EGM editor Dan Hsu talks about 'blackball' editorial

by Ross Miller { Jan 11th 2008 at 8:00PM }

Earlier this week we saw an editorial from Electronic Gaming Monthly Editor-in-chief Dan "Shoe" Hsu calling out Sony's sport division, the Mortal Kombat team and Ubisoft for purportedly blackballing the magazine. GameDaily's Media Coverage feature, written by Joystiq's Kyle Orland, talks with Hsu about the editorial to extract more insight into his decision to publish the editorial.

Hsu clarifies that these incidents are not common, despite the perception one might get from all the media around it. In talking about Ubisoft specifically, Hsu points out two previews for Assassin's Creed, which discussed worrisome design flaws. He also notes that Capcom had at one point in the magazine's history pulled support and have since become a prominent advertiser again.

Our favorite line comes at the end of the piece. Said Hsu, "I'd drag EGM down with me or quit before we compromise our integrity." You hear that, EGM writers who value paychecks over integrity? Get out while you still can!

Tags: assassins-creed, blackball, dan-hsu, egm, electronic-gaming-monthly, hsu, journalism, midway, mortal-kombat, sony, ubisoft

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

reductant @ Jan 11th 2008 8:06PM

Does that rhetorical question make sense? It's been a long day.

reductant @ Jan 11th 2008 8:08PM

Oh, wait, sorry, I get it, you're addressing those EGM editors.

LegendarySyko @ Jan 11th 2008 8:10PM

Im glad Dan stands up for integrity. Ive been a long time EGM subscriber, and an still glad I am.

Kangstarr @ Jan 11th 2008 9:47PM

I also appreciate Dan standing up for his integrity but i'm not feeling that Playgirl pose he's striking. Come on Joystiq...you couldn't find a less disturbing image of the Hsu?!

Kangstarr @ Jan 11th 2008 9:52PM

I also appreciate Dan standing up for his integrity but i'm not feeling that Playgirl pose he's striking. Come on Joystiq...you couldn't find a less disturbing image of the Hsu?!

Gohan @ Jan 11th 2008 8:18PM

i don't trust you Dan Hsu and he is the one who make that trouble he talked some times like not is against Sony for example and didn't say good point i didn't forget when he say " Kill Zone 2 Worst AI and HALO 3 is The best"
where did he see Kill Zone 2 to make that decide?!

Jon @ Jan 11th 2008 8:21PM

Money hat perhaps? I don't know. Someone with more knowledge should fill us in.

Fox318 @ Jan 11th 2008 8:27PM

Never type while intoxicated again.

Deck @ Jan 11th 2008 8:37PM

I second that, Fox318.

Gohan @ Jan 11th 2008 8:39PM

@Jon if you are talking where did they say that you can see in http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=8366927&publicUserId=5379799

@Fox318 sorry for my bad English i just was saying i never see say good point for Sony always against it i heard before too UT3 you have to play on PC it will be not good on ps3 before it release but thats was not true as well

i_hate_mtv @ Jan 12th 2008 8:34PM

2 words....GRAMMAR LESSONS!

Rob Accomando @ Jan 11th 2008 8:39PM

someone tell Dan he's wearing a 12 years old girls t-shirt.

Tiptup300 @ Jan 11th 2008 9:10PM

I actually thought it was a Kevlar vest, now it just looks wrong.

mafafu @ Jan 11th 2008 8:41PM

Hsu reminds me of all the baseball players denying vehemently they never took steroids. Then we find out they did. Dan doth protest too much about not bowing to publisher desires. One of EGM's reviewers gave Assassin's Creed a 4.5 (the other two gave it a 7.0 & 6.0), which is probably one reason for Ubisoft's anger.

Knight Marquise @ Jan 11th 2008 9:20PM

I hate to say it, but I agree that Assasins Creed deserved that 4.5. I was extremely excited about that game, and still, for the life of me, don't care for it. Initially the reviews surprised me, but hell, I enjoyed other poorly rated games, such as N3, Two Worlds, & Bullet Witch, so figured AC couldn't be that bad.

AC just doesn't "hook" me. The game is gorgeous, but graphics alone don't make a game fun, IMHO.

SoxFan13 @ Jan 12th 2008 10:05AM

Oh yeah, it's crazy that 3 different people would have 3 different opinions of the game. There are really varied opinions of this game all over the internet. Why is it wierd that 3 editors have such varied opinions then? Wouldn't it be more suspicious if they all had the exact same score?

mafafu @ Jan 12th 2008 10:26AM

I wasn't saying the 3 different scores were suspicious. Just added them for the sake of full disclosure. I thought it was one of the best games of the year. It's getting burned for being repetitive and having a cliffhanger. Same crap was said about Halo 2 yet it got 10s all around. My main point is that EGM is not the bastion of impartiality it claims to be.

Psyclerk @ Jan 11th 2008 8:50PM

One must have integrity before it can be compromised. Hsu does one thing well...he can agitate the Angry Nerd faction into making a lot of noise for EGM. Controversy means more people reading that poor excuse of a magazine, and that means more money for them. Well played. The magazine is still awful, but well played nonetheless.

WLT @ Jan 11th 2008 8:51PM

I like Hsu's opinion on the companies attempts to make EGM give them favorable reviews. After 13 years, I still favor EGM over any other videogame magazines.
Have you ever read Game Informer? There's so much brown nosing in each issue, it's not even worth getting a free subscription when you go to GameStop.

I think the score they gave Assassin's Creed was just. The control scheme was great but the sword fighting was disappointing and the AI was pretty damn stupid.

tmacairjordan87 @ Jan 11th 2008 9:19PM

while i'm a supporter of egm as a whole, I dont believe that they're entirely bias free or corrupt-free. That is, unless Hsu can give me a convincing reason how halo 3 can be tremendously weak in one aspect and strong in another and that somehow equates to a perfect 10. The fact that he was already a hardcore halo fan wouldn't have even a little to do with it...right?

MasterInsan0 @ Jan 11th 2008 9:35PM

There's a big difference between "I really liked this game so I give it a perfect 10" and "I'm getting paid a lot of money so I give it a perfect 10".

tmacairjordan87 @ Jan 11th 2008 9:39PM

but how does that explain him admitting the single player is really flawed and giving it a perfect score? How can half a game be perfect? It would be one thing if it was multiplayer only but it's not and most reviewers agree the campaign is really weak and flawed.

Hell if he had given it a 9 with those reasons I wouldn't have a problem. It mostly speaks to the problems with the review systems in every place

Mr Khan @ Jan 11th 2008 11:18PM

This is another argument that's been beaten to death in the big Metareview posts. 10/10 != A perfect game. Games are not like multiple-choice tests

Boostjunkie @ Jan 12th 2008 9:59AM

If his opinion was the game was a 10, that's fine. Perhaps he thought the multiplayer was so strong that even without the single player the game would still be a 10, so he gave it that. Who knows. But the problem is when a review score is changed because of outside pressure on a reviewer, and not just their opinion, which they have a right too. Remember a review is not a score average, it's one guys opinion.

Juan Valdez Sputnik @ Jan 11th 2008 9:38PM

I'm glad he spilled the beans and named names. In retaliation, I will not buy anything from those companies anymore and add them to my dangerous black list. Game-reviews cred has been in the latrine for years because of companies like the ones whistle blowed by "Dan" Shu Hsu, making game reviewers deceive the gaming populace with high scores for run of the mill cookie-cutter games or they loose advertising $$. A product of such deceitful manipulation is that anyone doing serious research on a title must read about fifteen reviews to try to read between the lines, compare and dissect disparities between reviews and arrive at a purchasing decision. All courtesy of companies like the ones mentioned on the article. For years these shady companies have been trying to manipulate the genre and psychologically train gamers to not expect much in the form of progression and/or expansion when buying/upgrading games...( this moment's exhibit 'A' is brought to you by...=EA) . And we arrive here on brand new 2008, in the 21st century, on the outer edge of the Milky Way galaxy, where a fact of life is that game publishers dial-a-great review or heads roll, games are more expensive and generally shorter. So Who's getting played here? You decide...

Juan Valdez Sputnik @ Jan 12th 2008 10:47PM

Ohh!, and somebody please mail "Dan" Shu Hsu a beige t-shirt with upper body muscles painted on it for him to don on future photo ops.

Craig R. @ Jan 11th 2008 9:50PM

I have to applaud Dan Shoe for taking a stance against the BIG companies like Ubisoft and MK team!! If a game sucks then the reviewers should say it sucks. A perfect example of this is Sean Bentenhusen of EGM, he is such a Sony fanboy that the guy goes to great lengths to turn a 5.0 PS3 game into a 8.5 just so he keeps getting his PS3 games for FREE!!! I think that Shoe is a pioneer in his feild and again I support him. Unfortunately money talks and you know the rest. Not everyone on the EGM staff is as honorable!!! Way to go dan!!

Doctor T. + Women @ Jan 12th 2008 3:29AM

Wait. So...did the MK guys not know that the games have been garbage over the past 10 years? Like...not at all? I mean, I can see them having never played one, because a testing department might have cleared some of it up, but it's GOT to be hard to ignore...

RealTerry @ Jan 11th 2008 11:09PM

Don't talk so loud,my integrity hates loud noises.

jonawllen @ Jan 11th 2008 11:15PM

Isn't this just EGM stepping into the reviewer integrity drama? There are probably several videogame sites that expierence their issues with advertisers that they can resolve, I don't think EGM needs to be patting themselves on the back for doing what is expected as the minimum standard of journalism.

Mr Khan @ Jan 11th 2008 11:19PM

Such is the sad state of gaming journalism, getting praise for meeting minimum expectations

Not that i don't support gaming journalism, mind, but you have to admit...

Roto13 @ Jan 12th 2008 12:20PM

I think there needs to be a lot more calling out like this. Maybe if other websites and magazines were more vocal when companies did this kind of thing, they'd stop getting away with it.

carg0 @ Jan 11th 2008 11:32PM

"You hear that, EGM writers who value paychecks over integrity? Get out while you still can!"

oh they already have, didn't you hear? they're working at Cnet now...

Clack @ Jan 12th 2008 12:01AM

I was a subscriber back when the Capcom incident happened. It was 93-94, somewhere around there, when EGM had the nerve to rate Super Duper Hyper Street Fighter II the Geriatric Turbo AADD Champion Challengers Edition a mere 7.5 or so.

Capcom threw a hissy and threatened to pull their advertising, EGM called them out on it in the editorial. I didn't support Capcom for quite some time over that.

jrhawk42 @ Jan 12th 2008 2:10AM

There's an unwritten rule in game journalism that you don't talk negative about a game until it's released. I'm not sure all game journalist understand this, but I can tell you that all game developers, and publishers do.

"Why can't game journalist talk negative about a unreleased game?"

This is sort of a benefit of the doubt area. Most games are pretty much the same a few months from release, and don't see too many dramatic changes. Rarely though you do have games that just click right at the end, or some minor tweak turns everything around at the end of production. As a means of respect game journalist should give the company the benefit of the doubt. Integrity or not you don't complain to the chef until your foods finished cooking.

BorgDroNeZ @ Jan 12th 2008 3:49AM

I don't think this is a big idea at all. EGM is far inferior when compared to other cross platform mags, Game Informer especially.

Feanor @ Jan 12th 2008 9:04AM

"There's an unwritten rule in game journalism that you don't talk negative about a game until it's released."

Only bad and corrupt journalists would follow a ridiculous rule like that.

DiRT @ Jan 12th 2008 10:16AM

Kyle said: "give opinions on them without bias".

Aren't opinions biased? After all, they aren't fact.

Sorry Kyle.

FAIL

again

Zsavior @ Jan 12th 2008 10:43AM

I enjoy this so very much, the legacy of Gertzman is alive and strong. Never mind the companies might have the right idea never mind HSU is the only one I hear talking it doesn't matter because the media and the net has already deemed him journalisms champion. All just another reason you can't trust media anywhere. The fact that gamers believes this happens only in gaming is mystifying, the only difference is we are giving them praise like a parent with a toddler who just crapped in the toilet for the first time.

I have read EGM the massive spreads given, to certain games, the verifying of games that will be good before they come out, but hey HSU named names, lets ignore what we actually see in the mag. All in all I would like to shake this man's hand, most journalist would have shook this off told their people get back to work and explain this changes nothing. Mr Hsu saw good publicity where it was needed and ran with it, like a cat with its behead prey meowing proudly on its masters bed he held his head high receiving the praise due to a man of his integrity.

mike @ Jan 12th 2008 11:27AM

I stopped visiting gamespot because of the gertzman controversy. Integrity is important in game reviews. I can goto the game developers website for information, but I know I will read nothing but high praise for their game. I want honesty based upon similar criteria you use to review all your games. Dan "Shoe" Hsu, thanks for blogging about your current run in with these companies, and for pledging to keep integrity above all in your game review, because of that, I will use your site for game information...