Quote from: Werekoala;798608I would say that if a reviewer/journalist contributes to a developer's income, then yes, they either like their stuff or like the person. Either way, it would seem to indicate a bias in favor of the person, however, and if not "corruption", at the least it shows a bias in their favor. After all, if you're giving someone money, you likely predisposed to report on them favorably.

OK, let's say I genuinely like a game designer's work. Yes, there's some sense that I am "biased" or "predisposed" to report on them favorably, because I like their stuff. Is it at all unethical or corrupt for me to report on them? Consider two cases:

1) I genuinely like a designer, and I donate to them.

2) I genuinely like a designer, and I don't donate to them because of policy.

It seems to me that in case #2, I am going to be even more motivated to give them a good review, because I am blocked from being able to donate to them directly - when I want to help them because I genuinely like their stuff.

Quote from: Werekoala;798608I would say that if a reviewer/journalist contributes to a developer's income, then yes, they either like their stuff or like the person. Either way, it would seem to indicate a bias in favor of the person, however, and if not "corruption", at the least it shows a bias in their favor. After all, if you're giving someone money, you likely predisposed to report on them favorably.

So, to sum up:

(1) Reviewers should not receive compensation from developers (i.e., being given a review copy of Halo);

(2) Reviewers should not pay developers (i.e., buying a copy of Halo and then reviewing it)

I'm not sure what process of immaculate conception you think reviewers are engaging in, but I've got bad news for you.

Quote from: jhkim;798650OK, let's say I genuinely like a game designer's work. Yes, there's some sense that I am "biased" or "predisposed" to report on them favorably, because I like their stuff. Is it at all unethical or corrupt for me to report on them? Consider two cases:

1) I genuinely like a designer, and I donate to them.

2) I genuinely like a designer, and I don't donate to them because of policy.

It seems to me that in case #2, I am going to be even more motivated to give them a good review, because I am blocked from being able to donate to them directly - when I want to help them because I genuinely like their stuff.

I don't see what one thing has to do with the other. Or the third.
If you like something and have the capacity to bring it out to the masses, that's what you're going to do.
If you don't like something, you're probably going to spell that fact out to the same masses. I hope..
Saying good things about something good is a good thing. Saying good things about something not good is a bad thing. Saying nothing about bad things is marginally better, but it is not a good thing.
None of these scenarios will stop you from supporting the designer if you feel they deserve your support. Of course, if you're actually reviewing a product that you've helped fund, informing the masses of that fact is a good thing.

Quote from: baragei;798662Of course, if you're actually reviewing a product that you've helped fund, informing the masses of that fact is a good thing.

Quote from: Iosue;798634IMO, if their employer has no policy on the matter, journalists should be free to donate whatever cause they want.  If they do a story on that cause, though, disclosure is necessary.

Information. Disclosure.  Baseline honest things you see in amateur reviews on RPG sites all the time (which is a hobby and industry a lot more close and less numerous then any aspect of video games) - conspicuously absent in the practices of the principals that kicked off this shitstorm.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;798653So, to sum up:

(1) Reviewers should not receive compensation from developers (i.e., being given a review copy of Halo);

(2) Reviewers should not pay developers (i.e., buying a copy of Halo and then reviewing it)

I'm not sure what process of immaculate conception you think reviewers are engaging in, but I've got bad news for you.

Heh.

Yeah. Here's my take:

A reviewer should definitely disclose if they have received money or gifts including review copies (#1). They should also disclose if they have invested money in the project, such that they will see rewards or financial gain if it succeeds, or if they have any close personal relationship with the developer.

However, if they *like* the project, and personally play it, and/or have bought a lot of products in the line, and/or have donated to the developer - that's their personal taste. It's not an unethical bias. There's nothing wrong with fucking liking a game. A reviewer shouldn't have to reveal their finances or personal details or prove that they don't like the game in order to review it.

Man, Pundit's been doing all the wrong reviews.  Just think of all the sweet ass he could have been getting...

Quote from: Justin Alexander;798653(2) Reviewers should not pay developers (i.e., buying a copy of Halo and then reviewing it)

There is a difference between buying a copy of the game and DIRECTLY giving money to the developer's patreon account for doing NOTHING.  Some of these journalists are giving away money to fund developers in patreon and no it isn't so these developers can make a new game either.  It is just funding each other because they share the same view points.  Scratch my back and I will scratch your back kind of deal.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;798679Man, Pundit's been doing all the wrong reviews.  Just think of all the sweet ass he could have been getting...

Pretty sure his wife may take issue with that.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;798419Interesting (sad?) how "safe space" is becoming a pejorative.

Because it doesn't exist, not really. A plane could crash on you, or a meteorite.
"Safe Space" is a relative lie we tell ourselves, to make life easier.

Quote from: Iosue;798634IMO, if their employer has no policy on the matter, journalists should be free to donate whatever cause they want.  If they do a story on that cause, though, disclosure is necessary.

I'd be happy with that.

Quote from: jhkim;798650OK, let's say I genuinely like a game designer's work. Yes, there's some sense that I am "biased" or "predisposed" to report on them favorably, because I like their stuff. Is it at all unethical or corrupt for me to report on them? Consider two cases:

1) I genuinely like a designer, and I donate to them.

2) I genuinely like a designer, and I don't donate to them because of policy.

It seems to me that in case #2, I am going to be even more motivated to give them a good review, because I am blocked from being able to donate to them directly - when I want to help them because I genuinely like their stuff.

Ok, now imagine you do that for the first 2 games, the third is coming out, and you find it just plain stinks. And I mean, stinks!

Are you going to be as honest reporting that, being so invested in the first 2 games? Being made by your friend you've helped financially on all 3 games?

Quote from: Justin Alexander;798653So, to sum up:

(1) Reviewers should not receive compensation from developers (i.e., being given a review copy of Halo);

(2) Reviewers should not pay developers (i.e., buying a copy of Halo and then reviewing it)

I'm not sure what process of immaculate conception you think reviewers are engaging in, but I've got bad news for you.

I don't have a problem with a free review copy, anymore than a film critic getting to see a movie for free. But them also getting high-grade hardware, free plane trips, posh hotels, and pampered room service, in regards to their review scores, seems like outright bribery.

Buying a product likewise isn't a problem; contributing to a Kickstarter or worse yet, a Patreon, is a financial tie that creates a relationship, one that is hard to judge bias upon.

Quote from: ThatChrisGuy;798600Big titles getting glowing reviews they don't deserve is hardly a new problem.

You're preaching to the choir, my friend.

Quote from: Will;798647Expecting the same journalistic rigor of dealing with the White House, Enron reporting, and coverage of Blizzcon with things like Depression Quest and other small titles might not be really fair -- people are more likely to be rubbing elbows casually (or other bits).

And there's also the question of exactly how put-out someone can be by a "corrupt" review.

If someone reads a glowing review of Call of Duty 2014, buys it, and then thinks it's a turd, they're out £40 or so. That's a significant chunk of money! I'd get upset over that. Anybody would.

If someone played Depression Quest after Grayson's "here is a bunch of games greenlit for steam:" article, it would have cost them... exactly nothing. I don't know; I can understand saying "I did not like the game because of reasons", but there's not much room to really get upset.

Oh, sure, there's a fuzzy line somewhere in the middle where something costs enough to get ragey about, but I don't know where that is, it kinda varies for all of us.

Quote from: Novastar;798697Are you going to be as honest reporting that, being so invested in the first 2 games? Being made by your friend you've helped financially on all 3 games?

Again, blame the publishers; they're the ones who have contracts with developers that say "your game's arbitrary numbers, which are mainly based on our marketing spend, must reach this arbitrary level".

And yeah, if I knew the devs I work with (Commercial software tester!) were at risk of losing out due to my work (ie, reporting bugs), it would certainly change the way I did things; in fact, I wouldn't want to work at that company any more, because I would be being incentivised to either screw over my team, or screw over our customers.

QuoteI don't have a problem with a free review copy, anymore than a film critic getting to see a movie for free. But them also getting high-grade hardware, free plane trips, posh hotels, and pampered room service, in regards to their review scores, seems like outright bribery.

They don't seem like bribery, they are bribery, pure and simple. But those are the conditions that the major publishers are putting up, and the choice is "accept the bribe" or "no pre-launch review". Oh, and by the way, all your competitors have accepted. We'd like a nine.

I'd bet that most writers would rather play the game and write their thoughts about the game (Because given the low pay, you'd really have to love games to be a games writer), than have to deal with the hassle of review trips and lying to other gamers.

Quote from: Novastar;798697Ok, now imagine you do that for the first 2 games, the third is coming out, and you find it just plain stinks. And I mean, stinks!

Are you going to be as honest reporting that, being so invested in the first 2 games? Being made by your friend you've helped financially on all 3 games?

You're stating "invested" and "friend", but I thought the premise here is just that reviewer gave money - with no investment or close personal relationship.

If I've shelled out money for this guy, and the guy comes out with a product that I genuinely think stinks - then hell yeah, I'm going to report that it stinks. I don't see that my having paid out money motivates me to say that it doesn't stink.

On the other hand, if I really like this guy's work enough to put out my personal money for it, then chances are that our tastes and/or viewpoints are similar - and I'm going to like it more than other people. But that isn't changed by whether I put out money or not.

Quote from: Novastar;798697I don't have a problem with a free review copy, anymore than a film critic getting to see a movie for free. But them also getting high-grade hardware, free plane trips, posh hotels, and pampered room service, in regards to their review scores, seems like outright bribery.

Buying a product likewise isn't a problem; contributing to a Kickstarter or worse yet, a Patreon, is a financial tie that creates a relationship, one that is hard to judge bias upon.

Free review copies should be disclosed, in my opinion, the same as any other gift from the developer. (For example, if someone is reviewing a hotel, and the hotel pay for a free plane trip out there, staying at the hotel, and room service - that should be disclosed even though it is technically part of the review.)

To my mind, the issue with contributing to a Kickstarter is if I stand to get more return on my investment if the Kickstarter reaches stretch goals. That would be an incentive for me to get other people to contribute. However, if there are no stretch goals or if the Kickstarter is over, then it shouldn't matter whether I bought the game through Kickstarter or off the shelf.

I haven't used Patreon, but my impression is that there is no obligation back to the contributor. So I don't see what the issue is.

Quote from: jhkim;798706Free review copies should be disclosed, in my opinion, the same as any other gift from the

...publisher (Or publisher's PR department).

In some cases these will be the same, but not with the big titles that are the real problem.

More disclosure in ALL journalism is a good thing.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;798679Man, Pundit's been doing all the wrong reviews.  Just think of all the sweet ass he could have been getting...

Have you seen Zoey Quinn?

Quote from: S'mon;798719Have you seen Zoey Quinn?

Yes.  She's not ugly.  Not really my type, but she's not an ugly person or anything.  It seems people have been attacking her appearance based on this situation, and that's pretty low.