Can we talk about 'Gamergate' ?

[Angrybird]

If any of these people played really games they wouldn't have time to discuss this crap. I really doubt the veracity of anything involved with, it simply does not matter.

[prideslayer]

Then I actually finding that strange, in "old days" people on "internets" were more friendly lack of social media and few numbers of players encourage people to be more social (at least in europe). Now "internets" is just filthy pile of mud.

I nearly spit coffee all over my desk reading this, I had to spit it back into the cup so I could cough and choke without making a mess, so thanks for ruining a perfectly good cup of coffee!

 

I've been on the internet since the "old days". The oldest of days, downloading your fidonet (or other net, later) email from your BBS once or twice a day @ 2400bps or slower. Group social interaction took place there, on local BBS boards, on usenet, and later IRC. MMORPGs were called MUDs (or MUSH, MUCK, MOO, etc etc)

 

It was not the way you portray it. People were still people, jerks were still jerks, and on average they were not any nicer than they are today. The main difference today is simply that more people are connected and communicating nearly instantly. More people means a bigger sample size (and more outliers -- more jerks/white knights) and instant communications means people rarely think too hard before typing/tapping out a message.

 

There were no "good ole days." These are the good 'ole days. Enjoy them.

[windpl]

 

Then I actually finding that strange, in "old days" people on "internets" were more friendly lack of social media and few numbers of players encourage people to be more social (at least in europe). Now "internets" is just filthy pile of mud.

I nearly spit coffee all over my desk reading this, I had to spit it back into the cup so I could cough and choke without making a mess, so thanks for ruining a perfectly good cup of coffee!

 

I've been on the internet since the "old days". The oldest of days, downloading your fidonet (or other net, later) email from your BBS once or twice a day @ 2400bps or slower. Group social interaction took place there, on local BBS boards, on usenet, and later IRC. MMORPGs were called MUDs (or MUSH, MUCK, MOO, etc etc)

 

It was not the way you portray it. People were still people, jerks were still jerks, and on average they were not any nicer than they are today. The main difference today is simply that more people are connected and communicating nearly instantly. More people means a bigger sample size (and more outliers -- more jerks/white knights) and instant communications means people rarely think too hard before typing/tapping out a message.

 

There were no "good ole days." These are the good 'ole days. Enjoy them.

 

 

True, but all that things required some knowledge, and people were nice to themselves to learn and share. There was only slight chance that you would encounter spoiled brat or some shitty person. Today it is like common recurrence

 

[Alva]

On one side - more or less fanatical group, almost religiously, that uses faux psyco-babble to depict men as misogynist for playing/developing games  - and on the other side we have basically trolls hiding in a "internet movement" (would hardly call it a movement) and use the crowd to do the trolling they can do........ sorry, I can't say I care much about this and I cannot take it seriously when people use that off set and think they can get to a rational place.

The logic and rational discussion will never take place amongst these two segment - but unfortunately it's those segments the mainstream media and even the industry/gaming media clings on to because it creates headlines and advert clicks. And thereby it's those two segments most discussion will take offset in, because tl;dr don't want to read a bit further and ignore such fanatical rabble.

 

If you want things to change, you'll have to begin there. Shut down the sensationalistic media, and thereby shut down the rabid segments on both sides of the equation.

Then the rational people can start communicating and find a way forward in unison.

 

 

Oh, and  - it's not just women who are "targeted" by trolls on the internet.

It's just when it's women the sexism tag is automatically attached. It's just that it's an easy button to trigger for a troll to trigger; whereas towards men it's "fat, men living in their mothers basement with small dicks who can't get girls" type buttons.

Just because something happens to a women on the internet does not mean it's sexism. It's more often than not; just trolling.

[prideslayer]

True, but all that things required some knowledge, and people were nice to themselves to learn and share. There was only slight chance that you would encounter spoiled brat or some shitty person. Today it is like common recurrence

The chance increased (and still does) with population is what I'm saying. It may be more common for you today than it used to be, but it's only because you're interacting with a larger number of people than before.

 

It was the same "back then" if you were interacting with a large group, especially if they were mostly anonymous. 20 years ago people were posting dox and death threats on usenet after getting in arguments about cats.

 

Nothing has changed.

[Guest corespore]

 

True, but all that things required some knowledge, and people were nice to themselves to learn and share. There was only slight chance that you would encounter spoiled brat or some shitty person. Today it is like common recurrence

The chance increased (and still does) with population is what I'm saying. It may be more common for you today than it used to be, but it's only because you're interacting with a larger number of people than before.

 

It was the same "back then" if you were interacting with a large group, especially if they were mostly anonymous. 20 years ago people were posting dox and death threats on usenet after getting in arguments about cats.

 

Nothing has changed.

 

Did someone say cats?!?!?!?!?

 

 

[Guest carywinton]

Speaking of "Back in the day" Prideslayer is correct nothing much has changed it's just a larger and quicker response to it that makes it seem more sensational. I can recall probably the best place ever made for gaming and a community of people that were over all absolutely stellar, the things we did and were able to accomplish are unrivaled even today. I have yet to see or find a gamer community of developers, gamers and modders that equals that place, Loverslab is about as close as I have found, but when it went down it was certainly a sad day. I lost contact with some of the nicest, brightest and best the industry of gaming will probably ever see. What was the place? NWNVault. or simply known as The Vault. There were people there from all types of groups, creeds, gender, racial and ethnic origins and everyone worked to help each other. This is where things should try to go and be, simply pointing fingers and stating opinions with little basis in fact accomplishes nothing and goes no where.

[Guest]

 

So that's why this happened, because totally not sexism? Or are you gonna say no true scott-I mean gamergater would do that? I've noticed gamergaters only have 3 arguments for why this totally isn't about sexism: no true scottsman, a feminist conspiracy, and it's just a coincidence that all examples of rampant gaming journalism corruption in the past were pretty much ignored until a woman could be blamed. All are pretty weak debate tactics in general. If the simplest explanation is that this IS about sexism, and all arguments to the contrary rely on convoluted conspiracy or coincidences, then...well you know what they say about the simplest explanation right?

There's a reason why the Southern Poverty Law Center, the renown experts on hate groups, have officially declared gamergate a hate group. Blame it on the "trolls" all you like, but if that's the case, the trolls won, gamergate IS the trolls now, a handful of reasonable people within doesn't make up for that. I kinda feel sorry for the reasonable people, it's like joining Al-Queda thinking it's a community service organization, then having to make excuses for why they're totally not terrorists, and all those suicide bombers are not true Al-Quedans, and they are just trolls trying to make them look bad

 

So... how is gamergate responsible for the dox exactly? Because from what I've seen, there has been no evidence that gamergate supporters at large have had anything to do with it. In fact, if you go on to the gamergate hashtag, or KotakuInAction, 8chan etc, the vast majority of gamergate supporters have condemned it. How exactly is this a case of "no true scotsman?" This is the internet, there will always be assholes who don't give a fuck. These people are morons, and to try and discredit the entire gamergate movement because of these people is absurd. It's exactly what anti-gamergate "proponents" try to do. They've spun up a narrative, and are now conducting a smear campaign in an attempt to dodge criticism, avoid the argument, and convince people like you that they're the victims of "abuse" and "sexism".

 

You're second paragraph... I don't even... Okay, so, care to share with us a link to this declaration? Knowing whether or not I'm actually a part of a hate group is pretty important ya know. Also, no, the trolls haven't taken over, and they haven't won anything. Only the misinformed have bought into the false narrative. And although anti-gamergate proponents have been able to grab a hold of mainstream media, they haven't had such luck with their advertisers. GamerGate has been hitting Gawker Media right where it counts: their bottom line. It's actually quite hilarious. Intel and Adobe, as well as fucking BMW and Mercedes-Benz have pulled advertisements from Gawker (more to come). They don't want to associate with these people. The best part was seeing how upset Max Read and the others were, declaring that Intel was run by "craven idiots", employing "pusillanimous morons", oh and of course "misogynists" and "bigots".

 

This isn't trolling, it's people working together for a common cause.

 

On one side - more or less fanatical group, almost religiously, that uses faux psyco-babble to depict men as misogynist for playing/developing games  - and on the other side we have basically trolls hiding in a "internet movement" (would hardly call it a movement) and use the crowd to do the trolling they can do........ sorry, I can't say I care much about this and I cannot take it seriously when people use that off set and think they can get to a rational place.

The logic and rational discussion will never take place amongst these two segment - but unfortunately it's those segments the mainstream media and even the industry/gaming media clings on to because it creates headlines and advert clicks. And thereby it's those two segments most discussion will take offset in, because tl;dr don't want to read a bit further and ignore such fanatical rabble.

 

I see this mindset a lot, and you know, I can understand it. Gamers just want to enjoy games, discuss and play games with like-minded people, and have fun. And the thing is, this is exactly what the gamers that support gamergate want to do at the end of the day. In an ideal world, this medium wouldn't have to deal with the crazies and the ideologues (interchangeable really) with their agendas of BS. To say that the entire pro-gamergate community is full of trolls is incorrect; and while it's undeniable that there are a few of these people, the vast majority of what I've seen, and the people I've talked with, want what's best for the industry. As for a discussion, most pro-gamergate supporters are all up for it. We're just waiting for the opposition to be willing.

 

[Kendo 2]

@The Mad God

http://www.loverslab.com/topic/38409-can-we-talk-about-gamergate/page-5?do=findComment&comment=967067

Concerning the first part of your post, I'm certain no one here wants to be a part of the ongoing controversy surrounding gamegate and what may or may not be transpiring.  The only thing of any relevance in that conflict is the core issue of corruption.  Anything after that is elements of two warring factions bellowing at one another on the internet.  It's one thing to poke fun of either side while pointing out the obvious.  It's quite another to have Lover's Lab become another battlefield.  I can safely say no one here wants that.  If you seriously want to do battle, there are forums already contaminated by this outre circus.  We're trying to keep this as a civil discussion, not a debate or chance for confrontation.

 

Anyway...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDXUDehUgIQ

[GrimReaper]

This would have happened no matter what in the end. Games journalism is an archaic form of communication that serves no real purpose anymore, and they know it. "Professional" journalists are being replaced by the likes of Angry Joe and other real gamers who can communicate directly with other gamers in damn near real time in a way that normal people talk to each other. Game reviewers on places such as youtube can drop a full-review week(s) ahead of a game release because game devs realize that the best advertisement comes from these youtube reviewers and not only that they do it for free! Gaming journalism can't compete with the information age in being able to connect with their core audience any more and now they can see the end of their way of doing things they are pisses and have decided to burn the bridges as terribly as possible to make some sort of childish point before they fade into obscurity.  

All of this only needed the tiniest spark to set off, if it hadn't been Zoe it would have been something else. Gamergate isn't about sexism or integrity in journalism, it's a bunch of pissed off hipsters having a good-ole-fashioned shit storm before the curtains close that has touched off a rather entertaining consumer revolt. And just like any animal thrashing about before it dies eventually this will all settle down and we can go back to picking on each other instead of them.

 

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/9782-Shadow-of-Mordors-Promotion-Deals-with-Plaid-Social

 

Youtubers may replace the old game 'journalism' but they will be influenced and bought, too. In the end, it will be the same - if you don't hand out good reviews like candy on halloween, you won't get any new deals. No new pre-release content means less viewers means you are screwed. Might even be easier for the publishers to get what they want this way than it is now.

[prideslayer]

Youtubers may replace the old game 'journalism' but they will be influenced and bought, too. In the end, it will be the same - if you don't hand out good reviews like candy on halloween, you won't get any new deals. No new pre-release content means less viewers means you are screwed. Might even be easier for the publishers to get what they want this way than it is now.

tl;dr: Review games, movies, etc. on your own time and dime. If you need income, get a real job.

 

You're only "screwed" if you're trying to make your living by reviewing the work of others. An idea I find laughable in itself, and yes I know, movie critics have been doing this for ages. That doesn't mean the practice should continue indefinitely spanning all kinds of media.

[legendarytoyou]

@The Mad God

http://www.loverslab.com/topic/38409-can-we-talk-about-gamergate/page-5?do=findComment&comment=967067

Concerning the first part of your post, I'm certain no one here wants to be a part of the ongoing controversy surrounding gamegate and what may or may not be transpiring.  The only thing of any relevance in that conflict is the core issue of corruption.  Anything after that is elements of two warring factions bellowing at one another on the internet.  It's one thing to poke fun of either side while pointing out the obvious.  It's quite another to have Lover's Lab become another battlefield.  I can safely say no one here wants that.  If you seriously want to do battle, there are forums already contaminated by this outre circus.  We're trying to keep this as a civil discussion, not a debate or chance for confrontation.

 

Anyway...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDXUDehUgIQ

Again I agree with Kendo; people really this is to toxic a discussion for here and I really don't want LoversLab to become a statistic.  I mean didn't ANYBODY see my comment about the World Series?

 

I really wish the Cubs had made the playoffs but ever since the Billy Goat Curse it seems my hopes are not to be.

[Guest corespore]

 

@The Mad God

http://www.loverslab.com/topic/38409-can-we-talk-about-gamergate/page-5?do=findComment&comment=967067

Concerning the first part of your post, I'm certain no one here wants to be a part of the ongoing controversy surrounding gamegate and what may or may not be transpiring.  The only thing of any relevance in that conflict is the core issue of corruption.  Anything after that is elements of two warring factions bellowing at one another on the internet.  It's one thing to poke fun of either side while pointing out the obvious.  It's quite another to have Lover's Lab become another battlefield.  I can safely say no one here wants that.  If you seriously want to do battle, there are forums already contaminated by this outre circus.  We're trying to keep this as a civil discussion, not a debate or chance for confrontation.

 

Anyway...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDXUDehUgIQ

Again I agree with Kendo; people really this is to toxic a discussion for here and I really don't want LoversLab to become a statistic.  I mean didn't ANYBODY see my comment about the World Series?

 

I really wish the Cubs had made the playoffs but ever since the Billy Goat Curse it seems my hopes are not to be.

 

People can have a perfectly reasonable conversation about any topic be it toxic or otherwise as long as they choose to be civil. It's all about remembering there are other people at the other end, you don't have to like them or their opinions but atleast have some consideration for the fact they have feelings too. 

That said, Gamergate has become rather polarizing just about everywhere it has reared it's head and i hope we don't suffer the same fate, LL is good people and i usually don't like to see infighting, i do love a good shit flinging though..... i feel conflicted sometimes. 

 

And what's this goat curse you speak of? You've peaked my interest.

[Guest corespore]

I only have one point to make to win this entire discussion.....

 

Annnnnnnd your welcome 

[GrimReaper]

 

tl;dr: Review games, movies, etc. on your own time and dime. If you need income, get a real job.

 

You're only "screwed" if you're trying to make your living by reviewing the work of others. An idea I find laughable in itself, and yes I know, movie critics have been doing this for ages. That doesn't mean the practice should continue indefinitely spanning all kinds of media.

 

 

Reviews are pretty important though, because publishers are not honest about the product they are trying to sell. In theory, reviewers stand between the publisher and the consumer, checking the quality of the product so the consumer can make the choice of buying said product or not. In reality, reviewers need to have a good relationship with publishers, otherwise they can't get a review out in time. Most people don't want to wait for a review, they want a review as fast as possible.

[RitualClarity]

I believe Pride wasn't knocking reviews or even someone making a little money on the side giving reviews however making a living by relying solely on reviews for your income is where the issue is that he brings up.. I sort of agree. When you rely on someone paying your bills that person that pays the bills has some level of control over you. It is a conflict of interest. Those reviewers that get money from Publishes for early reviews, free tickets, interviews and such are in their pocket. There is a conflict of interest when it comes to proper reviews even if they don't realize it.

 

I for one never trust the game reviews or sensationalist because of the slant on the games and pressure from the publishers. I wait until someone I respect makes a review of this .. Someone outside of the "business" and not affected by the money or pressure. Fellow gamers. Forums with members and such. Forums like here where I know the people who tried it and can give an honest review. Some will love it. others will hate it and for different reasons. These are the reviews that matter.

[prideslayer]

Reviews are pretty important though

Reviews are important. "Paid" reviews or "professional" reviews aren't. Not to me anyway.

 

Most people don't want to wait for a review, they want a review as fast as possible.

Oh, the book I could write about "most people." "Most people" are hardly good role models.

 

I believe Pride wasn't knocking reviews or even someone making a little money on the side giving reviews however making a living by relying solely on reviews for your income is where the issue is that he brings up.. I sort of agree. When you rely on someone paying your bills that person that pays the bills has some level of control over you. It is a conflict of interest. Those reviewers that get money from Publishes for early reviews, free tickets, interviews and such are in their pocket. There is a conflict of interest when it comes to proper reviews even if they don't realize it.

This, exactly.

 

If you want to make money doing reviews, fine. If you want to also be taken seriously as a journalist though, your options are limited. I put forward the only way to do this and still receive the benefit of the doubt is to ensure your income can't be traced back to an expense of the publisher, producer, or developer.

 

Since the "game rags" and such make their money with advertising primarily by game companies, targeted at gamers, I can't find reviews from such sources trustworthy. There's always the chance that behind the scenes the publisher/developer/producers are threatening to pull advertising and the like. A game review 'column' (or 'segment' or whatever) from a source that is otherwise only peripherally connected with the gaming industry is a more trustworthy source. One coming from an independent source getting revenue from donations rather than advertising is even better.

 

I for one never trust the game reviews or sensationalist because of the slant on the games and pressure from the publishers. I wait until someone I respect makes a review of this .. Someone outside of the "business" and not affected by the money or pressure. Fellow gamers. Forums with members and such. Forums like here where I know the people who tried it and can give an honest review. Some will love it. others will hate it and for different reasons. These are the reviews that matter.

There was a time I wouldn't even consider buying a game without having tried out a playable demo first. Sadly those demos are more and more rare. Now because of Skyrim, I'm not buying anything until it's been out a least a 6-12mo and preferably on sale as well. Then I can get my 'reviews' from forums like this one.

[RitualClarity]

 

If you want to make money doing reviews, fine. If you want to also be taken seriously as a journalist though, your options are limited. I put forward the only way to do this and still receive the benefit of the doubt is to ensure your income can't be traced back to an expense of the publisher, producer, or developer.

 

Since the "game rags" and such make their money with advertising primarily by game companies, targeted at gamers, I can't find reviews from such sources trustworthy. There's always the chance that behind the scenes the publisher/developer/producers are threatening to pull advertising and the like. A game review 'column' (or 'segment' or whatever) from a source that is otherwise only peripherally connected with the gaming industry is a more trustworthy source. One coming from an independent source getting revenue from donations rather than advertising is even better.

Exactly.. if money comes from the publishers it is potential conflict of interest when reviewing the games. If the money came from donations or like Youtube where the only source of income is from clicks or subscribers and such then better.

 

I'm not buying anything until it's been out a least a 6-12mo and preferably on sale as well. Then I can get my 'reviews' from forums like this one.

I agree. There are very few games I will buy first day.. I have never pre-paid for a game. I think that is just plain crazy.. perhaps some indy game where someone is trying to get some funds together to create a game and you wish to support them.. ( notice I said support them.. not necessarily buy a game). Then  maybe. Commercial games.. can't see it. Too many chances for it to be postponed or released as crap.. Watchdogs is one classic example. It was beautiful and wonderful in the original presentation until the hacked and slashed it to accommodate consoles.

[legendarytoyou]

 

 

@The Mad God

http://www.loverslab.com/topic/38409-can-we-talk-about-gamergate/page-5?do=findComment&comment=967067

Concerning the first part of your post, I'm certain no one here wants to be a part of the ongoing controversy surrounding gamegate and what may or may not be transpiring.  The only thing of any relevance in that conflict is the core issue of corruption.  Anything after that is elements of two warring factions bellowing at one another on the internet.  It's one thing to poke fun of either side while pointing out the obvious.  It's quite another to have Lover's Lab become another battlefield.  I can safely say no one here wants that.  If you seriously want to do battle, there are forums already contaminated by this outre circus.  We're trying to keep this as a civil discussion, not a debate or chance for confrontation.

 

Anyway...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDXUDehUgIQ

Again I agree with Kendo; people really this is to toxic a discussion for here and I really don't want LoversLab to become a statistic.  I mean didn't ANYBODY see my comment about the World Series?

 

I really wish the Cubs had made the playoffs but ever since the Billy Goat Curse it seems my hopes are not to be.

 

People can have a perfectly reasonable conversation about any topic be it toxic or otherwise as long as they choose to be civil. It's all about remembering there are other people at the other end, you don't have to like them or their opinions but atleast have some consideration for the fact they have feelings too. 

That said, Gamergate has become rather polarizing just about everywhere it has reared it's head and i hope we don't suffer the same fate, LL is good people and i usually don't like to see infighting, i do love a good shit flinging though..... i feel conflicted sometimes. 

 

And what's this goat curse you speak of? You've peaked my interest.

 

Hmm...you're right it hasn't gotten that bad yet and that's mainly because we'll all cool here.  As long as we keep it civil I don't see any reason not to.

 

As for the Billy Goat curse it happened back in 1945 when Billy Goat Tavern owner Billy Sianis was asked to leave a World Series game against the Detroit Tigers because the fans were all butthurt because of how his goat smelled.  It pissed him off and he said, "Them Cubs, they ain't gonna win no more."  Since then they have yet to win another National League Pennant or World Series.

[Kendo 2]

To be honest, I've never purchased a game because of a game review.  I bought the first Call of Duty because I'm a WW2 history buff.  I bought Morrowind on a fluke (and hated it).  I bought Oblivion so I would have something to do when I was business travelling.  I bought Batman Arkham because a friend suggested it and I'ma fan of the Frank Miller spin on Dark Knight.  The Witcher series were on sale, I liked the look and premise of Assassin's Creed, etc.  I don't buy any games on pre-order and I learned my lesson with Steam a long time ago.  Anything they distribute needs to be out at least 6 months before I'll buy it.  That's doubly true for anything made by Bethesda.  I won't buy their buggy shit unless it's been out for at least a year AND it has to be on sale.  No where, in any of that, is there a 'game review'.

 

@corespore

My major concern is people bringing their gamegate battles here to LL.  I'm the first to admit that I'll dive into an on-line debate and post my meaningless opinions.  But not THAT debate.  It's too volatile and it's 'fan base' too fringe-element-toxic.  I want no part of it and IF it did come here, I feel LL and the membership would suffer for it.

 

 

[legendarytoyou]

On the topic of reviews though I think a good portion of us have to agree with the phrase, "once bitten, twice shy."  Generally when a game is overhyped (glares angrily at Watch Dogs) there are a number of things that may occur; it may live up to expectations or it will flop on its face.  Having been a victim of the Aliens: Colonial Marines debacle I can safely say I won't make that mistake again.  Since then if I want HONEST reviews I ask fellow coworkers (who play games themselves) or watch reviews from Angry Joe or Totalbiscuit.

 

I've also made it a habit NOT to pre-order if I can help it.  It really boils down to common sense.  You don't buy a car out of good faith and word from the dealer, you test drive it first and then make the purchase.

[GrimReaper]

I believe Pride wasn't knocking reviews or even someone making a little money on the side giving reviews however making a living by relying solely on reviews for your income is where the issue is that he brings up.. I sort of agree. When you rely on someone paying your bills that person that pays the bills has some level of control over you. It is a conflict of interest. Those reviewers that get money from Publishes for early reviews, free tickets, interviews and such are in their pocket. There is a conflict of interest when it comes to proper reviews even if they don't realize it.

 

I for one never trust the game reviews or sensationalist because of the slant on the games and pressure from the publishers. I wait until someone I respect makes a review of this .. Someone outside of the "business" and not affected by the money or pressure. Fellow gamers. Forums with members and such. Forums like here where I know the people who tried it and can give an honest review. Some will love it. others will hate it and for different reasons. These are the reviews that matter.

 

Publishers don't pay (youtube) reviewers per se. They just won't supply you with pre-release versions anymore so that your review can't be done in time. That means you lose viewers and clicks - the video I linked to earlier describes what WB did which was a deal that promised you a pre-release version but you had to avoid showing bugs and were not allowed to criticize the game. You took that deal, you got lot of views which equals money. You didn't take the deal, you had to buy a copy on release day, play the game like anyone else and by the time you finished it, the majority of your potential viewers finished it, too.

 

As always, it's mostly because of the consumers. Impatient as they are, they play directly into the hands of the publishers who want to squeeze as much money as possible out of you.

 

The same issues that plagued the 'professional game journalism' have already infected 'amateur' reviewers as well. Which wouldn't be much of a problem if enough people would be okay to have a review one or two weeks after the game is released, but alas, that's not the case. Most want it as soon as possible and as always, the majority is what counts. Whatever kind of review is popular at the moment, publishers will try to exploit it. I wouldn't be surprised if the next step is paying forum regulars to write positive about the game. /tinfoilhat

[RitualClarity]

 

I wouldn't be surprised if the next step is paying forum regulars to write positive about the game. /tinfoilhat

entirely possible.. maybe not in cash but in product promotion etc. It is the nature of the beast. However so long as someone realizes this and can judge this to a degree what is what and who is giving them benifits and such it is somewhat useful info. Screen captures. etc can give some ideas a glimpse into what is going on however a slanted glimpse. News is the same way.. Watch a US news report then watch a BBK news report or a copy of a Russan or Polish news report on the same subject.. Very different takes on the info and even different info as well.

[prideslayer]

I would contest that assertion that "most people won't wait." They will. However, most reviewers won't, because they're buying what you're selling -- that you have to be first to market, or not at all. The reviewers can wait as long as they like to create a review, and if they aren't trying to make a career out of it then they have nothing to lose by doing so.

 

No prerelease versions? SFW.

Less clicks/views? SFW.

 

This is exactly why you can't trust the reviewers who are doing it as their sole source of income, or a significant portion of it. They care more about the stats counters and ad revenue than they do about producing an honest review.

 

They can be a bit late to market and still build a large loyal following. HTs entire 'model' works that way.

 

[FauxFurry]

This whole corruption conversation kerfuffle,while it might be a bit of a headache in the short term, is going to benefit the industry immensely in the long term. It is long overdue that video games enthusiasts examine at length the ethics of the actions of their review media much as people in other consumer bases have long ago. 

Maybe by the years' end,we can expect to see a video game critic version of Critic Watch?

 

http://www.efilmcritic.com/feature.php?cat=criticwatch

http://criticwatch.net/