Other Joe... are you being blackmailed? It's ok. You can tell us.

http://ramraider.blogspot.com/2009/07/eidos-seek-90-score-cover-for-arkham.html

Hope this isn't true...

UPDATE:

Interesting followup from Eurogamer editor.
http://ramraider.blogspot.com/2009/07/eurogamer-editor-tom-bramwell-on.html

 

We've got NO code!

/shouts at Edios.

Companies pull this **** all the time - we just laugh at them and ask when the real NDA date is because we won't pander to it or let ANYONE know the score or ANY product (game/hardware etc) beforehand. If you see any game review go early, and it's a high score, it's almost certain this **** was handed out.

In fact, if the game is genuinely that good we'd normally prefer to wait otherwise it would just look dodgy.

Companies don't help themselves, and editorial places that take them up on it further compound the disease.

 

To be honest, though I am desperately excited about this game (even if I suspect it'll be quicktime-tastic), I haven't heard a peep from the publishers about it for AAAAGEES.

 

All very interesting, except that Eidos have explicitly outed Ram Raider as a liar. They have stated categorically that they have had no discussions with *any* magazines about fixing review scores.

 

Who do you believe? Why would Ram Raider lie?

 

Well we haven't heard anything yet so give Edios the benefit of the doubt, but it's not an unreasonable accusation as PR companies have asked it before.

 

I've heard of this happening before - and specifically with Eidos (Kane and Lynch), but I've not heard anything about it with this game (which has been previewed very well).

All I can say is that if anyone ever has any doubts about games coverage on bit-tech then my inbox is always open. I have never, nor will I ever, go in for something like this and I'm happy to discuss it at length.

Embargoes themselves aren't a problem really. They exist for sensible, understandable reasons - to help construct good marketing and to help generate publicity in controlled bursts. The only problems with them are when publications are singled out (Eurogamer allowed to publish a week before everyone else for example, which happens for practically everything) or when things like this happen.

Personally, I hate the former more because it starts to create a static hierarchy of information which means other, possibly better sites are unable to grow as fast as they might elsewhere because of contracts and embargoes with bigger sites. It's why nobody has toppled GameSpot yet, despite the fact that their a proportion of their writing is utter dross. I'm not saying that Bit-tech, which is obviously niche, should be on the same level as those guys - but there are sites out there which should and aren't.

This also leads into issues around blogging vs journalism - a contentious issue which basically amounts to "Grr, kotaku write a lot of poorly edited drivel but get a lot of stuff we (collective journos) don't and get a lot of stuff we don't and seem to have some huge positive image with readers because they post pics of swag even though they tend to guard their actual structure quite fiercely."

Bloody tabloid.

/rant

 

At the moment, I believe Eidos because it is so very easy to call them on it. There would be a paper trail that any number of whistleblowers could put into the public domain.

If Eidos has issued a more generic denial, they may be playing on words. That said, they have denied any discussion about review scores; they haven't denied anything else, so there may be some sort of story.

Why would Ram Raider lie? How about for the publicity and passing trade that has inevitably been generated? He's laughing all the way to the bank...

The benefit of the doubt is the very least they deserve, and yes... it is an unreasonable accusation, because it is alleging some very dishonest conduct from Eidos, and as yet we haven't seen any sort of proof.

This practice may be around, and Eidos may have been guilty in the past, and may be guilty now, but in the absence of any sort of proof, we should be careful.

Obviously, if Eidos have tried to unfairly influence reviews, I hope they get nailed for it, especially since they have clearly denied it; but until that happens, I'll ignore the much-hyped articles.

 

Personally, I'm happy for publishers to offer early NDA expiration in return for front-page listing - it's just a marketing issue - providing that the reviewer is completely free to slag the game off. It's no different from certain sites & magazines accepting advertisements from publishers.

 

I hate to weigh in on this but I just don't have the time to read every bit of news or a full article of a game on Bit, I go straight to Kotaku and get my bite-sized chunks quickly, if I want more information then I'll go round and look for it.

 

Et tu, Brute?

 

So basically, we need to do bullet point reviews?

 

Once you go down that path it's easy to get to "Oh, you can have an exclusive if you just trim that part out" or "Oh yeah, you can have a week off the NDA if you just give us another 5%" etc. Before you know it you'll have a load of shite.

 

No it's not. That is nonsense.

Giving an exclusive interview, sponsoring a competition, offering earlier and greater access to materials (ie. early NDA expiration, bonus screenshots, better preview material) and paying for advertising space are all perfectly legitimate ways of marketing a game (or a product). This is no different in the gaming industry than any other.

Offering inducements (cash or goods) in order to secure a better review of a product is *completely* different.

Bit-Tech receive advertising revenue and competition prizes from a whole variety of manufacturers whose products are reviewed on this site. To my knowledge, they have managed not to succumb to the temptation to offer favourable reviews... or are BT somehow different to the rest of the world?

 

We obviously have to disagree here - to me once you start accepting exclusives it's the chance for the PR company to get their foot in the door, and once you get one exclusive there's pressure for more.

BiT aren't different to the rest of the world, but as already stated, they don't accept any kind of special treatment in return for offers of relinquishing NDA's etc.

 

Well kinda, I guess most people jump to the summary anyway, but I just don't have enough time anymore now that I've got a real job.

 

One thing I will say, whether this is true or not. They have got a lot of press for the game.

 

I fully except that, don't get me wrong. That's what Kotaku and sites like it are perfect for and I, like 99% of people, will often just skip to the summary too. That's not the issue.

The issue I have with sites like Kotaku is that they encourage sensationalist coverage and pay their writers a fee determined by how many readers read a story. That just leads to them mis-representing some facts and creating tiny little bits of coverage which, while good from the angle of brevity, are often flawed when it comes to accuracy. Given that they write shorter things, I'd demand that the content they write should be of a much higher quality than it it usually is, even if you take that to mean just that they correct their spelling. It IS possible to be short and accurate, it just so happens that Bit-tech lives on the other end of the spectrum (though I really wish it didn't on some days).

The secondary issue I have with Kotaku builds on that. They do sensationalist, often poorly edited and egotistical writing which rarely covers an issue to the degree it deserves and this obviously generates them huge amounts of traffic and interest, which in turn gets them access to things that the more legitimate and responsible journalists don't. And, being entirely fair, I don't automatically claim membership to that cadre of hypothetically good journalists - I view my role as a critic, not an investigative journalist.

It's just a vicious cycle which I very much dislike, since their site gets a whole lot more support from companies (in terms of advertising, PR, invites, sponsorship, exclusives, recognition) than others which are more deserving. The cycle is then further reinforced by the fact that, once you're chummy with the other sites on that level, they spend a lot of time aiding each other and preventing others from entering the circle.

/rant #2

 

Although we are straying off-topic... I like the BT review format in general. If a game is likely to be of interest, I'll usually read the review from start to finish. If I'm not sure (or if it is a console game), I'll read the intro (to get the gist of the intention of the game) and the conclusions (to get the gist of the result). If favourable, I'll generally go back an read the whole thing.

As for Kotaku et al, I skip any review(er)s that aren't detailed or that merely repeat the publisher's marketing material. In fact, I particularly like to hear user reviews. They are generally less articulate, but if you read enough of them, it becomes easy to figure if a particular game is right for you.

 

You've got it all wrong.

We provide well over a million unique readers a month so, editorially speaking companies want to work with us for exclusive interview or greater access to materials - this does not affect the review. No coverage of the review is discussed beforehand, during or before publish. We are giving them more eyeballs in return for their effort to us.

Advertising gets handled by the sales division - it has nothing to do with editorial. CoolIT advertised in CustomPC and bit-tech, we gave the product a 4/10. Arctic cooling also - 22% PSU score. If companies want to advertise, it's completely independent from the product review. I've been invited and paid for to visit places across the world and there has been more than one occasion where I get there and say the stuff/marketing/style/quality is ****, because it is. There's no way to be nice about it. Occasionally it's very good, like Seasonic, which is nice to be impressed for a change.

Things that affect the editorial outcome - which HAS to be independent - crosses the line. This is the same as saying "we will spend money with you for a good review" - those people are laughed at and told to F-off, because a long term reputation is worth more than any advertising deal or single review.