Do you think game publishers pay gaming sites for positive reviews?

...or pay for strict reviews on competitive titles? (eg FIFA vs PES)

no.

Anyways, if anybody were to pay a gaming site for good reviews, it would be the publisher (since they have all the money).

No. Publishers? Maybe. That would suck really hard, though, and I would hate the publisher for it. Some people claim that some publishers have done this, but I've never been given proof.

yes, i meant publishers (that makes sense) :-)

I don't know if it's payment they receive, but whenever a publication gets an exclusive review, you can almost count on it to have had some sort of shady deal made behind it. Given how often developers and publishers have made such advances toward the press, I'd say that, regardless of whether anyone actually accepts their offers, interference in the review process by developers and publishers is very rampant.

What's the point of anything?

Dracula68

They most likely receive payment in some form. Choice tickets to big events, future sneak peeks or fruit baskets lol. I doubt that it's a pure profession. That's why I only read user reviews. Dragon Age II is a great example of why critic vies don't hold any weight imo. Critics give into publisher pay offs and pressure from hype. In the end critics just say what everybody wants them (or pays them) to say.

I think it's possible, but I would hope for journalistic integrity. Realistically, I would hope that review companies would be afraid of what would happen to them if gamers found out about it.muthsera666

Most are, I think (I assume that's why we don't often hear about any sort of review scandal these days). But there's always been a small subset that accepts deals without care for the consequences, like IGN, for instance, with they're almost constant stream of exclusive reviews. For them, getting extra hits on their Web site (or extra sales for their magazine, which is tad more understandable) is all they care for.

I believe this cannot happen when we deal with a really good game. A game that "sells itself".

On the other hand, it is possible when the expectations are high for a new release (from screenshots, gameplay videos, ads...), but the final product is a bit of a disappointment (or doesn't meet the standards the players were hoping for).

If i was a publisher, i would know that a bad review would affect sales.

Yes. Other than the Kane & Lynch thing (where pressure was exerted for an unfavourable review) there are a lot of other sites who take coin for scores. Most of them aren't as popular sites, of course.

Most recent one I can think of is The Escapist, who EA paid for a 10/10 Dragon Age 2 score.

More common, however, is publishers only allowing early reviews to be positive, which is almost as deceptive as outright paying for them.

edit - this will always be a problem in the videogame industry because both sides are so reliant on one another. Game review sites need publishers to hand out preview and review code in a timely fashion so that they can get content up, and publishers need the sites to help push their games.

Something I'm sure of is timed exclusive contracts with Microsoft.

I'm calling it Skyrim exclusive DLC first to hit Xbox before all systems.

I do think that there is sometimes a sort of deal that goes on between publishers and magazines/wesbites. Whether that is money or not I couldn't say.

I don't think so. When you see fanboys/gamers over the forums **** over a high score given to a certain game (MGS4, GTA 4), they're just upset that the game didn't get the score THEY think it deserved. So when a reviewer gives a good game a good score or a great game a great score (such as GTA 4), the people who didn't enjoy it make claims of the game publisher bribing the reviewer. The fact is most of these highly acclaimed games are fantastic and deserve the scores, but the ones who can't accept opinions will find any excuse for that high score to try to discredit the reviewer/website/magazine so people don't listen to the review, but instead listen to them.

There's a such thing as journalistic integrity, you know.

I'm sure some sort of shady deal goes down when an individual 'journalist' travels to meet the dev team and play XX game for an exclusive review...sometimes.

For some people it's a convenient fallacy to avoid tackling a positive review head on. A decent journalist will be able to either reject it, or at least ignore any positive spin by the publishers.

As I've said in threads like this before as an analogy - Motoring journalists are often given cars with all sorts of optional extras. Good journalists will cut through all that rubbish to focus on how good the actual car is.

That's not to say some aren't swayed by such tactics, but in the long run they do themselves more harm than good.

They pay for add space and sometimes a review site might be own by the same parent company as a game studio and pressured to give positive reviews but I doubt they outright pay review sites for good reviews - when would it end? Would they just pay gamestop and IGN for good reviews while every other site on the net panned their game? Wouldn't make much sense...

I think for some big name reviews like CoD, maybe. About a 40- 60 chance of it. I'm not too big of a conspiracy guy.

Usually when a game magazine/website gets an early copy to review before any other sites/magazines they're "hinted" to give a positive review. Reason why is to get the traffic/sales, since a lot of gamers will flock to the site/buy the magazine that has the review.

Other instances are more shady, I remember one gaming review website or magazine was actually paid in prostitutes.

The best example I can offer is PC Player, a scandinavian gaming magazine. They were invited to Westwood studios, before the release of Command & Conquer: Tiberian Sun. Treated well, got to meet the actors and lo and behold, Command & Conquer: Tiberian Sun gets 10/10. People were outraged since the same magazine gave Starcraft 8/10.

Another great example is Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 on the PC. Compare user reviews with "proffesional" reviews and you will a big difference. The only site I've come across that gave an honest review of Modern Warfare 2 PC, was Ars Technica (they told people to "skip it" and on Black Ops for PC "Wait for patches").

It could always be a poosibility. You never know really. Obviously some publishers like Activision would obviously have enough money to do something like it but other publishers like Nipppon Ichi wouldn't seeing as they were almost bankrupt. I'm not sure about their situation now though.

I'm pretty certain that it happens, in some form or another, on some sites. This article on Two Worlds 2's reviews is an interesting read for anyone interested.

Then again, I'm more wary of previews. They're almost always overwhelmingly positive.

Bribing
The question here is whether publishers have ever or if they regularly bribe writers for positive reviews. The answer here is most assuredly yes; there are simply too many games, publishers, reviewers, and review sites for this not to have happened at some point. There is no internal affairs for game reviewers, after all. :P

Fake Reviews
Further, game publishers are almost certainly populating player reviews with their own glowing praise (or, in the case of competitors, venomous hate). This is well-documented in other markets, so it's most certainly happening here (particularly where video game reviews are highly qualitative).

Conflicts of Interest
Finally, any game site that accepts advertising dollars from a game publisher has a conflict of interest when reviewing their games. Give them a poor review, and they may pull funding. Give them a glowing review for a poor game, and be accused of integrity issues and pandering to sponsors. Your parent firm may or may not be angry (Gerstmann-gate 2007)

The only real way to know if a game is good, then, is to go play it yourself. Still, I like Gamespot's reviews and reviewers.

Boz

Boz is right. While I personally question whether outright bribes are common, there is no question that a conflict of interest exists between game reviewers and the game companies which pay all their advertising revenue.

Certainly Gamespot had its own controversy with regards to the low Kane & Lynch review that it gave, despite the many advertising dollars that Kane and Lynch's publisher, Eidos, put into the site. Eidos protested and, as a result, the review was changed.The reviewer Jeff Gerstmann was fired (supposedly for reasons not relating to Kane & Lynch's review) and, in protest, four other members of the staff also left. Truth be told, if I didn't prefer Gamespot because of its interface, I wouldn't be here, as I don't particularly trust their reviews, as a result of the above.

There's a such thing as journalistic integrity, you know.

KillerWabbit23

Money blinds even saints.

OXM, Playstation Magazine and PC gamer are pretty damn obvious anyway.

If the game is good and somewhat wellknown, no.

But I bet some lesserpublishers would pay for positive reviews to get their name out.

I don't think they pay them outright, but publishers do spend lots of money advertising on sites, and then there's the whole thing with giving reviewers access to developers for interviews. And of course those relationships are always subject to change if the publisher should become displeased.

Nope, if they did, Ign would have given the 3DS a better review... Since Nintendo has all the money.

Ubisoft must have done it with "Assassin's" creed brotherhood. That or... well that.

Nope, if they did, Ign would have given the 3DS a better review... Since Nintendo has all the money.

Gamingclone

Yes i entirely think they do, otherwise gta 4 would not have been reviewed as such.

[QUOTE="Gamingclone"]

Nope, if they did, Ign would have given the 3DS a better review... Since Nintendo has all the money.

DJ_Lae

[QUOTE="Gamingclone"]

Nope, if they did, Ign would have given the 3DS a better review... Since Nintendo has all the money.

DJ_Lae

Damnit. I came here hoping not to run into the same stupid nonsense from SWs.

Anyways Op, yeah probably happens every now and then.

It's a good thing I don't care much for reviews.

Nope. Claming that someone was bribed is just a way for some to explain the hissyfit they have when a game they like does not get the score they wish it did.

Yes. Especially Gamespot...

I honestly do think that some of them do.

That's my main reason for putting more weight on the user score than the critic score.

I don't think so unless a game is super overrated like COD IMO which is nothing but a rehashed of the same game. But sites like to deny that don't get payed to do a review but I think there is some conspiracy behind that.

I honestly do think that some of them do.

That's my main reason for putting more weight on the user score than the critic score.

A_Mobile_Doll

Probably. But it's best not to know. By the way, I hate review embargoes! :x