Don't Hate the Player, Hate the Game: Journalism

Don't Hate the Player, Hate the Game is a bi-weekly article which delves into the market conditions of evilry in the games industry.

Videogame Public Relations have perfected the art of strong-arming high scores out of intrepid reviewers with generous freebees, controlled reviewing conditions, and cracking the mighty whip of ad revenue. Between the scathing accounts of Pre-Shoe EGM at SoreThumbs.com, the fallout of Gerstmann-gate, and continuing death-rattle of print media, it's hard to know who to trust for honest reviews, previews, and (especially) exclusives.

From an economic perspective, this is inevitable. The science of decisions starts from the presumption of Homo Economicus, the generic, decision-making human who has no scruples and no allegience, everything he does in life can be assigned a dollar value. Under these assumptions, corruption in games journalism is not a surprise, fidelity to the reader is.

Let's assume that a reviewer's credibility has the finite value, X. A publisher who wants a high metacritic for their game has a number of ways to get that score, including the most obvious:

• Bribe the reviewer with an amount of money equal to X.

Since we assume everyone can be bought, this is the easiest solution. However, it presents too problems:

1. X might be more money than the publisher can afford
   
2. Straight-up bribery might increase the credability lost (and thus the expense to the publisher) as compared to other methods of getting a good review.

As a result of the second point, most publishers don't hand over briefcases full of cash on a regular basis, but they do:

• Bribe the reviewer with luxorious accomodations and freebies with a net value equal to X.
  

This is what SoreThumbs has been discussing over the course of several scintillating articles. Cuban Cigars, free drinks, flirtatious women, and the pernicious rumors of prostitutes whored out for review scores crawl along the walls and are whispered in the winds of game offices worldwide. While these are among the most eggregious attempts to sway a review, most freebies can be laughed off as tchochkies and hospitality, and can be claimed to not affect the jounalist in question.

Since the cost of the bribe being found out is relatively low (unlike the suitcase full of cash), X does not get inflated by attempts to buy the review. Suppose, however, another tact is taken:

• Impose costs to the reviewer equal to X
  

Rather than bribe the reviewer for more than their credibility is worth, a publisher can threaten to punish the reviewer so badly that sticking to their principles just isn't worth it. The most common way is to deny advertising, and the money that comes from it. Since most sites and mags cannot run without advertising money, the reviewer's superiors will likely put the screws on, or outright fire the rebelious reveiws editor with a devil may care attitude for giving the game a big, stinky 6.0

This has almost certainly been tried with every big website and publication out there. The only real evidence that a publication is completely on the up-and-up is that they have payed dearly for their credibility. The debacle by which 1up has been denied advanced access to all Ubisoft games is a clear sign that videogame publishers are getting more aggressive when it comes to using the above tactics.

When you think about it, it really is amazing that games journalism has as much cred as it does. The deck is stacked so far in the favor of the publisher and public relations that honest reviews of big titles should be treated as diamonds in the rough. In order to be honest, a reviewer either has to value their credibility more than their job, or their bosses need to value the trust of their readership more than ad money. Both are very rare conditions, but as we have shown, absolutely necessary to ensure a fair review. So the next time you call foul on a world-exclusive review with the vaunted nine-point-five, don't hate the playa, hate the game.

Aurok