Publishers allegedly blackball EGM for negative coverage (joystiq.com)

[7th lutz]

http://www.joystiq.com/2008/01/09/publishers-allegedly-blackball-egm-for-negative-coverage/

In his latest editorial, Electronic Gaming Monthly Editor-in-chief Dan "Shoe" Hsu publicly calls out three companies that are allegedly refusing to work with the magazine due to negative reviews of their games. According to Hsu, the members of Midway's Mortal Kombat team, Sony's sports division and Ubisoft as a whole are refusing to give EGM access to early preview or review builds of their games (in the case of Ubisoft, Hsu specifically says "it seems our coverage of Assassin's Creed was the last straw").

As a result, Hsu says EGM readers will get "little, late, or no coverage" of these companies' games. "We won't treat these products or companies any differently, and we'll just cover them to the best of our own abilities, with or without their support," Hsu writes. "Because, after all, we're writing for you, the reader -- not them."

[heybtbm]

While at first glance this looks like pissy publishers putting the hammer down on "the little guy", it can't be denied that EGM is unneccessarily harsh on some of their reviews. Case in point: Assassin's Creed. One of their reviewers gave it a 3.5 out of 10. I mean c'mon...a 3.5? It almost seems like a "revenge" score more than an objective analysis of the game. I'm sure there's more behind this story than the public knows.

Not to mention the articles are written by "XTREME, IN YOUR FACE" teenagers. They have a column by Seanbaby for Christ's sake. I'm glad I get the mag. for free. I wouldn't pay a dime for it.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

While at first glance this looks like pissy publishers putting the hammer down on "the little guy", it can't be denied that EGM is unneccessarily harsh on their reviews. Case in point: Assassin's Creed. One of their reviewers gave it a 3.5 out of 10. I mean c'mon...a 3.5? It almost seems like a "revenge" score more than an objective analysis of the game. I'm sure there's more behind this story than the public knows.

While I agree that that is obviously a score that no objective professional reviewer worth his/her salt should be giving that game ... there's just something about THAT game that really seems to transcend the "average" category in some people's minds.

I can't remember the last time I've seen a game so polarizing. It completely satisfies some users despite any minor design flaws, and absolutely enrages others like some type of 28 Days Later monkey virus.

Granted, I'm in the "wholly satisfied" camp, and I can see some if not all of the criticisms presented about the game design ... but I really can't for the life of me see a 3.5 as anything other than an attack score.

[fcw3]

Sounds like more of a threat by EGM to the publishers. So the EGM crew doesn't get the stuff early ! We'll show you ! We'll not review any of your games. :P

Maybe game magazines should be like Consumer Reports. To be objective, they should buy what they are reviewing themselves.

FRED

[Wolfrider31]

While at first glance this looks like pissy publishers putting the hammer down on "the little guy", it can't be denied that EGM is unneccessarily harsh on some of their reviews. Case in point: Assassin's Creed. One of their reviewers gave it a 3.5 out of 10. I mean c'mon...a 3.5? It almost seems like a "revenge" score more than an objective analysis of the game. I'm sure there's more behind this story than the public knows.

Not to mention the articles are written by "XTREME, IN YOUR FACE" teenagers. They have a column by Seanbaby for Christ's sake. I'm glad I get the mag. for free. I wouldn't pay a dime for it.

A 3.5? Seriously?

I think AC is overrated, but its impossible to deny that it as at least a solid, well put together piece of software. I can see a 6 or 7, or possibly a 5 if someone REALLY hated it. But 3.5? Isn't that like Superman 64 territory?

Regardless, it's still the reviewers opinion (however infantile the reviewer may have been) and publisher's shouldn't attempt to stomp all over an editorial. I have to applaud Hsu for outing those publishers, I hope more publications and websites jump on board.

[DaBargainHunta]

Face the facts, folks: EGM's glory days are long over.

Then again, their reviews have always been broken.

Case in point: Herzog Zwei got 3's and 4's back in the early '90s.

[heybtbm]

Then again, their reviews have always been broken. Case in point: Herzog Zwei got 3's and 4's back in the early '90s.

3's and 4's? Blasphemy. Herzog Zwei is the grandaddy of all RTS games and one of the best Genesis games ever made. I guess it was too ahead of their time.

[Clownzilla]

With the internet and reviews of actual owners of the game, why do these magazines actually review games any more. I trust a set of many user reviews more than the reviews of a professional magazine writer. Granted, they still can have a readership based off of PREviews, commentary, industry news, and trends but who trusts magazine reviews anymore?

[Borman]

A 3.5? Seriously?

I think AC is overrated, but its impossible to deny that it as at least a solid, well put together piece of software. I can see a 6 or 7, or possibly a 5 if someone REALLY hated it. But 3.5? Isn't that like Superman 64 territory?

Regardless, it's still the reviewers opinion (however infantile the reviewer may have been) and publisher's shouldn't attempt to stomp all over an editorial. I have to applaud Hsu for outing those publishers, I hope more publications and websites jump on board.

Id give it a 3.5 on the PS3. Constantly messing up, inconsistant graphics, boring dialogue, boring, repetitive gameplay, just to name a few. The whole crashing thing is what brings it down to a 3.5 from an otherwise 5 or 6 though.

[Joker T]

I get EGM for free but I HATE it, Giving Assassin's Creed a 3.5 is just extremely unprofessional.

EGM had said that the early builds were rough in terms of control and they very well could have based their reviews on this. Seeing how much shit they talk about Too Human I wouldn't be suprised to see EGM give that game horrible scores.

I hated EGM before that review though, many of their scores are off and nothing is particularly well written or interesting.

[Neil Koch]

I gave up on EGM a year or so ago when their preview of a DOA Volleyball game was accoompanied by a 2-page picture of a guy on the toilet, where it was inferred he was pleasuring himself to pictures of the DOA girls.

I'm not a prude or anything, but it just proved the point of how much the magazine has sunk. I was getting a free subscription, but I stopped it after that. It's not even worth my time to read it while I'm on the can.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

Id give it a 3.5 on the PS3. Constantly messing up, inconsistant graphics, boring dialogue, boring, repetitive gameplay, just to name a few. The whole crashing thing is what brings it down to a 3.5 from an otherwise 5 or 6 though.

The crashing issue with the software, as well as some graphical tearing was patched a week or so after the game's release on the PS3.

The repetitive grameplay ... well, a patch can't fix that I suppose.

[Snapple]

Who cares about the 3.5? If they honestly think it's a 3.5, give it a 3.5. If you disagree with it, disagree with it. And if 3.5 is Superman 64 territory, then there's no point in even having 1-3.0. Not that it matters, but I know plenty of people that do not find Assassin's Creed to be very fun at all. There are legitimate gripes about the game.

[heybtbm]

Who cares about the 3.5? If they honestly think it's a 3.5, give it a 3.5. If you disagree with it, disagree with it. And if 3.5 is Superman 64 territory, then there's no point in even having 1-3.0.

I'll agree with you about the "who cares" part as far as gamers go. Publishers/developers on the other hand, I'm sure they do care. Quite a bit actually.

What I'm questioning is EGM's lack of consistancy in their grading scale. If Assassin's Creed gets a 3.5 and some absolute crap (like Sneak King) gets a 5.0, is there really any value of assigning numbers to games?

[Streetball 21]

EGM has also had it out for the Mortal Kombat games. I remember they would always makes jokes about the characters and just pretty much laugh at the game. I am a Mortal Kombat fan so I might be a little bit bias, but I never thought the Mortal Kombat games were that bad.

[Mangar]

If you figure an average game is a 5 - Then a guy rating a game he feels is "Below Average" at 3.5 is fair. Reviews are reviews. They are opinions, and everyone is entitled to them. Regardless of what a publisher thinks. The problem lay more in using a 10 point scale, where 5 rarely reflects an "Average Game."

[Half Japanese]

It almost seems like EGM knows how irrelevant they've become and are trying to pander to a fanbase that has largely lost faith in them, putting on a show of being discriminated against to purportedly cast themselves in a light of having the utmost integrity. I'm not buying it.

I lost faith in EGM around the time the Playstation 2 came out, when a lot of their reviews were unnecessarily harsh to perfectly fine games jus so the editors could have a race to the bottom as far as who could be the most 'hilariously' negative. I've said it before, and will gladly bring it up every time it seems apropos: EGM gave the sleeper hit Deathrow for the Xbox something like a 4.5 out of 5, bashing the game's immaturity while completely ignoring the fact it was a fairly original and extremely fun non-traditional sports title, the likes of which haven't been seen with any regularity since the 16-bit days. Elsewhere (Gamespot and IGN), the game was receiving solid 8's.

Here's one more thing I think: publishers should be selective with who they send review copies to. This is exactly why you don't see some budget titles reviewed, because the publishers know they're going to get ravaged and have a disproportionate effect on potential sales. On the other hand, when you have an above-average if not completely competent game that's a pretty safe bet for being a hit, why tarnish that sending a review to a mag that's just going to tear it a new asshole and hurt sales? I know it's not the best thing integrity-wise for a business to do, but it would seem to make business sense. Why invite the neighbor to take a dip in your pool if all they do is continually piss in it?

[Kid Fenris]

EGM gave the GameBoy version of Jordan vs. Bird two fives and two fours back in 1991, and I haven't read a word of that magazine since.

[Infernal Monkey]

I remember buying an issue of EGM back in.. say.. 2000-ish? It's not all that common here in Australia, and the issue was two months old by the time it hit our newsagents, but it was a magazine that'd always interested me.

I was pretty disgusted by the fact that over half the magazine was nothing but ADVERTS. And the reviews themselves were squished up the back and given quarter of a page each. Does that shit still go on? If so, how has the magazine lasted this long? =|

[thetoxicone]

EGM gave the GameBoy version of Jordan vs. Bird two fives and two fours back in 1991, and I haven't read a word of that magazine since.

I know...it really should've gotten all fives...it disappointed me as well.

[swlovinist]

I used to be a subscriber(Issue 9) and gave up on the mag last year. EGM blows, and thier days are numbered. I give them less than a year of survival. I have ranted on them before, mostly because their recent issues are thinner than a hollywood model on drugs.

[Berserker]

Am I the only one who thinks that the whole notion of preview builds and early review betas and other such mutual benefit "goodies" is a bullshit idea in the first place, casting notions of honest journalism to the side to make way for the almighty Hype Machine?

That the prime concern for people running these magazines and sites seems to be how best to fellate Publishers so that they might be granted more insider goodies and advertising deals? That reviewers and journalists NOT have fears of being "too critical" to the subjects that we depend on them to give genuine coverage and criticism of, to be wary of, whom are instead made friends with at our expense? And that anyone who dares give something approaching honest criticism is fired instead of protected?

My only hope is that more incidents like this occur, that degrade and draw attention to this disgusting way of doing things, so that it might eventually dissolve and give way to something respectable -- and readable.

[boatofcar]

Does anybody else think 1Up is superior to EGM, though it seems like it should be the other way around?

[G-Boobie]

I'll agree with you about the "who cares" part as far as gamers go. Publishers/developers on the other hand, I'm sure they do care. Quite a bit actually.

What I'm questioning is EGM's lack of consistancy in their grading scale. If Assassin's Creed gets a 3.5 and some absolute crap (like Sneak King) gets a 5.0, is there really any value of assigning numbers to games?

Of course there fucking isn't. But consider; Computer Gaming World stopped using numbers in their reviews for a while, and their circulation sunk....Until they put their numbered reviews back in the magazine. Imagine that.

Basically, there's no pleasing the hardcore gamer set; they bitch no matter what you do. It's actually questionable whether its even worth trying to please the hardcore gamer set, since 90 percent of them are children, or act like children... Which makes the EGM editorial sort of odd, since they have to know that they're just continuing to alienate their target audience.

The audience doesn't want objective journalism; they want to be justified in their already established opinions, OR, get pissed off and argue about it on internet gaming forums. And here we are. :)

See, Game Informer has it right; enthusiast press is basically a PR contractor; pretending to be something else is almost pretentious. There is no such thing as objective games journalism right now.

And just to throw some gasoline on the fire, as well as prove I'm a hypocrite: Assassin's Creed was the most expensive tech demo I ever returned to Target the next day. Fuck that game.

[Ze_ro]

I was pretty disgusted by the fact that over half the magazine was nothing but ADVERTS. And the reviews themselves were squished up the back and given quarter of a page each. Does that shit still go on? If so, how has the magazine lasted this long? =|
The sad part is, this paragraph applies to every video game magazine.

The industry is literally running on fumes... the internet is killing them, and there is very little they can do about it. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if this whole thing is a cry for attention from EGM.

--Zero

[spoon]

Anyone else remember when Shoe ranted about other mags paying for covers?

This was at the same time when they would send out Subs with another cover glued on for another game. This very issue was that way also. I hate "advertorials" as well.

I like fcw3's Consumers Report idea. Instead of "boo-hoo we aren't getting anymore free swag. We are taking our non-existent balls and going home."

[esquire]

The industry is literally running on fumes... the internet is killing them, and there is very little they can do about it. --Zero

Are there any hard numbers to this? I mean even so, how could you prove that subscriptions are down solely because of this? Even if true that subscriptions are down (also, are they down collectively, or simply per mag or publisher?), could it possibly be due to other reasons such as dilution of product? For instance, I have a ton of subscriptions mostly due to free subscriptions through Game Crazy, Gamestop and the web. Right now, and I am sure I will be missing some, I recieve EGM, Game Informer, XBOX, Nintendo Power, Official Playstation, and PC Gamer. Is it possible subscriptions are down because the consumer has more choices?

I simply don't buy the whole internet is killing the paper magazines. Frankly, I hate having to go online to read a review. I only do so if I can't find a review in a mag. Most online reviews are filled with pop-ups, ads and other garbage, not to mention sometimes hurt the eyes, or you have to subscribe for "insider" information, which I would never do.


The audience doesn't want objective journalism; they want to be justified in their already established opinions, OR, get pissed off and argue about it on internet gaming forums. And here we are. :)

See, Game Informer has it right; enthusiast press is basically a PR contractor; pretending to be something else is almost pretentious. There is no such thing as objective games journalism right now.

I am not buying your first argument there. I could care less about the scores, unless it gets a perfect score. I read the reviews for content, and quite frankly I am getting sick of the kiddie reviews that seem to be more prevalent in mags like EGM, eg. reviewers trash talking like they are in high school journalism class. The other thing that irks me in reviews is the whole review that doesn't tell you about the game itself, but rather how it's not better than "Game X" because it does not advance the genre, or games getting lowered scores because they don't have online or multiplayer support (yet multiplayer or online only games do not seem affected and do not get lowered scores for no or shitty single player support, such as Shadowrun, the Battlefield series, and MMOs). Since when does a game have to have all of these (an coop play to boot!), yet then the review industry bitches and moans as to why a game takes too long to develop (unless you are Blizzard).

I will agree with you on Game Informer, which is my favorite magazine. What's best about GI is they don't hide what they are, and are open about it. Yet still the reading is entertaining and informative, as opposed to EGM which seems to be nothing more than National Lampoon/Cracked/Maxim all lumped together.

[Mangar]

We need another Computer Gaming World. 2-3 page indepth reviews of games, written on a level that don't insult the intelligence of any gamer over 11 years old. I remember one of the best things they did with a game was when Pool of Radiance was released. They had two reviews of it by members of their team: One by a reviewer on their staff who felt the game was very very average, and another who thought the game was one of the best RPG's yet released. It gave major insight into the game mechanics, and as a consumer you knew what to expect if you purchased the game. Something it seems that no magazine really does nowadays.

[G-Boobie]

I simply don't buy the whole internet is killing the paper magazines. Frankly, I hate having to go online to read a review. I only do so if I can't find a review in a mag. Most online reviews are filled with pop-ups, ads and other garbage, not to mention sometimes hurt the eyes, or you have to subscribe for "insider" information, which I would never do.

I am not buying your first argument there. I could care less about the scores, unless it gets a perfect score. I read the reviews for content, and quite frankly I am getting sick of the kiddie reviews that seem to be more prevalent in mags like EGM, eg. reviewers trash talking like they are in high school journalism class.


You're forgetting that your opinion isn't necessarily representative of internet behaviors as a whole. Just because YOU don't care about the numbers doesn't mean that all the game review sites weren't on fire with rage when Zelda got an 8.8, or Crysis got an 8, as opposed to the tens I guess people thought they should get. Nevermind that the actual fucking text of the review supported the numbers pretty well; people were angry about the NUMBERS, and never you mind the reviewers reasoned words. Ditto the magazine circulation numbers and your rant about 'hating to go online to read a review'. A casual glance at a gaming website shows you're in a tiny minority.

[Rob2600]

The crashing issue with the software, as well as some graphical tearing, was patched a week or so after the game's release on the PS3.

Yes, but what about gamers who don't have their PlayStation 3 consoles connected to the internet? They're stuck with a game that crashes? If so, that's really bad.


It wouldn't surprise me one bit if this whole thing is a cry for attention from EGM.

I agree. It seems like EGM is trying to cash in on the Gamespot/Jeff Gerstmann fiasco.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

Ah, crap.

I had completely neglected to remember what type of point ratio EGM used.

They use a 5 point scale?

If it's a 5 point scale ... a 3.5 doesn't seem THAT bad.

A 1 would be more of a revenge-tastic scoring in that case.

[Rob2600]

Ah, crap.

I had completely neglected to remember what type of point ratio EGM used.

They use a 5 point scale?

If it's a 5 point scale ... a 3.5 doesn't seem THAT bad.

Up until I stopped reading EGM several years ago, the review scale was 0 to 10. Did it change?

EDIT: I'm looking at scores on Gamestats.com and EGM's ratings still go up to 10.

[Snapple]

I will agree with you on Game Informer, which is my favorite magazine. What's best about GI is they don't hide what they are, and are open about it. Yet still the reading is entertaining and informative, as opposed to EGM which seems to be nothing more than National Lampoon/Cracked/Maxim all lumped together.

Honestly, I like Game Informer, but it's mostly for their previews and other content. I think their reviews are pretty weak. For me personally, I'll take GI's previews and EGM's reviews, and everyone else has kind of lost it (ie GamePro, Nintendo Power, etc). As bad as EGM sounds sometimes, they're still better than what GamePro has become, which is sad for me, because I used to love GamePro back 10-15 years ago.

[Nebagram]

To be fair in this day and age of downloadable demos, websites with detailed reviews that you can access for free and all that- do we even really NEED mags like egm any more?

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

Up until I stopped reading EGM several years ago, the review scale was 0 to 10. Did it change?

EDIT: I'm looking at scores on Gamestats.com and EGM's ratings still go up to 10.

Well, in that case. My original sentiment on the matter stands.

3.5 out of 10 is generally un-warranted for that title. It's flawed, but not completely broken in any one area.

I saw some responses that seemed to elude to EGM rating on a 5 point scale, and since I like many haven't read the magazine in years, I thought I had made an incorrect assumption.

[Half Japanese]

As bad as EGM sounds sometimes, they're still better than what GamePro has become, which is sad for me, because I used to love GamePro back 10-15 years ago.

No offense, but I honestly didn't know that anyone loved GamePro. I would buy it some months as a kid if I was in the grocery store and already had the other game rags or if it was all the store stocked, but it was never my top choice. I will say that I liked the "Buyer Beware" section, but the 'avatars' for staff members is pretty crappy, even in the highly-respected GameFan.

[digitalpress]

Case in point: Assassin's Creed. One of their reviewers gave it a 3.5 out of 10.

I would have given the game less than a 3.5 in the EGM world (which is a pretty decent score), maybe a 5 of 10 in the DP world. I found the game absolutely gorgeous but slow to start and absolutely tedious to continue. I thought "can't wait until I get to the REAL missions" during the boring training exercises and then thinking "can't wait to see something different on the next guy I kill", only to find that neither would be the case. Great looking game with so much potential, squandered on repetition, tedium, and great attention to graphic detail. One of the most overhyped games of our time.

EGM guy... sorry.