Variety discusses ethics of 'exclusive' reviews

by Alexander Sliwinski { Apr 28th 2008 at 7:30PM }

Sometimes it's interesting to see the industry through fresh eyes again. Variety has an editorial up about the "ethically troubling" industry standard of exclusive reviews. The editorial specifically discusses IGN's GTA IV "exclusive," as the review site didn't get a "scoop" by finding some early copy of the game and posting a review, but by being given permission by Rockstar to break embargo. Every other outlet had to wait until this past Sunday.

The Variety writer states that he doesn't personally trust any review labeled "exclusive," pointing out "reviews are entirely subjective, so if a critic is being influenced inappropriately in any way, the whole thing is worthless even though we as readers can't prove there's anything 'wrong.'" The piece concludes by saying that any self-respecting publication with a GTA IV review should have run it the minute IGN released its review. It's a lovely thought, but the last thing any review outlet wants is a reputation with PR firms for breaking embargo. In a worst case scenario, if any of these outlets signed legally binding non-disclosure agreements for these reviews, they'd have to face the possibility of being sued.

Tags: grand-theft-auto-iv, grandtheftautoiv, gta-iv, gtaiv, ign, variety

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)

cold school @ Apr 28th 2008 7:38PM

IGN compromising its journalistic integrity for an exclusive ??

I do believe Ive caught the vapors....

Benny @ Apr 28th 2008 7:48PM

It's ridiculous, isn't it? Next thing you know we'll be told that Gamespot whores itself out to advertisers.

cold school @ Apr 28th 2008 7:53PM

Not Gamespot! Noooooooooo!

Next thing you know some retailer will be getting payola to pimp failing franchises.......

Anonim @ Apr 28th 2008 9:14PM

They weren't hiding anything?
Like 1120x630 ?
No? Good... ;)

D_Average @ Apr 28th 2008 9:24PM

Back in 99 Gamespot said this about GTA 2:

"The graphics have been redone, the music is different, there is a slew of new weapons, the mission structure is a bit more complex, and the city feels a bit more alive. But at its core, GTA2 is the same old game. 68/100"

I wonder what score they'll give this time around.

cold school @ Apr 29th 2008 11:46AM

Hey, whered Fernandos pointless remarks go?

Obie @ Apr 28th 2008 7:41PM

I like IGN, but the moment their "exclusive" review went up, I took it with a big dino sized grain of salt.
But who in their right mind only trusts the review from a single site? Look at what the other guys have to say and then make up your mind!

Ridgecity @ Apr 28th 2008 8:19PM

Actually who trust reviews anymore? I only trust word of mouth anymore. Many of these reviews are so "pleasing" with the game companies many are invited to work for them after a couple years...

Look at Matt Cassamassina and how he used to get all this exclusive Nintendo info, once Perry Kaplan was gone, he got the door shut in his face, no more exclusives, no more insider, and he always said his wife was his mole, sure like everyone and the janitor knows what Nintendo is developing...

Ridgecity @ Apr 28th 2008 8:24PM

"Why is that most automatically think a 10 means it's the best thing ever made? Many reviewers have stated multiple times that a 10 represents an excellent game that pushes boundaries, not a perfect game because a perfect game will never be made, yada, yada, yada."

That's why there's the number 9. the number 10 has been used to qualify something as excellent, not 11. anything less than perfect is a 9, no matter how these guys explain otherwise to not be considered ASSKISSERS.

Mr Khan @ Apr 28th 2008 9:10PM

100s are bandied about so readily because the review system is traditionally top-heavy, because reviews tend to work on a system like a grade scale, in a world where anything below 60 means "absolute shit, avoid at all costs" and there are apparently 59 degrees of that, but only 40 degrees of "acceptable," you are going to find a disproportionate number of 100s

now, if they adjusted to a more even scale, where 20% and below represented the "absolute shit, avoid at all costs" zone, then at the higher end you could see varying degrees of awesome, and the degrees that would separate GTAIV's 100 from Halo 3's 100 from Super Mario Galaxy's 100

LaughingTarget @ Apr 28th 2008 7:44PM

When you get an exclusive review of one of the biggest games of the year (if not the biggest) and immediately put a 10 for the final score, something immediately smells rotten.

Benny @ Apr 28th 2008 7:50PM

But everyone else put a 10 on it too?

The exclusivity does seem fishy, but when you look at it in context the score isn't so off-putting.

LaughingTarget @ Apr 28th 2008 7:50PM

Clarification - This is no way is an attack on GTA4. Getting it tomorrow and will vanish into the game for at least 4 hours that day (24 hours minus sleep, minus work, minus gym, minus social obligations = 4 hours).

LaughingTarget @ Apr 28th 2008 7:51PM

I've seen plenty of 10s handed out over the years. Mario Galaxy was one. Excellent game, but no where near the best thing ever made, which is what a 10 stands for.

Taco_Hell @ Apr 28th 2008 8:18PM

Why is that most automatically think a 10 means it's the best thing ever made? Many reviewers have stated multiple times that a 10 represents an excellent game that pushes boundaries, not a perfect game because a perfect game will never be made, yada, yada, yada. I'm sure you've heard all of this before, or someone before me may reply to tell you that. I just don't see why people put so much value into the score rather then the review itself.

Ridgecity @ Apr 28th 2008 8:25PM

(the reply went to the wrong place)

"Why is that most automatically think a 10 means it's the best thing ever made? Many reviewers have stated multiple times that a 10 represents an excellent game that pushes boundaries, not a perfect game because a perfect game will never be made, yada, yada, yada."

That's why there's the number 9. the number 10 has been used to qualify something as excellent, not 11. anything less than perfect is a 9, no matter how these guys explain otherwise to not be considered ASSKISSERS.

Benny @ Apr 28th 2008 8:28PM

But then you have a system that is essentially only going to work on a scale of 1-9. What's the point of a 10 if you can never reach it?

Kodros @ Apr 28th 2008 9:09PM

So if Ebert gives a movie Two Thumbs up, does that mean it's a perfect movie?

Mr Khan @ Apr 28th 2008 9:12PM

damn, my reply went to the wrong place too

It's that fucking black page ad, it's very disorienting

GRANTED @ Apr 28th 2008 11:14PM

I have only 2 ratings for games:

Play, and Don't Play. 0 and 10, if you go by the IGN scale. GTA4 is a 10, go ahead and enjoy it.

Who cares if a game is a 9 vs a 10. From the sound of it, both deserve to be played. Who cares if one is rated one point higher?

voodoo_craig @ Apr 28th 2008 7:56PM

And it just goes to show how messed up Gamespot is right now, they still haven't managed to post a review.

required @ Apr 28th 2008 8:00PM

"reviews are entirely subjective"

end of story

Mike @ Apr 29th 2008 11:07AM

amen

Monterey @ Apr 28th 2008 8:01PM

Actually, LaughingTarget, if you read the review, you would see that a 10 does NOT mean that it is the best thing ever made. To quote IGN - "it means a game is pushing boundaries, expanding a genre, and doing many things to a level so far above and beyond its competitors that they overshadows any flaws."

My concern is with the pandering, scaredy-cat way games journalism acts towards developers.

Zoot Suit Jedi @ Apr 28th 2008 8:02PM

That's why I usually wait for the Metacritic to get at least 6 or more reviews. 'Cept for this sombitch. I'll have mine @12:01AM.

KoKroach @ Apr 28th 2008 8:11PM

It must be a justified score, almost everyone has rated GTA a 10, who cares if ign got paid off to agree with the masses?

UltimateQ @ Apr 28th 2008 8:14PM

I hope all of the discs self destruct at 12:01

Taco_Hell @ Apr 28th 2008 8:19PM

Well, if that does happen, I can already see all the people who will either A)commit suicide, or B)hunt you down for jinxing it for the rest of us.

jynxycat @ Apr 28th 2008 8:25PM

Clearly all 15 or so outlets that gave it a 10/10 are also paid off.

Clearly.

Ridgecity @ Apr 28th 2008 8:31PM

Not really, I don't think IGN gets paid off, but I find strange how Rockstar would block everyone with an embargo from putting a review and only allowing them to do it. Something got agreed under the table. Maybe ad discounts or marketing like that...

And I think a good example of a perfect 10 would be that picture you got there... is that you? you are one sexy cat!

Psaakyrn @ Apr 28th 2008 8:40PM

It could very well be the other way round: IGN paying rockstar instead.

Mr Khan @ Apr 28th 2008 9:22PM

Hey, maybe this is how TakeTwo is spending the rest of GTAIV's advertising budget: Pay off 15 review outlets

;)

marvin69 @ Apr 28th 2008 8:28PM

Happens all the time with car, TV audio, movies, TV, and other 'hobby' or specialty mags/sites. They all have 'exclusive' reviews/previews.

Move on nothing to see here.

Jose42 @ Apr 28th 2008 8:43PM

Wouldn't it be nice if we could trust the industry we love? I know that there's payola in most entertainment industries, but video games are supposed to be different. I always have to remind myself that dork solidarity really doesn't go that deep. *sigh*

Mr Khan @ Apr 28th 2008 9:25PM

That's what comes from a legitimized, mainstream gaming industry

Although considering corporate greed in the industry extends as far back as Atari's oppressive tactics that inspired Activision to take wing as a bastion of freedom in the industry (time makes fools of us all)

GMonkey @ Apr 28th 2008 8:47PM

Considering "professional" gaming journalists are usually the first ones to fall for massive PR hype, I don't see why the hell any game publisher would bother with awarding "exclusives" to get a game better reviews.

The press has already decided long ago that GTAIV would be considered a good game. The same thing has happened before with Bioware's, Bethesda's, and Blizzard's games, to give a few examples.

Yourself @ Apr 28th 2008 8:51PM

The fault in this logic is that BioWare, Bethesda, and Blizzard are some of the most reliably good developers currently in the market. Their games are incredible and deserve all the hype and accolades that they get. Just in general, I'd say 7/10 games are hyped -for a reason-, so why is it so shocking to everyone that in the end they score well?

GMonkey @ Apr 29th 2008 3:40AM

At best, I'd say Bioware's and Blizzard's games are competent. Incredible they are not. Bioware, for example has been doing the same schtick for the past 6 or 7 years. Despite the fact that their games are always the same thing with little or no innovation in their games, and sometimes even steps back in their design, their efforts are still hailed as these supposedly beautiful, innovative pieces of gaming.

As for Bethesda, to give the obvious example of Oblivion, it had retarded AI that was not what was promised to be, three voice actors for a cast of 100s of characters, superficial combat, a shallow world of fetch quests, and an enemy leveling up system that effectively broke the gameplay. However most, if not all, of the game's reviews failed to even mention all these glaring faults, and instead gave us such blanket statements as "Bethesda's much-anticipated fantasy action RPG Oblivion is every bit the game it promised to be" or "The most captivating first-person role-playing game yet" or even "The scale the game's open-ended world is unprecedented" which is a blatant lie.

Raikage (LDF CRAB BATTLE!!!) @ Apr 29th 2008 4:35AM

You must be playing the Virtual Boy Oblivion... Not the one that was GOTY 2005.

Yourself @ Apr 28th 2008 8:49PM

The key to understanding and being able to trust reviews is knowing the source. IGN has, I believe, given out two 10s in the past decade (now three, with GTA). I understand GTAIV is one of the biggest, most hyped games of said decade, but if IGN were willing to sell 10s for insider information, wouldn't we expect to see them a whole lot more. Now Gamepro, that's a different story. If I had a nickel for every time they gave a perfect score...

I for one put a lot of weight in reviews when I'm buying games. A game is very rarely a lock for me until I've read through its Metacritic (not just the numbers, the words too) and I've found this very rarely betrays me. I really don't know who all you people are that say game reviews are 100% untrustworthy and a "crock", because if they were, how would it be such a thriving business?

ThePremierAssassin @ Apr 28th 2008 8:57PM

IGN was shit to begin with...this just confirms how low they've become.

Seriously I love GTA and I'm sure IV will be fun and all but I doubt its a 10. Thats just my personal opinion.

Cesaria (MKW:2621-2994-1376) @ Apr 28th 2008 9:34PM

I said almost the same thing on a different article and people tore me to shreds. Good luck. :p

Kyouryuu @ Apr 28th 2008 9:54PM

Something I thought was amusingly hilarious was how they took action to block every YouTube video simulcast of their review. Dozens were posted, dozens were removed on a claim of copyright.

As if IGN has some kind of reputation to protect...

Sir Fidlious Wong (Zeon Defense Force) @ Apr 28th 2008 10:35PM

IGN has ad revenue and hits to protect. Is this really that hard to understand? If people are seeing the review at YouTube rather than IGN, wouldn't those people SEEING those reviews be stat numbers for YouTube rather than IGN? Ad Revenue is often determined by the number of hits one receives. If they spent good money securing that exclusive, what kind of sense does it make to have those hits elsewhere?

Judd @ Apr 28th 2008 10:32PM

Many of you guys are missing the point.

It doesn't matter whether Grand Theft Auto IV deserves a perfect 10 or not. It doesn't even matter if IGN took money from Rockstar.

This is unethical journalism. It's as simple as that. As a journalism major, this is a perfect example of taking gifts from those that you are supposed to be objective about. If a newspaper gets a package of food from a politician, even if the politician doesn't explicitly say "I'm giving you this in exchange for you promoting me" it's still unethical.

Go ahead, ask Joystiq. Why do you think they have all these giveaways? Companies send them things, and even if they don't ask for anything in return. At least Joystiq does the ethical thing and doesn't keep the prizes themselves, and hands it out to their audience. But in the process of giving away this 'Joyswag' they still get in a few words of praise for the company. Look at this praise for Ikaruga:

"Treasure's Ikaruga holds a special place in our hearts. If you're like some of us on the Joystiq crew, today's Xbox Live Arcade release will be the third time you pick up this classic shooter. At only 800 Microsoft Points ($10), this HD re-release is quite a bargain -- but, thanks to Microsoft, we're able to give three Joystiq readers a free download of the game."

This is still not too bad, because at least Joystiq doesn't review these titles. But even IGN doesn't directly get any money from Rockstar, they still are getting web traffic because of the exclusive review. Web traffic=more money. Even if other forms of media do it, it's still wrong.

Cyro @ Apr 29th 2008 10:57AM

I like the way you think. I believe you are correct sir on every point in your post.

Sir Fidlious Wong (Zeon Defense Force) @ Apr 28th 2008 10:49PM

Frankly, don't understand the debate. Right now, the same gamers that are crying foul about the 10s were the very same people who were crying out for blood over the 8.8 on Zelda. As for exclusives, every other media does this, why can't games?

As for complaining about the number, who cares? The numbers are excessively uninformative unless you're running averages. Frankly, I find out more about a game from a bad review than, more often than not, a good review.