http://seanmalstrom.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/email-game-industry-tries-to-justify-corruption/

I tend to think that someone feels a little guilty which is why this story was written. The story is a great read with many funny quotes. “We donated our hotel bathrobe and slippers to charity.” Yes, it is because poor people are in desperate need of hotel bathrobes and slippers. How strange is it that game companies are going so far as to print their game on bathroom robes and slippers. What is next? Underwear?

Some of these quotes are so funny. Take this one:

Veteran game reviewer Jeff Gerstmann has similar thoughts about the “misconception” that these assignments are “cushy” or “lavish.”

“There’s nothing lavish about being cooped up in a dark hotel room for two days. It’s annoying,” Gerstmann says. “And unless you have direct questions about a game, the company reps at the event usually just stay out of your way. Most of the time they don’t even ask us what we thought of the game. They just sort of hang back and, I guess, hope for the best.”

Indeed, reader! Surely your job gives you your own bathroom robe and slippers. Remember, these guys are doing HARD WORK by playing a video game in front of a big nice TV, in a cushy sofa, with nice surround sound speakers.

Soldiers dying or getting shot at in Afghanistan? That isn’t hard work. Police officers fighting inner city crime? That isn’t hard work. Truck drivers constantly on the highway hauling goods to keep civilization going ? That isn’t hard work. Salesmen fighting an uphill battle, tooth and nail, for their company that is being slammed hard by the recession? That isn’t hard work. Miners? That isn’t hard work.Having your schedule interrupted by a trip to a swanky hotel to play a video game, non-stop, that is all paid by someone else? That is REALLY HARD WORK. You, the customer, are just TOO DUMB TO UNDERSTAND HOW HARD IT IS.

Oh please, game journalists, forgive us, the lowly customers, for not understanding just how BRUTAL and HARD your job is.

In the real world, the people who buy games, the customers, do have real jobs. Many of them are getting shot at in Afgahnistan, in city streets, or mining or driving a “big, damn truck” or something else. Many customers have jobs where they aren’t even indoors. I can guarantee they will be living years less because of it. Some people have jobs where they have to stand up all day. Others have it where they must talk to customers all the time.No one dies or injures themselves reviewing a game unlike some other jobs. The notion that their job is “hard” would be laughable if it wasn’t so insulting. Game journalists do live a charmed existence much more than other jobs.

One thing about game journalists is that they all want to be there. Most jobs are occupied by people who do not want to be there. The bottom line of this is relating to the customer. Don’t you think these little review trips to posh hotels and free dinners is putting the reviewer “out of touch” with the average customer?

“I sort of get the impression that no one involved on either side really enjoys these events,” Gerstmann adds. “But between us wanting timely coverage and publishers feeling protective of their biggest releases, I don’t see these events going away anytime soon, either.”

No one likes these events yet they keep increasing and game journalists keep going to them. If both sides didn’t really like the events, you would be seeing less of them and game journalists not wanting to go.

Original Kotaku story:

http://kotaku.com/5416788/reviewing-a-game-on-their-terms-the-increasingly-prominent-review-event

Where's the corruption angle? I see gaming industry journalists being slagged of as not having real jobs and being whining pussies. But nothing about corruption.

I though this was going to be a big expose on gaming companies buying review scores from some of the supposedly reputable review sites/publications.

This is nothing more than a write up about press junkets, hardly big news.

The issue is that companies paying extravagant and lavish shit for reviewers (or journalists) creates a Conflict of Interest.

Much the same way that companies paying game magazines/sites for adverts, creates conflict of interest (see Kain and Lynch iirc).

Maelstrom has a problem with these reviewers/journalists downplaying an obvious luxurious and extravagant thing as something reviewers/journalists 'hate'.

Perhaps Maelstrom didnt quote the article enough.

"The practice of making the reviewer go to the game, at a review event, rather than send that game to the reviewer, has raised ethical concerns that such events influence the opinions of the reviewers who take part. Some say the events make it difficult to form an impartial critical opinion of a game under such circumstances. Whether through direct interference or as a byproduct of being catered to with travel, accommodation and the free gifts commonly given at such events, allegations that reviews are "bought and sold" at events paid for by publishers can tarnish the credibility of a review at best, mar the reputation of a publication or video game at worst."
-http://kotaku.com/5416788/reviewing-a-game-on-their-terms-the-increasingly-prominent-review-event

I take a hard stance against these things too, they say it is helpful because they can point out the good stuff in their game.

But thats clearly stupid, and no reviewer should support something like that, it is not the business of reviewers to let themselves be influenced to think more highly of a game by its publisher, it is the business of a reviewer to play the game as a normal customer would, and evaluate whether its good (therefore AWAY from company reps).

@binary solo

The corruption he's referring to is the company sponsored review events, like the one Activision did for MW2, where they had the reviewers come for an all expenses paid hotel room to review the game.

errr its quite common knowledge that the company usually does stuff for the reviewers.

Hell go to Penny Arcade and they talked about when they were invited to play (iirc) Halo and got free food.

^It may be common knowledge, but its still a conflict of interest, it still taints the reviews

This article makes me despise Malstrom even more.

Yes they have good jobs, they are still jobs though. He says that if both sides didn't like the events they wouldn't happen. Thats ridiculous - the publishers need the events to protect their software and the reviewers need the events because it's their freaking job.

Malstroms rant about how if you're not getting shot at you're not working is just plain stupid.

I think he's just got a bad case of the sour grapes.

The conflict of interest thing is the only part that makes sense and he barely touched on it. Usually the more blatant stuff gets laughed at by the journalists themselves (Lair review guide and Halo helmet spring to mind) but I do think the reviewing company should pay for the expenses - not the reviewed publisher.

I heard from a gamecritics.com podcast that if you give a game really low scores and you are not from a big publication, you might not get an advanced copy to review next time around, its kinda unspoken blackmail, forget about press junkets. Those that get invited just have to deal with it.

Gerstmann adds. "But between us wanting timely coverage and publishers feeling protective of their biggest releases, I don't see these events going away anytime soon, either."

Thats more or less the deal, its a job.

Malstorm is being a melodramatic ass, hes saying "Waaaaa, so you have to go to lavish press junkets, and you have to travel, cry me a river game journalist pussies ...." amirite lol? His spin is a little unsympathetic and misleading however.

Reviewing system gets broken and keeps discrediting itself every other day (which a big title releases on)

I dislike Malstrom after reading this. Not that i liked him before i read this though.