussion with the reviewer. But yes, it does happen.

The reason I am OK with it (I guess I shouldn't be) is that you never know when a reviewer is having an off day. You have ten people in the editorial staff who can see when something is off and will affect their magazine.

-remove the author's name from the byline
-send final proof to the author and see if they're okay with you publishing the article in it's final form without taking any of the above options.

This normally happens from my limited experience so far.

[gpw11]

I don't think the power differential makes a lot of difference.  To alter a writer's article so that it ends up saying something different, without explicitly noting the editorial intrusion, is the same as an outright lie.  And lies will kill a publication's reputation, regardless of how they're outed.

Well, the power differential only really comes in because there's no real recourse for the author to take.  You can basically complain, but that's just going to possibly ruffle feathers and lose that valuable line of work/network of connections.  Conversely you can try to make in known through other channels that you feel you've been slighted, but unless you're somewhat renowned, chances are you don't have that ability.

But, the key point is that editors are never really supposed to actually alter the writers article so it actually ends up saying something different, save for maybe in extreme cases (in which case, the bridge is probably already burned). And even then, that editorial note should be present in some form. I'd imagine blatant changing of articles to the extent that the message is changed without any of the proper steps being taken is somewhat rare (although it does happen, for sure).

I guess at the end of the day, as Pug said, they're paying for the piece, not for your personal work really. The second you hand it over, they can do what they want with it, within the limits of editorial ethics, as stated in the previous post. If they decide to change half of it and take your name off of it, you probably don't have any ground to stand on as long as you were paid (Assuming the proper clauses are all there). At least in freelance.

Of course, and this is the most important part, this only really applies to certain types of works (reports, news items, probably reviews and such), other items have different sets of rules to a certain extent.

The reason I am OK with it (I guess I shouldn't be) is that you never know when a reviewer is having an off day. You have ten people in the editorial staff who can see when something is off and will affect their magazine.

I guess this is kinda the key thing. The editors are looking at it from a macro perspective, the writers from a micro. You need both to do what they do and you're always going to have that conflict.  It's not a good or bad thing, it just kinda is what it is I guess.

 

[Cobra951]

Sorry, guys, but I'm still horrified.  Writing an article for a magazine or website is not like spackling a wall of bricks at a construction site.  It's the creative work of someone's mind, and it either fits with what the editors want, or it doesn't.  If it doesn't, they need someone else to fill the hole.  At least, that's my "naive" view of publishing ethics.  I'm not saying an author can't be sent back his copy and asked for specific revisions.  But if he wrote "this game sucks" and they want to say "this game is amazing", they need to find another writer, or write the review at the editorial dept themselves, from scratch, using no more from the original writer than objective statements of fact (the platform the game runs on, the game's story, and so on).  It's quite a mouth-agape moment for me to learn how far away from these principles it seems the reality can deviate.

[gpw11]

Sorry, guys, but I'm still horrified.  Writing an article for a magazine or website is not like spackling a wall of bricks at a construction site.  It's the creative work of someone's mind, and it either fits with what the editors want, or it doesn't.  If it doesn't, they need someone else to fill the hole.  At least, that's my "naive" view of publishing ethics.  I'm not saying an author can't be sent back his copy and asked for specific revisions.  But if he wrote "this game sucks" and they want to say "this game is amazing", they need to find another writer, or write the review at the editorial dept themselves, from scratch, using no more from the original writer than objective statements of fact (the platform the game runs on, the game's story, and so on).  It's quite a mouth-agape moment for me to learn how far away from these principles it seems the reality can deviate.

No, that makes sense, and at least from my knowledge the vast vast majority of changes which do go down (should they exceed the totally acceptable grammatical/whatever corrections) should go under the "sent back and asked for specific revisions" or something of that sort (they may make the revisions for you, get you to sign off on them and you can work through any conflicts together). "This sucks" should never really be changed to "this is amazing" except under extreme circumstances and, like you said, in those cases only objective statements of fact should be used.

Basically, you just lined out how the process is supposed to work under commonly accepted ethical principles and I'd be surprised if major, reputable publications stray from that process. 

It does happen for sure, especially with less reputable publications,  but I'd imagine it doesn't happen (to the extent that anyone outside the situation would view it as questionable or a breach) nearly as much as the invested authors claim it does.

The Hellgate London example Pug posted would be a pretty rare extreme.

[MysterD]

Jim Sterling takes on numerous subjects here - DLC, online passes, advertising, games journalism, etc.

[gpw11]

See, I don't even want to click on that because that dude is possibly the worst offender of all the Bullshit associated with the videogame press.

But I probably will, and it'll probably annoy me.  Why do we do that?

[gpw11]

Shit, I just did what I knew I was going to do. 

So, I get what the guy is saying...kind of. Like, I get what he's trying to say, he's just not doing a very good job of doing it. "Games companies make money hand over fist and yet tell us that they have to be involved in cross promotions and online passes in order to turn a profit"  It's actually kind of a valid point about the PR spin on it, because game companies don't do this well.

But here's the fucking thing: Jim Sterling SHOULD know what the PR reps are actually trying to sum up in a sentence.  He SHOULD know how the industry he's involved in works and (well, basically) how every industry works. And in a piece like this, he should at least bring that up. Instead he drinks some Mountain Dew and pretends to go blind; staring at his fat sausage fingers while a high pitched shrill escapes his worm-like lips (seriously).

But sure, he knows his audience.....why get into all of that?  I mean, why not just yell and scream about how Ubisoft, EA, and Microsoft are making money hand over fist and they're the ones doing this kind of thing the most instead of the smaller developers or publishers who may need the money? 

-Ubisoft - operating loss in 2011
-Ea - apparently uses some non-gaap accounting methods I don't understand but they've had an average profit margin in the negative for the past five years at least
-Microsoft - yeah, they're making money.  I have no idea however, if that stems from their gaming division or not.

Thanks Google, you provided this information in 30 seconds.  Thank god you exist because if I'm writing a report or anything like that I'd sure love to do less than a fucking minute of research before naming company names...just to make sure I don't pull the wrong one out of the hat and totally discredit my entire argument on the basis that I couldn't even fact check the simple shit.

In the end, there's a five minute rant there that's really about nothing. The answer to your fucking question of why they do this?  Easy, because it's the same thing as saying that they're hedging against future and past loses as well as covering for risks in other investments...like games that lose money.  It enables a.) happy shareholders, b.) financial freedom to pursue more risky ventures (Mirror's Edge?), c.)dividends? d.) debt payoff e.)overhead f.)corporate reinvestment. They just say it in a sentence because, Jim Sterling, part of your shitty fake job is that you're supposed to know how this shit works.

The interesting part is that there's still good room for argument and ranting there, even while taking that into account.  It's just you kind of skip the most important part and assume that EA is Uncle Scrooge and they take the money from CoD and just deposit it right into their money bin. You miss the deeper, more intricate, and more interesting aspects of how any fucking business works and thus can't really criticize it. 

Basically, what I'm saying is Jim Sterling isn't going on a rant about how the industry works here....he's going on a rant about how he THINKS it works. And it's blatantly wrong. 

So, why is games journalism fucked?  Again, because instead of doing a Google search and maybe cracking a business 101 text book,  Jim Sterling stood in front a pulpit, drank mountain dew, contorted his jelly-like face, and got praised in the comments.