326 réponses à ce sujet

[2484Stryker]

So surprised.

Honestly though, as much as I hate the ending and the subpar polish of ME3, I do believe a nomination is deserved. Don't think it deserves to win it though.

[jstme]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Sion1138 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...


Actually, it seems like you need to be taught a lesson real quick.

Basic business practices in such a case would likely sign a contract to lease Chobot to BioWare for a voice recording session. I highly doubt an exchange of money or fees was made by Chobot or by IGN to EA or BioWare to give them a good grade, because such an exchange would then be on BioWare's fiscal year report back at the end of the 2011-2012 results.

Simply put, that did not happen and has little to do with business at all. Now IGN should recuse themselves from naming anything game of the year because of this, but its highly doubtful that money was exhanged to get a good grade, considering that would be a bribe and illegal, and then both EA and IGN would be under criminal investigation for laundering, bribery and other white collar crimes that would show up in a fiscal report when expenses are unexplained.

So yeah, shut up because that is not proof of anything but just IGN being ethically amoral. 

So, should you ever want to pay someone off, would you do it over your bank account!?

See thats the problem. Eventually those expenses would be found because all you need to do is a tax audit.

Doesn't matter whose account it is, if it actually does happen, it will be caught by the auditors who look over the numbers at the end of each fiscal year report. So really, since no one has blown a whistle on this, perhaps the radical idea of review sites being paid off by publishers is full of ****. 

Just maybe, don't you think? 

I think that in vast majority of cases you are completely correct and there are no direct financial interactions between review sites and publishers. But i am 100% certain that there are mutually beneficial relationships between large publishers and some review sites.
Examples?Here are few hypothetical one:
Certain site that highly praises game X from publisher AI recieves info about game X2 earlier then the rest, publisher got slightly higher income due to glowing review of X and review site gets slightly higher income due to more hits generated by the scoop about X2.
Or certain reviewers getting interviews with top guys while other reviewers get to talk with art programmer brainwashed by PR guys to say "i do not know anything".
Or invitations to certain events....
Or getting journalist from the review site to be a character in the game....
Mutually benefitial legal stuff. 

[LinksOcarina]

Sion1138 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

See thats the problem. Eventually those expenses would be found because all you need to do is a tax audit.

Doesn't matter whose account it is, if it actually does happen, it will be caught by the auditors who look over the numbers at the end of each fiscal year report. So really, since no one has blown a whistle on this, perhaps the radical idea of review sites being paid off by publishers is full of ****. 

Just maybe, don't you think? 

As for under the table deals...then that would depend on people keeping their mouths shut. There is no way an industry-wide conspiracy would stay silent for so long if thats the case, and the few instances shown in the past about publishers trying to block low review scores are cases where the publisher had egg on their face, so the practice stopped. 

Industry-wide? Where did you gather that from. We are talking about IGN + EA. 

You only need two people really.

If you do it with one, what stops you from doing it with ten? This is where the logic fails. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 05 décembre 2012 - 10:06 .

[shepskisaac]

One thing that's bit silly is how people suggest "every wbesite will nominate/give GOTY to ME3 just for publicity". Exactly what kind of publicity? ME games have never been HUGE sellers. ME1 sold about 3+ million, ME2 4+ million, ME3 will end up selling about 5+ million. This is nothing compared to sales of games like Assassin's Creed (8-10 million copies EACH GAME), Halo series, Call of Duty, Diablo 3. If they were desperate for publicity, they would've picked one of these, especially AC3 or DB3 which are getting/got tons of backlash too.

Doesn't change what I said about IGN being in conflict of interest here, but ME3 is not the game to pick for GOTY if you're just fishing for controversy & publicity.

[Mathias]

First off, IGN....



Secondly, let me know when ME3 starts winning from gamer voted GOTY awards, like The Golden Joystick for example, and maybe then i'll give a s***.

[Mcfly616]

Alex Arterius wrote...

I do find it highly suspicious that the vast amount of the fan base dislike the game where as the vast amount of video game journalists love the game, I mean, how do you explain that?

please.....don't pretend like you know what the "vast amount of the fanbase" thinks of the game.

The vast amount of BSN doesn't correlate to "the vast amount of the fanbase"

[Alex Arterius]

Mcfly616 wrote...

Alex Arterius wrote...

I do find it highly suspicious that the vast amount of the fan base dislike the game where as the vast amount of video game journalists love the game, I mean, how do you explain that?

please.....don't pretend like you know what the "vast amount of the fanbase" thinks of the game.

The vast amount of BSN doesn't correlate to "the vast amount of the fanbase"

Hmmm, I certainly feel as if the majority of the core fanbase would certainly be a member of their favourite games official forums...

[Mathias]

Mcfly616 wrote...

Alex Arterius wrote...

I do find it highly suspicious that the vast amount of the fan base dislike the game where as the vast amount of video game journalists love the game, I mean, how do you explain that?

please.....don't pretend like you know what the "vast amount of the fanbase" thinks of the game.

The vast amount of BSN doesn't correlate to "the vast amount of the fanbase"

*shrugs*

Most people i've seen on the internet in general seemed to have been disappointed by it.

[LinksOcarina]

jstme wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Sion1138 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...


Actually, it seems like you need to be taught a lesson real quick.

Basic business practices in such a case would likely sign a contract to lease Chobot to BioWare for a voice recording session. I highly doubt an exchange of money or fees was made by Chobot or by IGN to EA or BioWare to give them a good grade, because such an exchange would then be on BioWare's fiscal year report back at the end of the 2011-2012 results.

Simply put, that did not happen and has little to do with business at all. Now IGN should recuse themselves from naming anything game of the year because of this, but its highly doubtful that money was exhanged to get a good grade, considering that would be a bribe and illegal, and then both EA and IGN would be under criminal investigation for laundering, bribery and other white collar crimes that would show up in a fiscal report when expenses are unexplained.

So yeah, shut up because that is not proof of anything but just IGN being ethically amoral. 

So, should you ever want to pay someone off, would you do it over your bank account!?

See thats the problem. Eventually those expenses would be found because all you need to do is a tax audit.

Doesn't matter whose account it is, if it actually does happen, it will be caught by the auditors who look over the numbers at the end of each fiscal year report. So really, since no one has blown a whistle on this, perhaps the radical idea of review sites being paid off by publishers is full of ****. 

Just maybe, don't you think? 

I think that in vast majority of cases you are completely correct and there are no direct financial interactions between review sites and publishers. But i am 100% certain that there are mutually beneficial relationships between large publishers and some review sites.
Examples?Here are few hypothetical one:
Certain site that highly praises game X from publisher AI recieves info about game X2 earlier then the rest, publisher got slightly higher income due to glowing review of X and review site gets slightly higher income due to more hits generated by the scoop about X2.
Or certain reviewers getting interviews with top guys while other reviewers get to talk with art programmer brainwashed by PR guys to say "i do not know anything".
Or invitations to certain events....
Or getting journalist from the review site to be a character in the game....
Mutually benefitial legal stuff. 

Oh I agree. That is stuff that needs to stop.

But it is a lot different from payoffs because that actually has little control over the eventual outcome of the games performance. 

As an example, the site I work for we get press copies of the game either a few days before, or the day of, release because we are a smaller website. We make no revenue through ads either, all of our revenue is through video interactions which has been more lucrative for single producers at best, but not for the site as a whole. We don't even get paid normally, I.E, through previews of games. 

And as I said in a previous post, reviews tend to not be paid articles either. Usually the only form of payment is a free copy of the game, and an invite to a press junket. The junket stuff is slowly changing because a lot of publishers can't afford lavish parties anymore to promote the game to the media. 

and yes, favoritism exists as well, but that is with any medium anyway. My point is that the whole bribing thing is so audacious it makes me laugh. The real problem is twofold: most reviewers suck at being reviewers because of their writing style, and are too gullible to fall for tricks that give off an impression of nespotism because of the way the rules are set up. 

The way the system will change is if reviewers and journalists actually get better at their jobs. It has little to do with whatever incentives publishers give, because the journalists should know better, and thankfully some do. 

[ozthegweat]

Arcian wrote...

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

I don't see why a writer on a video game website shouldn't be allowed to defend a game he likes.

Because the credibility of journalism hinges on this thing called BEING OBJECTIVE.

I would say he was objective. He wasn't so much talking about ME3 per se, but looking at the bigger picture. He was supporting the notion that nobody should change their work just because someone else doesn't like it. What logically follows is that anyone who thinks someone SHOULD change it is entitled. I can't remember exactly, but I believe he even was against the Extended Cut.

[macrocarl]

Congrats BW! I hope you guys win everything and have lots of extra money to keep making awesome games.

[LinksOcarina]

Sion1138 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

If you do it with one, what stops you from doing it with ten? This is where the logic fails. 

Nothing. But why would one case lead to the conclusion that everyone or the majority are engaged in this way?

It is your logic that fails.

That is assuming the first case is indeed true. The only crime IGN did was have a conflict of interest because of an employee being a part of the game.

It's a big crime, but that does not equate to a paid off review. It does, however, equate to IGN being ethically questionable. 

[shepskisaac]

Anyway, here's their list of GOTY nominees:

Mass Effect 3
Guild Wars 2
The Unfinished Swan
Borderlands 2
Hotline Miami
FTL
Halo 4
The Walking Dead: The Game
Journey
Dishonored

Half is made of indie/arcade games so frankly, I don't see them fishing for publicity that much. They didn't even nominate AC3

[LinksOcarina]

Sion1138 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Oh I agree. That is stuff that needs to stop.

But it is a lot different from payoffs because that actually has little control over the eventual outcome of the games performance. 

All this arguing and yet we actually seem to be in agreement.

Payoff can mean a lot of things, as in, this reviewer's deal with that publisher paid off for them.

for IGN perhaps, but that is at best a conflict of interest and it rests solely on IGN misbehaving, not the publisher. After all, IGN didn't recuse themselves from reviewing the game with an employee in it.

That shows IGN as a site as being unprofessional. That, however, is not emblematic of the industry as a whole. This is why its a thorny issue. 

[Rex Fallout]

RussianZombeh wrote...

Despite what everyone else thinks, I think ME3 was an amazing game and could win GOTY.

Sure, the ending was bad (unless IT was true - don't start arguing) but I think the rest of the game was pretty awesome. Lots of epic moments and emotional moments too.

I voted for ME3 in the Spike VGA and I hope ME3 wins the Inside Gaming Award GOTY.

Why would you have done that?  I am sorry, but even ignoring the fact that the ending was god awful, it is going up against Journey, The Walking Dead and Assassin's Creed 3.  All three of which were far superior to it.  Not only that, but Journey was F***KING AMAZING.  Have you not played it?  It's deep, (the most beautiful game I have ever played) and did I mention that it is F***KING AMAZING?!?!

[Mcfly616]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

First off, IGN....



Secondly, let me know when ME3 starts winning from gamer voted GOTY awards, like The Golden Joystick for example, and maybe then i'll give a s***.

last I checked the GI forums, a lot of people were voting either ME3 or Halo 4 for Reader's Choice GOTY.....with a few AC3's and Borderland 2's.


I can't decide if my vote is going to ME3 or Halo 4. I find them both deserving. Considering they're my 2 favorite gaming series its nice to see them getting recognition. Still, because they're my favorites I'm highly critical of them. 343 industries crushed a lot of criticism and worries, and delivered the best Halo since Combat Evolved. Bioware did something that has never been done in gaming history. Kudos to both. I may not even vote, simply because I can't decide.

[Rex Fallout]

Dishonored was also cool too.

[xlI ReFLeX lIx]

It's due to the extremely talented voicing done by Jessica Chobot.

[billy the squid]

Eterna5 wrote...

Ryoten wrote...

The fact that someone who works at IGN got a prominant spot in a video game?  DUH!  This means that there was a conscious decision made by a party at BioWare and a party at IGN to put Chobit in the game.  You can denie it because thats how business negotiations and contracts work.  They could have gone for someone with more acting skill and potential (say someone with a name).  But they didn't.  They took no-name chobit from IGN.

So IGN gets recognition from one of their cast being in a BioWare game.  What does BioWare get?  Revenue from reviews and payoffs from IGN.  Trust me bub, ive been in the corporate world a lot longer than you.  I know how these things work.

I've already told you that this isn't proof. Repeating the same thing over and over again won't make your failed point relevant.

Show. Me. Concrete. Proof.

If you have none why should I believe your claims? 

Because dismissing everything that isn't a big wad of cash as not proof is asinine and stupid and no lawyer in their right mind would let EA corporate do that.

So we're in the world of nudge, nudge wink, wink, secret corporate handshakes. Favours for favours because it's a technical loophole companies use to get round the anti corruption legislation. 

Thus, dismissing shady or odd practices which have little to no basis when everyone knows that this kind of thing has gone on before with other companies encouraging reviews with a bribe fund, sorry, I mean marketing and advertising budget running into the millions. *nudge nudge. Is daft.

Just as dismissing these kind of goings on is as daft as acting like a ten year old, sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "La, la, la, la I can't hear you! It's not happening!" whilst pretending that politicians never lie and the corporate world is as squeaky clean as Mitt Romney's tax returns.

Modifié par billy the squid, 05 décembre 2012 - 10:35 .

[LinksOcarina]

Mcfly616 wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

First off, IGN....



Secondly, let me know when ME3 starts winning from gamer voted GOTY awards, like The Golden Joystick for example, and maybe then i'll give a s***.

last I checked the GI forums, a lot of people were voting either ME3 or Halo 4 for Reader's Choice GOTY.....with a few AC3's and Borderland 2's.


I can't decide if my vote is going to ME3 or Halo 4. I find them both deserving. Considering they're my 2 favorite gaming series its nice to see them getting recognition. Still, because they're my favorites I'm highly critical of them. 343 industries crushed a lot of criticism and worries, and delivered the best Halo since Combat Evolved. Bioware did something that has never been done in gaming history. Kudos to both. I may not even vote, simply because I can't decide.

In the end, the IAA's should be the only awards that matter, the rest is personal opinions while the IAA's are akin to the Oscars. 

[Mcfly616]

Alex Arterius wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

Alex Arterius wrote...

I do find it highly suspicious that the vast amount of the fan base dislike the game where as the vast amount of video game journalists love the game, I mean, how do you explain that?

please.....don't pretend like you know what the "vast amount of the fanbase" thinks of the game.

The vast amount of BSN doesn't correlate to "the vast amount of the fanbase"

Hmmm, I certainly feel as if the majority of the core fanbase would certainly be a member of their favourite games official forums...

doubtful. These days most of the BSN is where people mainly come to b*tch and moan about the things they dislike. Besides, I'm full proof thats not true. I've purchased every Bioware release on day 1 ever since KotoR released back in July 2003.....yet, check my join date.

People that enjoy a game, are more likely to continue playing it instead of jumping online to discuss it. The people displeased are much more likely to join and voice their displeasure. (I hated the original endings)