/glares at noose

I can’t find it though. =(

On the assumption that it happens all the time, I can tell you categorically that it doesn’t. In fact, I’m struggling to think of many instances at all that I’ve personally seen in the past 10 years where a publisher has specifically told reviewers to actually omit potentially negative truths from copy.

Like, I can think of plenty of occasions, years ago, where code’s been shown to journalists and things have been said along the lines of, “The frame-rate will be fixed for release,” or whatever, but I don’t remember many occasions at all when it’s been formally messaged that elements of a game are to be left out of reviews.

To be honest, I actually take the converse of your point. I think it’s more important that the PR “process” behind major games is exposed in this way. Yes, OK, it’s in MTV’s interest to publish the story as it increases traffic, but that’s like saying it’s in CNN’s interest to expose corruption because it increases viewing figures. That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t happen.

On the EGM point as well, I agree with what they did. They do have to talk about the game: it’s massive, and of huge interest to the magazine’s readership. What they’re doing is saying they’re opposed to the business practice behind the product. If they felt they couldn’t rate the game properly, to do so would be lying. Their only other option was to not to talk about the game at all, in which case you get a GamesTM situation, as listed above.

Sorry, I think it’s right that this sort of thing is made public, whether or not coverage of review restriction is inconsistent.

But they’re not even mentioning it. That’s what’s weird.

i don’t get any of this, who cares about installs and cut scene lengths enough to stop them buying the game

Look at the whole Games TM “Half Life 2″ debacle. The mag lost tons of respect over that.

It happens.

That’s the problem. It happens ALL THE TIME - but it’s very inconsistently reported. How come the media such as MTV is happy to cite ‘other instances’ of such behaviour but the only name they’re prepared to mention is the name of next week’s big blockbuster game? If these people have the facts, why are they only delivering the stuff that’s associated with the biggest name and that will lead people to their article? It’s hardly out of some sense of decency or acknowledgement of the symbiotic relationship between publisher and media because they’re quite happy to name names when it suits them.

And EGM just come off looking like a bunch of sycophants. They’re totally playing the victim card here. They’re not bold enough to snub the game entirely and not cover it in their mag are they? They’re still more than happy to have people buy the magazine and read up on Konami’s game - they’re just spinning it to make themselves look virtuous.

I wonder if there are any Konami advertisments in that particular issue of EGM. Hmm?

Sorry Pat, the timing of the expose, the profile of the (named) game its being attached to and the inconsistency of the rhetoric is just far too convenient and inconsistent for me to take completely seriously.

I’m not saying Konami’s attitude isn’t ethically questionable - I’m just more suspicious of the behaviour of this industry’s unregulated media than I am about a veteran publisher.

They’re expecting reviewers not to detail negative aspects of the game. That *is* a problem, and a very serious one.

It’s not gonna stop me from buying the game, but it certainly does lower my respect for the company by a great notch.

It’s news that Konami told media outlets to not mention aspects of the game that could be conceived as negatives, is it not? Doesn’t that imply that they’re trying to restrict review content so they can sell more copies by keeping gamers ignorant of the products’ facts?

How would you feel if it came out that Apple had attempted to force iPod reviewers to not mention battery life in any way in their copy, especially if you’d bought an iPod with a battery that gave up the ghost a few months after you bought it? You’d see that as fair, right?

Makes no sense. Unless, of course, it doesn’t actually exist.

Other limits are imposed on the media - such as dated embargoes. Some sites lasciviously report what they can’t tell you and just as enthusiastically tell you why and when the date may come that they can. There’s a sort of “I know a secret!” theme to it.

What pisses me off is the inconsistency here. This kind of stuff has been going on for a considerable time. Other stuff, such as review guides, are also common but when they get mentioned it’s implied only the specific game in question is doing the dirty deed.

Frankly, I’m sick and tired of the irresponsible and parasitic games media trying to make out they’re either victims or crusading under some sort of “The reader has a right to know!” banner.

Yes, publishers put pressure on the media. They do this in many different areas of the entertainment buisiness. Control of information is absolutely paramount to their schemes. But it find the timing of this “Oh, poor us!” rhetoric and its attachment to one of the biggest games of the year to be far more than mere coincidence here. Considering the GTA embargo of just over a month ago it (nobody seems to refer to that anymore. How odd) and the squealing from the internet now, I just don’t see a consistent message from the media and, every day, find myself appreciating why it’s not worth catering to them. EGM, MTV - they’ll get lots of page hits from talking about a 4-years-in-development title. Then, next week, they’ll just move onto something else. They make out that they’re acting for some more noble cause than earning a revenue but how come all those “EXPOSED!” articles have lots of adverts all over the pages?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?