Outside of this sentence I'm not going to mention the Zoe Quinn ordeal, other than to say I'm not picking sides on that situation and that this isn't about that, rather that situation got me thinking...

Corruption is everywhere and I would be naive to think the game industry was somehow immune to it. I got to thinking about the fact that Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, and other developers and publishers always give 'swag' to reviewers or send free copies of games to them to review, but does that constitute corruption? Some could view it as them trying to butter up the reviewers to get a better review. We all know that Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft aren't above paying a company to make a exclusive game for their system only. My question is, in your mind, does the free swag to reviewers and paying for exclusive games constitute corruption or is it just part of the business?

My view is kind of mixed based on the person receiving the 'swag' as some may be swayed to write a good review while others will stay objective and give it an honest review. As for the paying a company for a exclusive game, I can see where that could be argued as a form of corruption, but I feel that is just part of the business.

I can't comment on money to the companies as I don't know for sure that they get paid or not.

I got to thinking about the fact that Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, and other developers and publishers always give 'swag' to reviewers or send free copies of games to them to review, but does that constitute corruption?

Haha.

Ahahahaha.

Swag? Free copies of games? No no no. You don't know one hundredth of it. Let me tell you a story. I have an acquaintance who was a game reviewer for a very high profile publication, one of the biggest. He had review duty on one of the new Call of Duty games a couple years back. They flew him out, then picked him up from the airport in a Black Hawk freaking helicopter. I'll let your imagination go on what accommodations, food, etc were like.

If you want to talk about corruption, you need to have a better sense of the size of the problem. You don't spend two hundred million dollars marketing a game by sending free t-shirts to reviewers.

On a totally separate moderator note, I'm going to be proactive and simply ban any Zoe Quinn discussion from this thread outright. Mentioning it WILL get you suspended.

I'm going to be proactive and simply ban any Zoe Quinn discussion from this thread outright.

Good.

Yeah, my view is limited. I was using 'swag' to cover it all because I remember reading a review (think it was Metal Gear Revengeance) where the first paragraph said Konami or Sony had gave them a limited edition MGR PS3 and game, soundtrack, etc. and then went into reviewing it. This is why I wanted to discuss the corruption as I was hoping for a clearer view of it than just what I knew and what I had seen on other sites that may have had limited views on it too.

I won't comment on swaying the opinion of reviewers, but I really don't think there's anything corrupt about paying a developer or publisher for exclusivity - that's just good business sense, as a few good exclusives can really help to sell a platform.

Yeah exclusivity deals and swag aren't corrupt. Exclusivity from smaller games often comes from loans - e.g. Sony will loan you the money you need to make your game, but instead of charging interest on the loan, they'll ask for you to not publish on Xbox. If you don't like the terms, you can find funding elsewhere.

If you go to conferences / trade-shows, you might pick up some swag too. Free reviewer copies are the norm though - books and films will send out early copies to reviewers too.
FWIW, reviewers can also get 'press' Steam accounts, which automatically own every steam game... So often you don't have to give the press free copies because Valve is doing it for you!

Regarding Promit's example, look up "junket". The big companies throw events designed to make the press feel like kings, hopefully putting them in a good mood, or making them feel in your debt, or making them want to suck up to you so they can do it all again for the next game.
Even these aren't really "corrupt" though - it's just a lavish gift rather than a bribe.

The actual "corruption" is when publications mix their job as critic/reviewer and their job as advertiser. Remember the GameSpot scandal? IIRC, it led to the creation of giant bomb?.. I'm fuzzy, it was a while ago... But GameSpot was being paid a fortune to advertise a shitty new game, and one of their reviewers rightfully gave it a shitty review. His editor then changed it to a 9/10 review before publishing, because otherwise they'd lose the advertising deal, so the reviewer quit and told everyone that this kind of stuff goes on.


P.S. I agree with Promit on the #gamergate bullshit. That was never about corruption. It was one person slandering another, and the two sides to choose from are those who ignore it and those who become pawns in that depraved scheme.
Since then it's rightfully spun off into a discussion about women in STEM, which isn't relevant in this topic :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Gerstmann

I mean the free swag isn't the problem, it's the fact that these sites run off of the advertising of the games they review. It's along the lines of politicians getting all their money for the business that rely on their legislation for profits. In a lot of cases reviews are simply another outlet for advertising. Ever notice how many games get 9/10's? I really don't think as an industry we are constantly "hitting it out of the park".

Game reviews are a difficult subject. Nothing qualifies you to become a game reviewer and not all game reviewers pour hours into a game before giving their opinion. Don't even get me started on reviews segregated into categories (graphics, gameplay, story, blah blah blah 38/50). What about games that require a specific skill (difficult platforming, very in depth fighting games, etc.)?

What I find even more laughable is when my colleagues are hedging whether to buy a game or not based on reviews that they know are in fact paid for.The game has 309123 banner ads, is the background of the website, plays a trailer for the game when you load the website, do you really think their going to give it a 6/10?

I'm not sure how to understand some of the people in this thread who are very clearly and concisely describing what would be called graft if a politician were doing it, yet then going on to say that is not at all corruption. It's very much corruption. It's just a matter of whether or not you agree that the corruption is acceptable.

All systems have "unwritten" rules. In baseball, certain forms of cheating are considered "cheeky" and "boys being boys". The pitcher scuffing a ball with sandpaper. A batter corking a bat. In politics, we say that politicians aren't allowed to take gifts, but what goes unsaid is "while they are still in office". Thus we have the term "revolving door" to describe the relationship between politicians and lobbyists. On the road, traffic control systems are only a suggestion if there is no cop around to see you.

So please, don't mislabel journalists accepting gifts from the companies they review as "not corruption". It is most assuredly corruption. What is left for you to debate is whether or not this is acceptable.

And don't worry, it's completely arbitrary, so there is no chance you will get the answer right, thus providing many long hours of potential internet arguing fuel.

I guess the corruption is only unacceptable to those who base their game purchases on the reviews of the game. It is acceptable in my eyes because I never use their reviews to decide on getting a game. For example, I have bought every Metal Gear game because I love the game and have never once read a review on it. I used to buy the Final Fantasy games until recent years, because while the reviews are almost always great, I hate that they removed the wide open worlds (ala FF7, 8, and 9) as well as player controlled vehicles (ala Ragnarok, FF8). I usually wait til games go to $20-$30 before getting them, that way if they are bad I won't be out that much. Though, GodHand was reviewed poorly, if I remember right, but I loved that PS2 game.

Guess ultimately, it just depends on the person viewing the corruption and their point of view on it.

I guess the corruption is only unacceptable to those who base their game purchases on the reviews of the game. It is acceptable in my eyes because I never use their reviews to decide on getting a game. For example, I have bought every Metal Gear game because I love the game and have never once read a review on it.

Here's the thing - this is exactly what publishers want. They don't want you to read reviews anymore. They've realized that more often than not, reviews are just not in their best interest. So now things are shifting. Reviews are being forced all the way back to release day, and pre-order pressure is extremely high. The companies would prefer you know only what they've told you about the games and nothing else. I think reviewers won't continue to get the insane levels of treatment they have in the past, and that publishers will continue to de-emphasize them as much as possible.

Just look at Bungie. They refused to send out review copies for Destiny outright. Reviews are a liability now.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/Tech-Culture/2014/0911/Destiny-reviews-Why-Bungie-didn-t-need-them-to-sell-big.-video