IGN & Gamespot

[HmmR]

I was just wondering does ign and gamespot get paid to do their review by companies like EA,Ubisoft

 

cause reviews for Titanfall,alien isolation,batman arkham knight seemed pretty high for the crap games they are 

 

[minibois]

Uhhhh, I wouldn't be surprised.

The would like to deny it, but I have my suspicions.. 

 

Did you hear with the release of Battlefront 3 they sent the game to famous people and actually paid them to say good things about them on social media (Well, I'm not sure if they bought the game themselves.. but not sure). How do we know this? Some guy from a band posted a pic on Instagram with a cut Battlefront 3 disc saying they were going to pay him to be positive about the game.

 

Aaaaanywas, long story short : I wouldn't be surprised

[Guest]

Subjective..... Just because you think they're crap doesn't mean they will. There have been people who have lost their job because of review scores though. Also with titanfall they may have not played it long enough to know that it'd get boring after a while. 

[don_svetlio]

IGN gets paid, that's a known fact. GS i don't know

[HmmR]

Subjective..... Just because you think they're crap doesn't mean they will. There have been people who have lost their job because of review scores though. Also with titanfall they may have not played it long enough to know that it'd get boring after a while. 

whats the point of a review if the critic doesn't play the game long enough to get immersed in the game so he can get  to know the flaws and innovations of a game?

[AlTech]

I was just wondering does ign and gamespot get paid to do their review by companies like EA,Ubisoft

 

cause reviews for Titanfall,alien isolation,batman arkham knight seemed pretty high for the crap games they are 

They probably do.

[BrightCandle]

This is what gamers have been wondering for a long time, a gulf has opened up between the review sites and gamers in the past 7 years and its getting wider. The review sites aren't taking note of anti gamer features like always online DRM, short games and a wide range of other concerns that PC gamers actually have. Then in addition they are giving AAA games (that are at the same time advertised all over their site at the same time) big scores even when gamers don't think much of them. Its becoming apparent they are more marketing mouth pieces for the big publishers because the publishers can destroy them whenever they like since they depend on early access to release code to do their jobs and compete with the other sites.

 

That basic conflict of interest of revenue combined with the harse reality that its really the publishers that control their fate we have a problem but no solutions.

[theereal]

Yes, obviously, they give 9/10 every single fucking game...

[ManOfDisguise]

Yep

[Guest]

This is what gamers have been wondering for a long time, a gulf has opened up between the review sites and gamers in the past 7 years and its getting wider. The review sites aren't taking note of anti gamer features like always online DRM, short games and a wide range of other concerns that PC gamers actually have. Then in addition they are giving AAA games (that are at the same time advertised all over their site at the same time) big scores even when gamers don't think much of them. Its becoming apparent they are more marketing mouth pieces for the big publishers because the publishers can destroy them whenever they like since they depend on early access to release code to do their jobs and compete with the other sites.

 

That basic conflict of interest of revenue combined with the harse reality that its really the publishers that control their fate we have a problem but no solutions.

Well 1 person vs a ton of gamers. That one person can have a different opinion. It's not like they should change their opinion for the gamers. There are also plenty of sites which give different scoring reviews, look up what happened with Mad Max and review scores. Also some sites got rid of review scores like kotaku. I do agree on the part of people wanting early review codes and how the publishers control a lot of things though.  

[razor767]

Reviewers like IGN and Gamespot don't give negative reviews for big game publishers like EA and Ubisoft because they don't want to be blacklisted by them (and not get free review copies, it's part of the business model).

 

 

whats the point of a review if the critic doesn't play the game long enough to get immersed in the game so he can get  to know the flaws and innovations of a game?

So they can get their review out first before the competition so they can potentially get more views.  

[typographie]

I was just wondering does ign and gamespot get paid to do their review by companies like EA,Ubisoft

 

cause reviews for Titanfall,alien isolation,batman arkham knight seemed pretty high for the crap games they are

 

I think you'd find that while publishers try to influence reviews in many ways, it's unlikely they are resorting to "give X a good review and get $Y"-type agreements. That's way too obvious, too easy to expose, and too damning when it is exposed. It would be very stupid for both sides to do that, even if there were real shenanigans going on. Furthermore, the FTC requires by law that online reviews make proper disclosures for paid promotional deals. They'd probably be breaking the law to do literally what you suggest.

 

Instead, they do things like fly out staff to "review events," where they are wined and dined and kept in nice hotels and allowed to play the game supervised by PR reps. Or they may manipulate review embargo dates and access such that there is an implied notion that a negative review may affect accessibility for that outlet in the future. Sometimes they cultivate relationships with the review outlets, so that there is a subtle psychological effect that they're scoring the work of someone they know on a first-name basis. And while it's become rare, there's also the concept of the "exclusive review" where a certain outlet (IGN used to be known for this) gets exclusive access to review a game—and you can't tell me that doesn't influence the conclusion.

 

But at the end of the day, reviews are the author's opinion, they are not trying to match your opinion. Titanfall generally got very positive reviews at launch, and the issues with it became apparent much later in the longevity of it's population. Alien Isolation got wildly mixed reviews, but again many were very positive (and it's one of my personal favorite games ever). Arkham Knight had objective problems with it's PC port, of course, but I suspect IGN and Gamespot reviewed it on consoles where it is much more open to interpretation.

 

Reviewers like IGN and Gamespot don't give negative reviews for big game publishers like EA and Ubisoft because they don't want to be blacklisted by them (and not get free review copies, it's part of the business model).

 

The community seems to put a lot of value on the review copy itself, but for these big companies like IGN it's really not a big deal to pay $50 for a copy of a game. The real value is on how early they are given that review copy and how early they're allowed to publish their review.

[Praesi]

Judging by the Amount of Lies and Bullshit IGN is writing, there are only two Options in my Eyes. 1. They have absolutly no Idea what they are doing and are mentally challenged. 2. They get payed.

[Bouzoo]

IGN gets paid, that's a known fact. GS i don't know

Until we see some proof it's just a speculation, not a fact. With that said I wouldn't be surprised if they did. As far as GS... it wouldn't surprise me as well. 

Both of them have questionable reviews, a lot of them, from time to time they both have some great reviews, no one can deny that, but for the most part they should be taken with a lot of caution. 

[don_svetlio]

Until we see some proof it's just a speculation, not a fact. With that said I wouldn't be surprised if they did. As far as GS... it wouldn't surprise me as well. 

Both of them have questionable reviews, a lot of them, from time to time they both have some great reviews, no one can deny that, but for the most part they should be taken with a lot of caution. 

IGN gave some flat out awful games a 9/10 or 8/10. Trust me. When IGN are giving low scores, the game is either low-budget and didn't pay or so bad they can't think of anything good to say without lying

[typographie]

IGN gave some flat out awful games a 9/10 or 8/10. Trust me. When IGN are giving low scores, the game is either low-budget and didn't pay or so bad they can't think of anything good to say without lying

 

Given the popularity of certain titles around this very forum, I think one conclusion we can draw is that it's actually not that far-fetched to enjoy a game that the public at large doesn't regard very highly. The fact that a site gave a game a score you personally disagree with proves absolutely nothing, because you cannot prove that the reviewer did not honestly feel that way. That's why it's important to read multiple reviews, and to treat them as subjective opinions of the writers. The purpose of a review is not to have your opinion reaffirmed.

 

The far, far more egregious problems with IGN are that they rely so heavily on pre-release hype coverage of games that they haven't even played; their participation in "review boot camps" like that for Metal Gear Solid V; and their history of access to exclusive reviews. There's plenty of evidence that IGN is too close to the companies they critique without having to resort to "they gave a 9/10 to a game I don't like." That's a very weak argument.

[don_svetlio]

Given the popularity of certain titles around this very forum, I think one conclusion we can draw is that it's actually not that far-fetched to enjoy a game that the public at large doesn't regard very highly. The fact that a site gave a game a score you personally disagree with proves absolutely nothing, because you cannot prove that the reviewer did not honestly feel that way. That's why it's important to read multiple reviews, and to treat them as subjective opinions of the writers. The purpose of a review is not to have your opinion reaffirmed.

 

The far, far more egregious problems with IGN are that they rely so heavily on pre-release hype coverage of games that they haven't even played; their participation in "review boot camps" like that for Metal Gear Solid V; and their history of access to exclusive reviews. There's plenty of evidence that IGN is too close to the companies they critique without having to resort to "they gave a 9/10 to a game I don't like." That's a very weak argument.

I'm not saying I dislike the games - I'm saying they were the only positive review among dozens of negatives. Their statements contradicted other reviewers heavily. I simply happened to come across their review and find it odd since everyone else seemed to be condemning the game

[typographie]

I'm not saying I dislike the games - I'm saying they were the only positive review among dozens of negatives. Their statements contradicted other reviewers heavily. I simply happened to come across their review and find it odd since everyone else seemed to be condemning the game

 

It depends on the content of the review (rather than just the score), but in that case it sounds like they ignored or missed certain problems and focused on the positives. That could make it a badly-written review, but I still think it's very weak evidence of malicious or greedy wrong-doing. As I said, IGN does plenty of things far more contemptible than that.

[don_svetlio]

It depends on the content of the review (rather than just the score), but in that case it sounds like they ignored or missed certain problems and focused on the positives. That could make it a badly-written review, but I still think it's very weak evidence of malicious or greedy wrong-doing. As I said, IGN does plenty of things far more contemptible than that.

True - though I believe one of their employees was featured as an NPC in another game. Can't quite remember her name but I'll look into it.

EDIT: Found it - Jessica Chobot was featured in Mass Effect 3.

[PerfectTemplar]

IGN and Gamespot do not get paid to do their reviews. It would have been stopped a long time ago since it's very illegal in most countries.

 

They do however, give high scores out of fear of being blacklisted by a publisher. This is another issue.

 

Also, IGN is far more incompetent than Gamespot. I would say Gamespot's reviews are much much better and more reliable.

 

Basically for IGN, anything below 8 or 9 is bad. For Gamespot, anything below 7 is bad. 8 for IGN and 7 for Gamespot being an average game.