EGM Journalistic Integrity Superior

[foogledricks]

Not sure if this has been previously discussed. In the most recent issue of EGM, and now on the 1up site, Dan Hsu accused a certain publisher and a certain magazine (atleast one of each) of being involved with "playing ball" when it comes to magazine coverage, particularly with what goes on the cover.

 

http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=6228583&publicUserId=5379799

 

He has received mixed reactions. Some people accuse him of exploiting this "story" to better EGM's reputation. Some say because he didn't name names, that Dan is actually accusing everyone but EGM of not having integrity and possibly being involved in this shady practice. What do you all think?

 

If true, I think the parties in question are Microsoft or EA, and OXM, Game Informer, or GamePro. Pure specuation on my part, but EA and Microsoft currently have the power and most to gain at the moment from favorable coverage. As for which magazines, excluding PSM, those are the three major magazines that aren't ZD.

[Big Daddy Bling Bling]

I thought everyone knew this sort of thing happened. This article isn't really earthshattering to anyone but the blissfully ignorant. As for culprits, Rockstar is at the top of the list. Rockstar has manipulated reviews before and probably hasn't stopped. If I were to speculate further, Activision and EA also seem like likely parties. I'm doubtful about Microsoft. The 360 is a hot news item without Microsoft pulling strings, and the first party games are good enough to warrant coverage on their own.

 

IGN will definately whore. Or perhaps the atrocious WWF Raw (Xbox) getting a 9.1 after a month long IGN ad blitz was just coincidence?

[dogbert]

From that link:

 

So...that magazine's cover stories are for sale. Great.

 

So EGM doesn't work with publishers & their marketing teams to coordinate which games they'll feature on their cover? So EGM doesn't work with publishers & their marketing teams to coordinate which games get reviewed as an exclusive in a given month? Has EGM never had an "Exclusive!" look at a game?

 

When EGM are able to live in a glass house, they can start casting stones around at the competition.

 

Please note that Shu doesn't mention review scores - he's talking previews, hype, "exclusives". All of which are quite honestly marketing pieces regardless of the magazine.

[Josh]

If you read between the lines here, and if you know Dan (which I do, at least from having worked with him), I think he's just pissed about missing some big exclusives lately. Poor form, IMO.

[Graeme]

So EGM doesn't work with publishers & their marketing teams to coordinate which games they'll feature on their cover? So EGM doesn't work with publishers & their marketing teams to coordinate which games get reviewed as an exclusive in a given month? Has EGM never had an "Exclusive!" look at a game?

 

I think the gist of the "article" is that the magazines will put a game on their cover just because the publisher paid them to, or threatened to pull advertising if they didn't get coverage, and they wouldn't have otherwise. Making deals for exclusives and whatnot are different because they're supposedly a game the magazine wants to cover, but wants to be the only one that has the coverage.

 

While I could understand that working in an industry where things like that are going on, and you feel that you're above it, Shu's editorial comes off as just sour grapes, and not much different from all the fanboys shouting "teh bias!". With nothing but heresay and not naming names or giving specific examples, it all just comes off poorly. I'm sure stuff like this happens, but since I don't know where, I can't avoid... except by reading EGM and 1up or course... which isn't going to happen.

 

Plus I think they told me in their world breaking exclusive, Ziff Davis cross promotion extravaganza that the Episode 1 games were going to be good.

[stillfastasleep]

If you read between the lines here, and if you know Dan (which I do, at least from having worked with him), I think he's just pissed about missing some big exclusives lately. Poor form, IMO.

 

That's the feeling I got as well. Game Informer and Play both have some nice exclusive covers and indepth feature articles on those games. Game Informer positively smokes EGM with their cover/feature articles. Their january cover will feature none other than Sam Fisher himself.

 

http://www.gameinformer.com/News/Story/200512/N05.1208.1250.33460.htm

 

About the only thing people seem to post about with respect to EGM is their review scores. Their features generally suck, they rarely have exclusive interviews. Unless as a print mag, you can come up with some exclusive content, you're redundant in the internet age. I don't need EGM to tell me about a game after the fact.

 

As for selling a cover, whatever. If its a game that people are interested in and widely anticipated, why not. Selling the cover is one thing, selling your review scores is another. I'm not sure I even understand their basic argument here. EGM sells the back cover of their mag, don't they?

 

EGM has some nerve touting their reputation. Their mag is wall to wall ads. Toss in the previews which are nothing more than unsponsored ads and you're talking so little editorial content, that even discussing journalistic integrity is a bit of a joke.

[JFo]

Please note that Shu doesn't mention review scores - he's talking previews, hype, "exclusives". All of which are quite honestly marketing pieces regardless of the magazine.

 

Toss in the previews which are nothing more than unsponsored ads...

 

I don't think you guys are being fair to these magazines when it comes to previews. Does this mean that any time a gaming magazine or website runs an article, shows a new batch of screenshots, or posts a new video of a game in motion that they are simply hyping it and giving the publisher free advertising? If that's the case, maybe they should stop posting previews and all news concerning a game's development because only then would they be demonstrating some journalistic integrity. After all, who's to say that any news article concerning a game isn't just another means of promoting that product?

 

Of course, we all realize that this isn't going to happen for two reasons. First and foremost, as consumers of this content we want to see the latest batch of screenshots, movies, and any information we can get before a game's release. Denying us what we want would surely lead to a dramatic drop in readership should a magazine or news website take such a stance.

 

Secondly, I think it's ridiculous to think that all previews are simply fluff pieces designed to promote a game. Now, I'm not naive enough to believe that backs are never scratched between publishers and editors, but to suggest that all reviews are like this is just as extreme.

 

Let me ask you all this: What would be a good example of a preview that is all fluff and no substance and one that is a legitimate and informative preview? Can you perhaps give me an example of each concerning the same game from two separate sources?

[stillfastasleep]

EGM in their november issue claimed on the cover they had an exclusive hands on with madden for the 360. Well, if they actually played the game, it sure didn't show in their so called preview which had not one single mention of how the game actually played and when I say nothing, I mean nothing. The preview sucked, EGM pimped their hands on exclusive of madden to dupe people into buying the issue. Small wonder that EGM has been called more than once EAGM. Virtually all their 360 coverage was powder puff journalism, telling me virtually nothing I didn't already know. Imo, unsponsored ads. To top it off, the issue had over 100 actual pages of ads.

 

Gaming websites and mags are manipulated very often by publishers and they in turn look to manipulate us. The publishers release new info, screenies, videos, etc and they in turn release this info to gamers. Is it part of the business? Sure, its part of the business. I accept that. That's why EGM's editorial stance on some other mag selling their cover is just so much hypocrisy from EGM. They're just as big a whore as everyone else in the industry.

[bendak]

They're just as big a whore as everyone else in the industry.

I agree...

 

Besides, print mags are probably going to be dead soon anyway. You get the same info on the internet at least a month in advance, and with the advent of downloadable demos and trailers on Live, even the discs are becoming obsolete

 

I still subscribe to OXM just because I like some bathroom reading material, but I doubt it's going to last very long.

[GreenMonkey]

Personally I prefer EGM over the other mags. I find the reviews the best (helped by the 3-opinion format).

 

Previews are just perks anyway, you can't trust them.

 

As far as all that stuff being available on the internet, yeah, but mags make good bathroom reading

[Mark E]

As far as all that stuff being available on the internet, yeah, but mags make good bathroom reading

 

I guess I'm the only one who thinks to take their DS with them

[db]

I guess I'm the only one who thinks to take their DS with them

Ew, the touch screen's not sticky, I hope.

[JFo]

Ew, the touch screen's not sticky, I hope.

 

Let's hope it's not stinky either.

[GreenMonkey]

I guess I'm the only one who thinks to take their DS with them

 

The DS is for work. The only time I took the DS was right when Mario Kart DS came out, the novelty of playing online Kart in the bathroom was too amusing.