Publishers allegedly blackball EGM for negative coverage
by Kyle Orland 
{ Jan 9th 2008 at 12:30PM }
UPDATE: The full text of the editorial is now available on Hsu's blog.
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."
These types of allegations aren't anything new around the game industry water cooler, and stories of publisher reprisals in the form of pulled advertising or blackballed journalists occasionally bubble up in the game press. But editors are usually reluctant to publicly name names in these situations, for fear of pissing off publishers further. Are we seeing the beginning of a new age in game journalism, where journalists aren't afraid of standing up to publishers that try to push them around?
We'll be following up with Hsu and the companies involved and let you know what we hear.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Obie @ Jan 9th 2008 12:34PM
Good! Stick it to the man EGM!....when was the last time I bought a copy of that mag? hmmmm.
Fernando Rocker @ Jan 9th 2008 12:39PM
I have a free suscription thanks to Joystiq =)
xFenixKnightx @ Jan 9th 2008 12:44PM
I have a free subscription thanks to GameCrazy =)
xFenixKnightx @ Jan 9th 2008 12:46PM
I have a free subscription thanks to GameCrazy =) Its always been the best gaming mag IMO.
Obie @ Jan 9th 2008 12:49PM
Holy crap, I got screwed out of freebies! :(
Fernando Rocker @ Jan 9th 2008 12:52PM
You can still get the free subscription...
http://www.mercurymagazines.com/
Ghen @ Jan 9th 2008 12:59PM
lol, I have a free subscription too. Does anyone actually pay for the mag?
Fernando Rocker @ Jan 9th 2008 1:00PM
Sorry, wrong link... you can use this to get a 1 year free of EGM...
http://www.mercurymagazines.com/pr1/101/10115
DangerMouse @ Jan 9th 2008 1:07PM
my last one was back when street fighter II turbo was being previewed for the snes. something about the red fireball glitch was mentioned. I was a scary larry/gamepro tool anyway.
And i never could be bothered with those free subscriptions, so the lemming posts ends here. not sry.
T3H WICKERMAN (FDF) @ Jan 9th 2008 1:19PM
I have a free subscription thanks to joystiq too! The mag needs to loose that "maxim" style that has slimed its way into soo many publications. I do applaud Hsu for standing up and calling them out. I will remember these companies attitudes when choosing to buy their products.
jorojoserojas @ Jan 9th 2008 1:26PM
I have a free subscription thanks to Game Crazy!
Best gaming mag AND best gaming store, no doubt.
baby sea tuna @ Jan 9th 2008 1:36PM
I have a paid subscription, which I basically consider as a subsidy for their podcasts (which I do enjoy quite a bit). The mag itself is good for some mindless skimming before I pass it on to one of my friends.
Undead Priest @ Jan 9th 2008 12:35PM
I seriously don't doubt this is true. The same thing happens in the movie industry as well.
lothar @ Jan 9th 2008 12:35PM
Its great to see that they're calling the companies out like this.
FidliousWong @ Jan 9th 2008 12:52PM
Not really. You see, these tactics are nothing new and every other industry has seen this before. Meanwhile, idiots like yourself somehow see a brand new line in the sand drawn and thanks the the recentness of Gerstsmanngate, you somehow believe this has everything to do with editorial integrity instead of a publisher refusing to work with someone who reviews their games well below the curve.
Or let's put it this way. Case in point, Shaq-Fu.
Why Shaq-Fu? This legendarily bad game? Simply put, before it's release, it was thrown on a TON of magazine covers. Magazines got exclusive interviews, previews, etc. In all of this coverage from EGM to Gamepro, never was spoken a critical word. Launch dates were hyped. And so one reading these magazines could feel confident in a purchase. The reviews came out three weeks after the game. All magazines were hyping this title as the greatest thing since SFII and suddenly they pulled a bait and switch. EGM is no different. In lots of their previous, they hype the game, lead people to believe it's all good, just to save any and all criticism for their review. This is deceptive. So when publishers read the preview write-ups, they aren't REALLY getting a lot of the feedback they want and suddenly have to deal with horribly low scores because no one mentioned the issues with the game in question.
A Pissed-off English Gamer @ Jan 9th 2008 12:58PM
Previews aren't based upon actual gameplay experiece, much of the time. Or if they are it's limited and the game isn't finished. Why would you burn on things that may be fixed in the final version?
copa @ Jan 9th 2008 12:58PM
It really is. It doesn't take a lot of courage to picket a competitor's office when Jeff Gerstmann gets fired, but it takes huge brass balls to call out publishers by name when they pull this shit.
I give Shoe all the props in the world.
If Gamespot wants to restore some of their credibility, they could try some of this sort of transparency.
Oh, and Gamespot gave Assassin's Creed a 9.0. I'm just sayin'.
chimp o death @ Jan 9th 2008 4:18PM
As someone who buys every issue of EGM, I can tell you that this stances is nothing new. Shoe has often done editorials on the subject of undue publisher influence on publications. At one press junket he won a LCD tv that he then had to turn around and refuse because he found it ethically problematic.
I've always loved the fact that Shoe was willing to let us know where the magazine stood. That meant that whatever was on the cover, or whatever the exclusive reviews, they wouldn't be there because EGM had bent over for any of the publishers.
Ron @ Jan 9th 2008 12:35PM
good for them. I hope more websites and mags follow suit.
venk @ Jan 9th 2008 12:36PM
In light of the whole K&L/Gamespot incident, I think there is no reason for game journalist to fear a backlash as the internet backlash from the gaming community against the publisher will be 10x worse.
All in all, I'm surprised how little pub this is getting. It's been floating around the internets since yesterday and joystiq only now gets a hold of it?
dan stabbingworth @ Jan 9th 2008 1:00PM
Not likely. The next time a game comes out I doubt very many if any customers will really say, "oh man, they blackballed EGM , I won't buy this game."
Psaakyrn @ Jan 9th 2008 8:42PM
False.
You do realise that it's not the fans, but publishers which gives them jobs? Yay, people hate Publisher A. Boo, Publisher A only gives previews to other people, so I don't have any advantage, and now lose my job.
paragraph @ Jan 9th 2008 12:37PM
You mean Ubisoft didn't like the fact that EGM found the best part of AC sitting on park benches? Odd...
Seriously though, lets all grow up and act all adult like. How can you blame a mag that rates things on opinion for bieng wrong? How can you blame a company for not agreeing with an unfavorable review?
Seriously, all parties involved STFU, no-one cares ;) there are many more mags and many more developer companies.
FidliousWong @ Jan 9th 2008 12:54PM
I think the bigger issue is in the fact that despite EGM being on the Creed hype wagon the entire time, they dolled out a 4.5, 6.0, and 7.0. This is well below the curve of Creed reviews.
copa @ Jan 9th 2008 1:04PM
No, fidlious, the fact that EGM gave Assassin's Creed lower review scores is not a bigger issue than publisher blackballing.
Assassin's Creed is a divisive game. Some people genuinely loved it, and some people genuinely detested it. You can see this in how defensive Penny Arcade was in their praise for the game.
You are suggesting that it was unethical for EGM to give out low review scores if they didn't like the game.
You are suggesting that it would have been much more ethical for EGM to average out what other media outlets were giving the game, and replace their score with that one instead of giving their own opinion.
That's pathetic.
paragraph @ Jan 9th 2008 1:19PM
copa
what i'm saying is that all parties involved are acting like children.
The Publishers for getting pissed at EGM for getting a bad review.
EGM For getting pissed at the Publishers for the above.
When your job is to critique things, you can't expect everyone to be happy with the result. No producer, be it game, movie, or audio, sets out to make something that ranks a 5 out of 10, they expect a 10 out of everything, otherwise why would they bother making the product in the first place?
EGM isn't at fault, they gave a fair review, and thats all you can ask of them.
I guess what i originally said was a bit misleading, but EGM playing dumb dosn't fly with me, they know why they publishers are mad at them, and they should take thier medicine.
copa @ Jan 9th 2008 1:37PM
"EGM playing dumb doesn't fly with me"
Where, exactly, is EGM playing dumb? In other editorials, Shoe has consistently explained that this is common practice. In this editorial, he documents such practices going back for a year.
He doesn't sounds terribly naive or surprised to me.
It is completely legal for a publisher to blackball a gaming magazine because they didn't like the coverage. But they shouldn't have any expectation of anonymity when they do so, and they should not be surprised if some of their customers object to this practice.
FidliousWong @ Jan 9th 2008 2:19PM
So, Copa... you don't find it the least unsettling that not a single bad word was said about Assassin's Creed until E3? When E3 rolled around, they did a paragraph of "we're cautiously optimistic" and then jumped right back on the hype wagon. Assassin's Creed could do no wrong. And then, blammo.... it's a piece of shit. No warning to the readers, no warning to the developers. Just all the sudden a complete 180.
To me, that's the bigger issue. Why the game could do no wrong suddenly did everything wrong. And this coming from the same magazine that had their lips firmly pursed around some Crackdown dick which was much more repetitive and pointless than Creed.
It's a fact of the matter that EGM was every bit a part of the Creed hype machine all the way until they snapped back at it. I could understand the sudden reviews if they actually toned down the hype post E3 when they expressed concern, in small print, in a sidebar, below a small image of Altair, towards the very back of their E3 coverage (you'd think they were trying to HIDE this blurp), but they didn't.
And so for a full year and a half, EGM did everything in their power to convince you that Assassin's Creed was a good game, just to pull a bait and switch.
copa @ Jan 9th 2008 3:07PM
"You don't find it the least unsettling that not a single bad word was said about Assassin's Creed until E3?"
Of course not. Assassin's Creed has a mesmerizing art direction and a great deal of potential. I was very excited about the game before E3. If you are suggesting people shouldn't provide preview impressions of a game before they get final playable builds, I disagree.
The only thing that would disturb me is if EGM witheld a bad review after the game was released so that consumers had access to the positive previews but not the negative reviews.
It has been documented that Gamespot had a policy that games that get 9.0 or above get their reviews released early, while poorly reviewed games have their reviews released days after the game is already on shelves. THAT is unsettling.
You also seem to have trouble understanding that there is more than one editorial voice at the 1UP network. The EGM reviewer who gave it a 4.5 is probably not the same guy who gave a positive hands-on preview report. On the 1UP Yours Podcast, there were editors that were extremely critical (and complementary) of Assassin's Creed, before and after its release.
This idea that Ubisoft is somehow a victim here is ludicrous. It sounds like whining.
Carlos @ Jan 9th 2008 12:38PM
Ubisoft's incident happened recently, but the Mortal Kombat thing and the Sony Sports' division happened some time ago, a year ago or something like that.
Antonio @ Jan 9th 2008 12:39PM
EGM seems to get on the soapbox about not bending to publishers quit a bit. I guess they're true to their word (although it's basically impossible to verify), and I'm glad they're calling out the guilty parties.
Giddieon @ Jan 9th 2008 12:46PM
This is great... Yeah for EGM... I hate that Publishers try to strong arm companies into better reviews...
Want a better review make a better game and not rush it to the market so you can get the holiday rush...
AC could have baked in the oven another 6 months... but Ubisofts foaming at the mouth for Holiday dollars is the problem not EGM...
xFenixKnightx @ Jan 9th 2008 12:47PM
So theres a new Mortal Kambat in developement??
w00t!!!
KushielsScion007 @ Jan 9th 2008 12:58PM
Agreed...
I cannot wait
A Pissed-off English Gamer @ Jan 9th 2008 1:01PM
Yay, more mindless blood, non-sensical plot-twists and a poorly balanced game! I can't wait either!
xFenixKnightx @ Jan 9th 2008 1:24PM
@ A Pissed-off English Gamer
Piss off, will ya?
The MK series is and will always be one of the best fighting franchises out there. Dumbfuck!
Crono (NDF - Knight of the Old School) @ Jan 9th 2008 2:12PM
@Fenix
LOL
That is all.
xFenixKnightx @ Jan 9th 2008 2:31PM
@ Crono
Thank you good sir.
samfish @ Jan 9th 2008 3:19PM
The Mortal Kombat games have been completely unplayable trash since 5. MK3 and MK4 were only decent games, but they seem awesome compared to more recent outings.
And Armageddon is the absolute worst one yet.
Crono (NDF - Knight of the Old School) @ Jan 9th 2008 4:02PM
No, see, I was laughing AT you because you think mortal combat is good, even though its been total trash since before arcades died in the US.
WiNG @ Jan 9th 2008 4:40PM
LOL @ xFenixKnightx for thinking someone agreed with him.
And CONFIRMED: All of xFenixKnightx's writing is copy/pasted directly from No More Heroes. FUCKHEAD!
Also CONFIRMED: tagging your name in extra symbols FTL.
Sincerely,
-=xXxWiNGxXx=-
Jansperus @ Jan 9th 2008 5:56PM
I remember a long time ago EGM gave a poor review to Super Street Fighter 2. As a result, Capcom pulled all their ads from the magazine, so EGM publicly called them out in their magazine.
It's good to see EGM still has it in them, and by it, I mean BALLS!
MegaSnort @ Jan 9th 2008 5:48PM
MK was only popular when fatalities were still new and cutting edge. They have all had crappy gameplay, plots, characters and balance. Playing a 2D fighting game on the DS by Treasure thats lightyears beyond any next gen installment of this tired and beaten old fighting series.
Nekura @ Jan 9th 2008 1:06PM
I sympathize with their problem, but the lag between when they write reviews and when the magazine ends up in the hands of reader is going to kill them. (Most print magazines have a 2 - 4 month lead time.)
In that same amount of time, I could have received a copy from GameFly, tried it out first hand, and mailed it back. I'm to the point now where I don't even read reviews unless there are a ton of really good titles coming out all at once and I'm trying to prioritize. It costs me nothing to try out a game that sounds like it might be fun, even it goes back the day I get it. (Star Trek: Legacy - I'm looking at you...)
Of course, it also means I'm not *buying* games anymore, either. Instead of seeing a rock-solid review in EGM and then buying the game on release day, I rent. In the few minor cases where I know I'm going to play the game over and over again (Orange Box, Halo 3), I just click the "Keep It" button and it's mine.
I moved to this method of playing because I couldn't trust reviewers any longer to give me the straight story. If I believed a bogus review, I was out $60. Now, I pay about $35 a month and always have 3 brand-new games on tap with more coming whenever I am ready.
Worst Review Ever @ Jan 9th 2008 1:08PM
Hsu does have something of a history with calling companies out on their bullcrap. Remember his interview with Peter Moore after the 360 launched?
Wilson @ Jan 9th 2008 1:15PM
You mean this:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/01/20
This is a good trend, game media should say the things they really think without having to ask permission to speak to anyone.
Crono (NDF - Knight of the Old School) @ Jan 9th 2008 2:14PM
Best interview I've ever read in a gaming mag.
G @ Jan 9th 2008 1:17PM
Interesting timing for this editorial isn't it?
This issue would have been in production right around the time Gamespot was in a lot of hot water, deserved or not, for allegedly bowing to publishers.
What better time to milk gamers emotions to gain some extra credibility points against the competition?
Yay, we're independent! Screw you, developers! Stand back, gamers, and watch us be all, like, renegades of the industry and stuff. We stand ALONE! Don't nobody mess with us!
dave @ Jan 9th 2008 1:20PM
I found Crispin Boyer's 4.5 review of Assassin's Creed a bit harsh. After reading it i thought "man. . . what did ubisoft do to him to deserve this score?" It reeked of spite.
The 6.0 and 7.0 review seemed in line. . . the 4.5?
LaughingTarget @ Jan 9th 2008 4:45PM
How is it spiteful? I hated the game, the most repetetive and unimaginative game of 2007. Climb a building, save a woman or priest that says the same line every time, kill a couple of guards with a retardedly easy combat system, stab some guy, listen to his lame monologue, run around a corner and sit on a bench because the guards are too stupid to notice the guy ina white cloak with a sword, rinse, repeat. The 4.5 was more than warranted.