Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Almighty Buck Entertainment Games

On Early Driv3r Reviews, World Exclusives 53

Posted by simoniker from the controversy dept.
(54)T-Dub writes "SPOnG has a very interesting article about Atari's latest iteration in the Driver series: Driv3r. Back in May there was a SpOnG messageboard post claiming that Atari was demanding a 9/10 score in exchange for early review code. In the heated race for the early reviews, two UK-based Future Publishing publications, Xbox World and PSM2 ran cover stories for Driv3r, and coincidentally gave the game a 9/10 score. XBox World even dubbed it 'the new GTA' while PSM claimed to have 'the World's first and only review' of the PS2 version. As earlier reported on Slashdot Games, subsequent reviews for the quite buggy Xbox and PlayStation 2 versions of the game have hovered in the 60s. Having shipped 2.5 million copies it's estimated that Atari is gambling over $60 million on this game." While the source is hardly concrete, and claims of 'bribery' are likely overblown, it's interesting to ruminate on how getting an "exclusive review" affects game scoring, a phenomenon not limited to Driv3r.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

On Early Driv3r Reviews, World Exclusives More

On Early Driv3r Reviews, World Exclusives

Comments Filter:

  • Can you handle the truth? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    People people people... please don't be so naive. This sort of thing happens all the time.

    What would you say if I told you I received a blowjob for giving the original Redneck Racing a 10/10?

  • How the heck is it not bribery? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Moraelin ( 679338 ) on Monday June 28, 2004 @03:03PM (#9553939) Journal
    'Cause it sure as heck doesn't look like a honest reviewing process to me.

    At the very least it's dishonesty. They're lying to their readers (in the case of their sites) and to their customers (in the case of Atari.)

    It also goes contrary to all that a review was supposed to mean. At that point, it's no longer a review, it's a paid _ad_. Just when I thought that the lame-ass ads disguised as reviews (some with ludicrious scores like 110%) of lame ragazines of the past were finally dead and burried, here comes an even lamer variant. One that even in the fine print isn't actually marked as an ad.

    Lame. Real real lame.

    Personally I'd like to see a list with sites which do this kind of crap, just so I know never to read them again.

    • Re:How the heck is it not bribery? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Ever heard of advertising budgets influencing reviews?

      Car magazines give glowing reviews to Toyota and Honda. PC magazines swoon over Dell. It's like this all the time.

      Reviews aren't worth the paper they're printed on in most cases.

      cczz
    • It would definitely be bribery if it were true, but I think that by "claims of 'bribery' are likely overblown," the blurb meant that the rumors of review-buying are likely false.

      Rob

    • Re:How the heck is it not bribery? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 28, 2004 @07:50PM (#9556509)
      Speaking as a game developer, reviews have never been honest, in general.

      I've seen one of my games canned in favour of another similar game released in the same month,
      with the reviewer complaining that we didn't have a bunch of features that we did, in fact, have.
      When one of our marketting guys asked the reviewer if he'd even played the game, he said,
      "No, I was at the dinner supplied by *other company* since you guys were too cheap to take me out."
      That's not the only case I've seen of reviewers expecting to be bribed, one way or another, just
      one of the more blatant. I've also seen obvious plagiarism, where one reviewer makes a serious
      mistake about the game, and four or five other reviews repeat the same error, then claim that
      "sure we played the game for half an hour, just like all the other guys."

      I don't believe in reviews any more, certainly not ones that anyone involved gets paid for.

  • Rewards now, losses later... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BTWR ( 540147 ) <americangibor3@yah o o . c om> on Monday June 28, 2004 @03:33PM (#9554259) Homepage Journal
    Magazines that cater to these bribes (and yes, such cases are bribes/extortion/blackmail) will rake in $$$ and readers now, with their "exclusive reviews," but will pay for it later when readers learn of such ripoffs.

    Magazines like Consumer Reports have bent over backwards to give unbiased reports, and readers feel that they can trust them. Could CR have sold out and given better reviews in return for "donations?" Sure. Would it help their immediate revenue? You bet. Would it still be credible now, 40 years (whatever) after they came around? Not a chance.

    • They get readers in the short term. Once readers realise they bought a heap of shite based on their OMG BEST GAME EVAR reviews they stop buying the POS.

      The only reason I bother to even get magazines is the cover DVDs for stuff I cant be arsed to download. Nothing else. I read the mag alright but only for the comedy reviews or writings. I sure as fuck dont base my likes on what they say.

    • Could CR have sold out and given better reviews in return for "donations?" Sure. Would it help their immediate revenue? You bet. Would it still be credible now, 40 years (whatever) after they came around? Not a chance.

      This is my problem with a lot of video game "journalism" -- it just smells like amateur hour most of the time. The standard of writing and actual insight, on the whole, just isn't very high. (As video games grow in mainstream popularity and escape the geek stereotype, hopefully this will ch

      • I think part of the problem is that, unlike most other consumer products, there simply aren't very many good video games out there. It would be hard to convince an editor to publish a magazine where 90% of the new games get scores under 50%, even though that is probably what they deserve. People tend to want to be positive, especially when they're trying to get you to buy their magazine.
        • Well, that reminds me: you know what I'd _really_ want to see? The Bitter Gamer Magazine [gamespy.com] that Gamespy's Fargo [gamespy.com] came up with in a humour column.

          I mean, forget positivism. It's not that I hate games or anything, but there are thousands of sites and magazines already who focus on telling me why I should love a game. I'd like just one who tells me all the bad, ugly, or unfinished aspects. Really tell me all that the reviewer didn't like about it.

          Just so I can pair it with one of those all positive reviews, and
          • How about a gaming magazine with an optimist and a pessimist writing facing columns on all games? Game Informer already has a sub-review column but most of the time they're just parroting what the first reviewer said and the rating are almost always within .5 (of 10) points of one another.
            • Yeah, that would be the ideal situation. If any game actually ran two reviews for any game, a regular shiny happy one and a "bitter gamer" column telling me in how many ways it sucks... well, I'd send the money for a lifetime subscription right now.
    • I'm sorry, but Consumer Reports has zero credibility with me. They lost me years ago by giving different scores to identical items with different labels (say, a GE dishwasher and the identical model from Sears with "Kenmore" on the door instead of "GE"). Plus, they're self-proclaimed experts on everything from toothpaste to transmissions, telephones to tax software, toilet paper to toenail clippers. I prefer to stick with subject matter experts, like Road and Track or Stereo Review. Would Tom's Hardware hav

      • They lost me years ago by giving different scores to identical items with different labels (say, a GE dishwasher and the identical model from Sears with "Kenmore" on the door instead of "GE").

        That's because the items may not in fact have been identical. Consumer Reports publisher Consumers Union buys its products to be tested 1. at retail stores, 2. at retail prices, and 3. in plain clothes. This means that unlike with commercial product review magazines, the CR reviewers get a representative sample of

  • this kind of bs (Score:5, Interesting)

    by WormholeFiend ( 674934 ) on Monday June 28, 2004 @03:38PM (#9554306)
    This kind of bs doesnt just happen in the game industry, sadly enough.

    These marketing tactics are used to promote everything from computer parts to cars to movies...

    There are even survey companies who have unscrupulous practices, such as giving clients the survey results they want to get, as opposed to what people are really responding, because clients would otherwise go from one survey company to the next until they got the results they expected.

    There are even other less scrupulous "award/review" companies who hold "best business" surveys, then call each business in order to tell them they were "chosen". If this business accepts to pay the fee, they can put the Award logo up in their ads, on their premises, etc. If the top business declines, they just go on to the next one, and so on.

    Never believe the hype.

  • not new practice.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by gl4ss ( 559668 ) on Monday June 28, 2004 @03:42PM (#9554343) Homepage Journal
    not news at all, not in any sense.

    it would be news if the mags made real reviews.

    but if you're gambling 60 million why not go the extra mile and hire some guys to make the game a good one??

    .

  • I'm Confused. (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    When they say they shipped 2.5M units, does that mean that there are 2.5M games sitting in homes? Or does that mean that 2.5M units were shipped from Atari to retailers?

    If it is the first one, then fine. If it is the second one, then big deal. On an unrelated note, I thought the commericals for it on TV make it look really stupid. Like a quarter-assed version of GTA. The first driver on the PS1 was "ok" but GTA's game play is about 10000000 better not to mention the graphics.

    • Re:I'm Confused. (Score:5, Informative)

      by (54)T-Dub ( 642521 ) * <tpaine.gmail@com> on Monday June 28, 2004 @03:52PM (#9554454) Journal
      It means the printed 2.5 million copies of the game and sent them to retailsers, which is a huge financial gamble because they have to pay royalties on all those copies (not to mention printing costs). It's estimated to be in the $20 million range.
      • Yeah, the publisher doesn't get paid for the games until they're actually sold. If nobody buys Driver 3, Atari's up sh*t creek. With no boat.

        When you're looking for an actual number of units moved, publisher to home, that number is referred to as the "sell through". just one of the many ways lawyers and other such people have mangled the English language beyond recognition.

  • Reviewers: piss off publishers--go out of busines (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 28, 2004 @04:01PM (#9554568)
    I find it hard to believe that Atari would be stupid enough to make an explicit demand like that. Having said that, no game reviewer can stay in business without access to games, so there's no doubt that some game reviewers may temper their opinions a bit.

    Hell, it's no different from any other kind of journalism. You think that Michael Moore gets a seat on the press bus for George W's campaign? Preserving access to sources is a consideration for anyone in this business - except maybe restaurant reviewers. :-)

    I'm OK with a reviewer who thinks that a game is the worst PoS published in the last decade toning down the rhetoric for publication and saying the game is "bad," or "unenjoyable," or "not recommended," but in the Driv3r situation, the reviewers do seem to have gone beyond being tactful into blatantly wrong/misleading reviews. As someone earlier suggested, these sites/magazines won't stay in business too long if they develop a reputation for being unreliable, so this may be a self-correcting problem.
    • That's why I never believe "Previews" because I'm sure they had to get some PR's shlong all sloppy just get the preview and promise to do the same for the game. Reviews should be a different matter though.
    • You think that Michael Moore gets a seat on the press bus for George W's campaign?
      Why would he want to?

      Having said that, no game reviewer can stay in business without access to games
      Hmmm.... Edge has a good reputation of reviewing games as they find them, ignoring outside influnces. But they are under Future Publishing. I think if you manage to get a reputation as being reliable and an important voice in the gaming community, it's hard (or at least harder) for publishers to fob you off.

  • Despearation makes people or companies do stupid things. Like realise that their next game is unfinished, unplayable, hugely expensive and that they need a big "opening weekend" before players catch on and kill it with word of mouth, in order to recoup their investment. We got Driv3r in the mail Saturday, and boy did it suck. Shading issues, clipping, poorly envisioned and executed code, terrible animations for charaters, the list goes on. The worst part was that we wouldn't be able to get the piece of
  • Irrelevant. Game reviews are subject to the same sort of bias as are news reports on TV. Welcome to modern day media! I expected more from slashdot.
  • So how's the game? Anyone played it? I was shopping this weekend and was tempted to buy it, but spent my $49.99 elsewhere.

    • It is okay but really buggy in some areas. My buddies and I were playing it last night and there is a chase scene on speed boats and we must of died like 25 times trying to get off the boat and jump onto the dock. It was really frustrating.
      • Then isn't it great when you respawn, you have to get into your car to drive across town to die again?! Then respawn and drive across town to die again1?!!!?!??!

        There is so much needless annoying things in that game.

        When you can't figure out the stupid little annoying thing that you have to do, they punish you. Then when you can't figure it out the next time, they punish you again.

        -asoap

    • It is one of the worst games I hve played this year. Hands down. The total lack of quality control in this product alone is shocking, and the interface is so awkward that it is difficult to believe that they did any internal testing or market research before the release. I fear that the console market may start being touched by the "unfinished game launch" scenario that plagues the PC gaming industry.
  • Another tactic some publishers use is to not send out review copies early enough for a magazine to be able to publish a review before the game hits the shelves.

    This is typically done with a poor game, so that they have a chance at getting the ignorant sales before their game gets torn apart by reviewers.

    Obviously the bribery case is much worse, but this is another example of publishers being sneaky.

    • Re:Another tactic... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by gamgee5273 ( 410326 ) *
      That's one of the things I like about EGM - they tell you what games were supposed to come out in time for them to review the... but never made it to the offices.

      It's extremely rare that one of those games gets a good review in the following issue.

  • Ever notice that the big 'ol double truck ads at the front of the mag, and the stuff at the back, like the Dell ads, are always for games that somehow seemed better in the first five minutes than they did at the last five?

    Magazines are losing readership like crazy, and newstands are increasingly pointless. Advertising dollars pay the bills. this is why a certain publishing house routinely gives out scores no worse than 6/10 in its console mags.

    If every fucking game you review is an 8/10, then what the fuc
  • ...or at least something similiar: They released four or five new screenshots for HL2 and allowed only magazines that would make a cover story out of it to print them.
    So, most of the magazines just took an old story about the game, rearanged the words a little and put the new screenshots in it. On the Cover you could read "NEW SECRET INFO ABOUT HL2. EXCLUSIVE IN $MAGNAME!".
    I don't know if I should find this disgusting or ridiculous.
  • Now defunct PC Accelerator had the balls to give crappy games crappy reviews. They even went so far as to graphically mutilate a shoddy game disk each month.

    Of course, they managed to go under after they alienated too much of their advertisers. Apparently, game producers don't like it when you rag on their shitty releases. Go figure.


    --LordPixie
  • of two Atari employees, talking as they dig in the desert:

    "Are you sure this is the right place?"

    "Not really, it's been over twenty years."

    "What a waste."

    "Yeah."

    "Did you ever play it?"

    "What, ET? God, no. I've heard horror stories, though. One guy said his brother was playing it in the dark at night and got sucked into the 7th circle of hell."

    "That right?"

    "Yep."

    "Ok, well this is about as close as I remember. You have the discs ready?"

    "Driv3r, meet ET. ET, Driv3r."

Slashdot Top Deals

Some people manage by the book, even though they don't know who wrote the book or even what book.

Close