In an interview with former GameSpot reviewer, Alex Navarro, MTV Multiplayer Blog was able to extract a telling tale from the newly appointed community team member at Harmonix regarding the oil-to-water relationship public relations practitioners have with the press.When tasked to review an unnamed Wii launch title, Navarro was sent a note along with his copy of the game--which he provided as evidence to Steven Totilo.
The note read: If the review is 9.0 or higher you can post immediately. Lower than 9.0, could you please hold until launch day, November 19th? Thanks.
"And that's not the first time I got something like that," Navarro told MTV. Navarro, who left GameSpot after the public and controversial firing of then-reviews editor Jeff Gerstmann, said GameSpot ran their review for this game based on a copy bought in a store and they panned it for what it was.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
5-29-2008 @ 2:44PM
itsburnsie said...
You stay classy, Gamespot.
Y-I-K-E-S!
Reply
5-29-2008 @ 2:53PM
Neuromancer said...
Honestly that sounds pretty reasonable to me.
Now if they'd attached a wad of cash to the game that would have been a little shady.
Reply
5-29-2008 @ 2:58PM
brytdavis said...
And we're surprised by this why, exactly?
Meh ... it's a non-story.
Reply
5-29-2008 @ 3:06PM
andyg8180 said...
that sounds typical of many places... I dont think its necessarily a bad thing... you give extra love to the games you feel will really make it... Why destroy a title's rep before the game even comes out...
I think its a good move because instead of a player immediately writing it off, they can do more research and say, hey i really want this... oh it got a 7.5? Well, its out today, it still looks good... instead of, oh snap it got a 7.5... it comes out next week? screw it, i dont want it...
Reply
5-29-2008 @ 6:22PM
Corey said...
This is exactly why this IS a bad thing. Having early access to reviews is about the only thing you can do in terms of research. Sure you can look at previews, but those usually go one of two different ways:
The first kind of preview is on that is handpicked by the developers. They send the screenshots to the previewer and tell them the key features of the game, or they invite the previewer over to their offices and show them someone else plating the game.
Or there are the "Hands-on" previews that usually only look at the positives of the game. If there are negatives, the preview usually ends wit something like: "we hope that these issues will be taken care of by the time the game launches."
As you can see, neither preview gives an accurate and non-biased look at the game. If the review score is not great and withheld until the game is released, there is very little you can do in terms of research. Therefore, you are more likely to blindly purchase a sucky game that you've been looking forward to instead of possibly being warned beforehand, so at least you would have some idea whether or not you still wanted the game.
5-29-2008 @ 3:09PM
Chase said...
So, what did Alex do? I think that's more of a story than what is posted. Also, if he could name titles and reviews that would be great.
Reply
5-29-2008 @ 3:41PM
Xav de Matos said...
A company asked him to refrain from telling your fellow gamers a game was bad until after the launch of a system where the title was one of few so we could only see the good reviews and view the bad ones after the release.
If that isn't shady what is?
5-30-2008 @ 10:44AM
Neuromancer said...
OK but Xav the company is giving them a free copy of the game to review. All they're asking in return is if it gets a bad score that they just hold off on the review until release day. They're not asking the reviewer to alter their score in any way.
If the reviewer doesn't want to do it because it would jeapordize their strict moral code (like a modern day samurai or something), they can wait until launch and buy the game like everyone else. Then they can feel good in the morning.
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch, or a free game. Everything's got a cost. The cost in this case seems reasonable to me.
5-29-2008 @ 3:17PM
psyborg said...
Its called an embargo, and its fairly normal that they only lift if the score is 9 or above. EA does with every single title I believe.
Reply
5-29-2008 @ 3:39PM
Xav de Matos said...
That isn't what an embargo is.
An embargo is when a company holds reviews or information in lieu of exclusivity or street date. This is asking him to keep quiet on a review if it's bad until after the game is out so people are flooded only with good reviews.
5-29-2008 @ 3:21PM
Odog4ever said...
If you don't think that every outlet that gets free review copies of games don't get notes like that, then you are naive.
It's up to the reviewers to have integrity and not blindly follow a PR person bidding. He did say that GameSpot ran their review on that un-named game based on a copy bought in a store instead so that's good.
Reply
5-29-2008 @ 3:45PM
Ed said...
Red Steel??
Reply
5-30-2008 @ 10:53AM
Matt said...
No doubt in my mind that Red Steel is the game in question. This is classic Ubisoft tactics.
5-29-2008 @ 5:22PM
psyborg said...
Ugh I know what Embargo means, I pretty sure they both fit under the term. Even if they do not, thats clearly not the point of my post. My point is that this is common practice and EA does it all of the time.
Reply
5-29-2008 @ 5:27PM
Xav de Matos said...
It sucks that some readers are OK with this type of activity. This kind of conduct is exactly why the Joystiq network doesn't sign embargoes or keep anything given to us.
5-29-2008 @ 5:40PM
Dron said...
I agree Xav, this is just ridiculous, a lot of people base their game purchases/ pre-orders on reviews from sites like gamespot. This isn't as bad as actually paying for a good review but its still very shady. I wonder how widespread this practice is...
Reply
5-29-2008 @ 5:46PM
Ben! said...
I'm fine with it. I actually thought this was common knowledge (and a common practice)
Reply
5-29-2008 @ 5:53PM
Homer 918 said...
WTF! How can you be ok with this? Not only is it highly inappropriate it opens the door for all sorts of even worse activities and demonstrates clearly the wall between marketing and journalism was made of paper at Gamespot.
Reply
5-29-2008 @ 8:27PM
ZeroCorpse said...
The problem with this sort of thing is that I CAN'T RETURN A CRAPPY VIDEO GAME ONCE IT'S OPENED.
If I walk into a bad movie at the theater, I can always walk out and get a refund if the movie isn't more than halfway through (and sometimes if it is).
If I get a bad meal at a restaurant, I can send it back to the cook and not be charged for it.
If I want to know if a music CD is good, I can listen to the tracks online before committing to buy it, and even if I do get it and open it, I can probably resell it for close to what I paid for it.
Video games, however, are $60 or more when new. And if they suck, you cannot return them for a refund. You might be able to sell, but at a significant loss.
If you bought the video game based on the absence of a review and lots of glowing (and manipulated) previews, then you've been deceived into making a blind purchase-- Especially if the publisher makes it IMPOSSIBLE for you to get a review prior to a launch day purchase.
This is dirty pool. It should cease.
Reply
5-29-2008 @ 11:34PM
Chris said...
Then read the reviews before you go out and buy the game. They're not being paid to give a bad game a good review, they're just releasing the review later. Nothing is stopping you from reading a review before you go and buy a game, and nothing is forcing you to buy a game on launch day either.