According to the source above, Electronic Gaming Monthly’s Editor-in-Chief Dan “Shoe” Hsu wrote an editorial for EGM’s latest issue. In the editorial, he claims that Midway, Ubisoft and Sony have all barred EGM from covering their games due to coverage of their products that apparently were not favorable.
Specifics are sketchy at this point, but if true, it appears that a shift is occurring in the video game industry. As companies merge and grow larger and as their product base widens, if you’re not “in” with them, you’re on the outside looking in.
As with Gamespotgate, money and access is power for big gaming companies. Print publications must rely on early access to bring up-to-date news once a month, especially in the face of the Kotaku’s and Joystiq’s that update hourly. With this need for access follows that favorable treatment is implied when such access is granted. If a company doesn’t like what you write about them, someone else will be getting that invite on the next go-around.
Read the rest, after the jump.
It’s this kind of heavy handed tactics that drove the masses crazy when Eidos pulled the same crap with Gamespot. For whatever reason, Eidos was left completely off the hook by most. I just hope that in this case, people see right through the bull shit of the video game industry and video game press and see it for what it is.
Quid Pro Quo. It’s a Latin term that means “something for something.” The Sonys, Midways, and Ubisofts of the world grant early access to big projects in exchange for the cover of the respective magazines. In my opinion, this exchange occurs with the understanding that the coverage will be good and I wholeheartedly believe that it is understood by both parties.
I don’t know for sure what pissed off Ubisoft, Midway and Sony. I do know that there was a big to-do about the 7 out of 10 that 1up. com, the web side of EGM, gave Assassin’s Creed. Are the two related? Who knows. What I do know for sure is that these stories need to come to the surface. People need to know that this stuff exists. The back patting, swag toting culture of the video game industry is only going to get worse with gaming company consolidation.
Access is power. Play by their rules or suffer the consequences.
You can take your quid pro quo and shove it up your culus (Latin for ass).
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
A major issue with numerical reviews these days is that, often, the number is either and ‘8′ or above, or the game is ****. I don’t mean that literally, I mean that because of so many games being rated high these days (I wonder why…) It has become a bad mark for a game to get a ‘7′ or a ‘6′.
I thought that a ‘5′ was considered average? Run-of-the-mill? An ok title that has enough going for it to entertain, but it isn’t the next halo. (which is now, perhaps, controversial all its own.).
I used to follow these numerical reviews to the T, but it now often seems like the score is fluffed. Where the guy SAYS one thing, but ‘oh look, this game gets a 9′
What makes a ‘7′ game so bad, and why can’t I just enjoy it for what it is? (wouldn’t a 7 be reasonable for niche game anyways?)
Play by their rules or suffer the consequences.
How lame, they`re in control of the product, instead of buying the media they should try making some good games.
It`s also strange that seven out of ten is a bad review now. I`ve played Assassin`s Creed, it looks beautiful and it`s a decent game. It`s repetitive to say the least, but seven out of ten is fair.
It’s total bull. This is a bombshell. Credit to the Editor from EGM for naming names.
@ Mallico
I’m not sure if you were in agreeance with my statement, but that was what I was getting at. (you just said it better, and smaller)
Any chance of the other major gaming media biting back by refusing to cover anything made/published by these companies?
No? Well it was a nice thought…
Don’t act so surprised; this sort of thing goes on everywhere.
I’m not surprised. I totally agree with you Elfshot thefood. I’m surprised that people turn a blind eye to it.
Just because it happens everywhere, doesn’t make it right or healthy for the gaming industry.
haha, wow ubisoft is losing some serious credibility.
What responsibility does a game publisher have to any magazine? Why would they send them free games or give them early access to anything, other than for positive PR purposes? It’s just not in their interest now because if it’s not “AAA” then it’s poop and their game gets slammed.
Pfister (EGM) whined on his blog last year about how Midway wouldn’t send him a copy of Mortal Kombat to review. He was told that because they don’t rate MK highly they don’t get a free copy of the game. Somehow it was evil for Midway to not “support him” by sending him a free game early, but it’s ok for him to not support them. Instead he tried to slag them in public.
I’m surprised it took the publishers this long to put a policy like this in place. There’s nothing wrong with quid-pro-quo, it’s supposed to be win-win. I think the press just got used to it being “win” for their side, and nothing for the other. They’ve taken a privilege granted to them by publishers (early access and free games) and view it as some kind of entitlement now. The publishers are just looking for their side of the win-win equation.
I think they are feeling sour about the companies not supporting there magazine so have fabricated a story to make them seem better if anyone is paying for reviews it was the developers of halo 3 because that got a 10/10 with alot of companies and is in no way a 10 maybe a 7 or 8 i wouldnt be surprised is Microsoft didnt have a hand in this
Well from thier stand point, if a press preview bashes thier work in progress it could hurt the game overall in the future. Regardless of how much work is put into it, it will be released in a negative light with a mountain to overcome before it is accepted
Can’t the press hold a supremely opitmisic view of games until the release then retain the right to lay down the hammer if the game is truely bad. Or is it the scoring issue all together. Maybe each game should be rated seperately or with a checklist of sorts.
When SC2 comes out it will be rated on the same 1-10 number scale as say, MGS4. Now the adept gamer will see through this, but someone who is just looking at the scores will see one is inferior and one is superior depending on scores. Thats just not right considering what is being compared.
Perhaps the industry should sit down and agree upon a scoring system that is universal, each magazine or website would have thier own scores and views but the rank would equal the same value. (I realize this is very rugged way of doing it and needs some work, but have different universal scoring systems for each genre could be better for the consumer.
Keep drinking the kool aid Bill.