#NewGamesJournalism: Lauren Wainwright sacked.

But isn't "Ubisoft offered us Nexus tablets weeks before the launch of title they need to do well" a story worth running?

A ready-made headline that seemed to pass a lot of these reporters by. Pretending it didn't happen because you don't want to create a fuss seems...odd, which is what I think Sykes is getting at.

You don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Rudderless, you seem to be focusing largely on the integrity and honesty of the journalists, and how they acted in a proper manner by handing the tablets back or donated them with minimum fuss.

Which is all well and good for their personal integrity. But do you not think that it would have been a boost for gaming journalism as a whole if they had revealed themselves what Ubisoft had done? Don't you think, after the 12 months the business has had, that such a practice isn't something that should be kept quiet anymore?

That maybe, what Ubisoft did should no longer be treated as acceptable and made widespread public knowledge?

That maybe the best way to deal with this isn't the softly, softly, quiet way of just brushing those free gifts under the table. That donating them may preserve personal integrity but dampens the credibility of the industry as a whole. That practices like this deserve a fuss created over them, if we are ever going to get to the point where publishers think it is not okay. What it needs is negative press on behalf of those publishers not a few journos quietly donating the tablet to charity and wanting the whole thing to blow over.

Now, the way the news has slipped out has invariable damaged honest journos, where it could have been revealed in a much better way. This way unfortunately leads some to not look upon them in a favourable light.

The bottom line is, I think that games journalists should speak out more when something like this happens. The widespread condemnation still seems to emanate from those outside of the gift circle, or from industry observers and fans like us.

Stories like this, unfortunately, when handled in such a way, seem to rankle and create an "them and us" mentality. Not helped by the fact this just slips out by those outside the story itself, which leads some to then ask questions of the journalists who acted with honest intentions.

In short, such practices need to stop. And if it can't be the journalists at such events who receive these gifts, then it needs to be others who challenge it. Unfortunately, when these "others" get to the story first, then the journalists invariably come off worse. Much worse than if they had released the story themselves on their own terms. In a way, by not doing that, they unfortunately lead others to draw unfavourable conclusions.

I don't really trust journalists in the 'inner circle' any more. Amateur reviewers, basically just normal games who like to write or post videos and never actually tried to make a career, are far more reliable if less knowledgeable. Early access previews, which only ever go to journos who a good record for that publisher, are always best taken with a big heaping pile of salt.

My problem with this is why didn't this come out straight away as soon as it happened? The review event was last week! It just seems like the journos have now been caught out and are jumping on the bandwagon of giving the tablet away to try and save their own reputation.

Kanbei » Tue Apr 15, 2014 9:36 pm wrote:My problem with this is why didn't this come out straight away as soon as it happened? The review event was last week! It just seems like the journos have now been caught out and are jumping on the bandwagon of giving the tablet away to try and save their own reputation.

No, in at least one case the tablet had already been given away.

The problem with reporting stuff like this is that people automatically leap to conclusions. It's not about wanting to brush it under the carpet so much as not wanting to stir up another shitstorm.

Quite apart from that, in most cases the person who covered the preview event won't be the same person who reviews the game. So a free tablet isn't ultimately going to have any effect whatsoever on the person who has to sit down with the game for 30+ hours or whatever and slap a score on the end of it.

One thing I find interesting is that reporting seems to be expected of everyone who writes about games. Not everyone is a reporter. I don't consider myself a reporter - I see myself as a critic. I write about games, and sometimes the people that make them. That's what I'm interested in, and that's what I'm best at. It's like asking Mark Kermode or Jonathan Ross to investigate corruption within the film industry - they're not the right people to do that. It's misguided to assume that if you write about games it's your responsibility to highlight this stuff.

Quite apart from that, the fact is that the two people who talked about this in the first instance were both games journalists. There is a desire to acknowledge that this sort of thing does happen and that it shouldn't happen - even though it's far more rife in other forms of entertainment writing and no one seems to bat an eyelid about that - but because the immediate assumption people make is that the journalists are in the wrong (even though I've not seen any evidence that anyone from a major outlet kept the tablet, certainly among those I know were present).

I'm not for a minute trying to defend the practice of giving out tablets at press events or accepting them. I'm merely trying to make sure people have a fuller picture of how it actually is, because I've had first-hand experience of these things spiralling into a series of Chinese whispers where something is misquoted or selectively quoted and people believe the second-, third-, or fourth-hand information they've seen on forums or Twitter or wherever and assume that's the gospel truth.

rudderless » Tue Apr 15, 2014 11:05 pm wrote:It's not about wanting to brush it under the carpet so much as not wanting to stir up another shitstorm.

These are essentially the same thing.

This boils down to one thing, which should be painfully obvious to everyone involved. You need to pay attention to how you are perceived. By not mentioning it you look worse when it does come out.

"So they were handing out bribes but I didn't accept one. I didn't think it was worth mentioning that some people did accept them."

Yeah, well done.

And obviously no one wants to do it because whoever does it will probably find that they're not invited to the next Ubisoft event.

Chris, I don't think the public want scorching exposés or blistering undercover journalism blowing the lid on industry-wide corruption. I think they just want transparency and openness - and that can come from all writers, no matter how they view themselves. Whether they are a critic, a fan site writing reviews for fun or an international multimedia company.

What the journalists did with the tablets may have been honest, but it wasn't completely open. The event was a week ago, and what would have perhaps sufficed would have been a sentence or two detailing Ubi's practice. Rather than it coming out like this at a later date.

Again, they may not have been investigative journalists, but they were all capable of disclosing the practice, rather than leaving it for someone else to get there. There is always more of a chance that "someone else" will treat them a lot more harshly and lead them to unfavourable comparisons, than disclosing it of their own accord would do.

Saying "I am just a critic" belies the problem somewhat. If people want to stop such practices then it can't just be left to the confrontational or investigative types. Or for the rest of the Internet, the outsiders or the "others" to find out. You yourself were complaining that these people are the ones least favourable to fellow journalists, but some aren't doing themselves any favours by leaving it to these people to break stories.

The fact it happens in other entertainment is slightly irrelevant - it does not mean that the gaming press cannot set its house in order. It is clear their readership do not like it, regardless of what is happening in publications for other media.

rudderless » Tue Apr 15, 2014 9:05 pm wrote:It's like asking Mark Kermode or Jonathan Ross to investigate corruption within the film industry - they're not the right people to do that.

Just on this one point, I disagree with you - not least because Kermode in particular does speak out extensively about the business of being a critic as well as the films he reviews.

He has extensively covered somewhat seedy practices of studios setting up out-of-festival 'viewing parties' and normally makes a specific point of mentioning if he is reviewing a movie out of his own pocket or if he attended a screening. He has also commented on the behind the scenes ways he believes that the industry is damaging itself, as well as piracy etc.

So, actually, I think Kermode (and by extension you. You're my gaming Kermode now, honeybuns) is the perfect person to address the business of being a critic alongside his actual critiques.

As someone who is very, very rarely even invited to gaming-related events of any description, I'm not really in a position to address this side of the business of being a critic. I'm a full-time dad as well as being a full-time writer and I work as many hours as is humanly possible writing reviews, previews and conducting the occasional interview over phone and Skype with developers just to make ends meet. If I'm very lucky I'll actually get to visit a developer to talk to another human being.

So yeah, point taken about Kermode - who was a bad example, though I'm sure you see what I was driving at - but I'm not your man. I'm just trying to explain the situation from a standpoint that doesn't automatically assume impropriety. I'd hoped some might appreciate a different perspective.

Maybe when I'm fortysomething and my kid's grown up and I can get around more freely then I'll be able to do more investigative stuff. Right now I still enjoy writing about the games more than the bullshit that surrounds them; I'd rather talk mechanics than politics. Sorry.

Can you really separate the roles of reporter and critic when Ubisoft are actively trying to influence the critic's work?

I'm wondering whether this means if Ubisoft is worried about review scores for Watchdogs. Are they not confident enough about it that it will get good scores without pulling stunts like giving away free tablets?

I don't get the whole outrage .If I was a reviewer I'd still take the tablet it wouldn't mean I would review a game any better .Most of these paid preview events spend way more than just a tablet on reviewers ,they get flights paid for ,decent hotels and load of other perks they wouldn't normally have but that seems to be accepted by everyone.

degoose » Wed Apr 16, 2014 7:35 am wrote:I don't get the whole outrage .If I was a reviewer I'd still take the tablet it wouldn't mean I would review a game any better .Most of these paid preview events spend way more than just a tablet on reviewers ,they get flights paid for ,decent hotels and load of other perks they wouldn't normally have but that seems to be accepted by everyone.

It doesn't affect 99% of writers, but the expensive gifts are wrong and should be turned down/given to charity. Paid for flights and hotels are necessary sometimes, and publishers are hardly going to make them all stay in gooseberry fool holes. All that stuff should be declared in any articles that comes from the trips though

Dandy Kong » Wed Apr 16, 2014 6:59 am wrote:Can you really separate the roles of reporter and critic when Ubisoft are actively trying to influence the critic's work?

I can quite easily in my case, because if I'm asked to review Watch_Dogs it doesn't make a blind bit of difference that they offered some writers some tablets at an event once. And I imagine in the vast majority of cases - if not all of them - that the person who attended the event won't be reviewing the game.

degoose » Wed Apr 16, 2014 7:35 am wrote:I don't get the whole outrage .If I was a reviewer I'd still take the tablet it wouldn't mean I would review a game any better .Most of these paid preview events spend way more than just a tablet on reviewers ,they get flights paid for ,decent hotels and load of other perks they wouldn't normally have but that seems to be accepted by everyone.

In those instances, the flights and hotels are needed to get people to the event - in other words, they're necessary to the process of covering the game. There's no connection between the tablet and the game beyond some tenuous link to the second-screen element - it's just an expensive bit of swag. Quite apart from that, most sites declare when an event/accommodation has been paid for by the publisher.

Learning Curve » Tue Apr 15, 2014 9:30 pm wrote:I don't really trust journalists

I don't trust games journalism AT ALL. It has a negative value to me. Anything hyped up by the press automatically becomes suspect and unworthy of trust.

For example: Watch Dogs

Damage control mode engaged.

rudderless » Wed Apr 16, 2014 7:44 am wrote:
degoose » Wed Apr 16, 2014 7:35 am wrote:I don't get the whole outrage .If I was a reviewer I'd still take the tablet it wouldn't mean I would review a game any better .Most of these paid preview events spend way more than just a tablet on reviewers ,they get flights paid for ,decent hotels and load of other perks they wouldn't normally have but that seems to be accepted by everyone.

In those instances, the flights and hotels are needed to get people to the event - in other words, they're necessary to the process of covering the game. There's no connection between the tablet and the game beyond some tenuous link to the second-screen element - it's just an expensive bit of swag. Quite apart from that, most sites declare when an event/accommodation has been paid for by the publisher.

i guess the thing is that this kind of stuff happens all the time in multiple industries. Tons of companies do this , it's not right i guess but some people take this so serious as this kind of thing has been happening for years and years. It's not some new thing and it is definitely not just happening in the game industry.

The way it should be done, is if the person is going to review the game they can not be involved in a single preview. The review should come from someone who's fully completed the game without any outside influence from anyone.

The trouble is, that'll never happen and the amount of reviews I've read where the people have clearly never finished the game is unbelievable.

Which E3 was it where Microsoft gave free Xbox 360s to the games press audience?

#NewGamesJournalism: Lauren Wainwright sacked.

Who is online

Affiliates