No more than about 10 minutes before I started writing this month’s column, I was informed that long time GameSpot reviewer (and later executive editor) Jeff Gerstmann has allegedly been fired. The reason? A particularly scathing video review in which he awarded a score of 6/10 to Kane and Lynch: Dead Men, a game that currently has a Metascore of around 68% and a game which just happened to have a shedload of advertising on GameSpot (until being mysteriously removed early this afternoon). This is a sad day for video games journalism and criticism. Many of us work our butts to the bone trying to get people to take games journalism and criticism seriously while people joke about how review scores are for sale – it hurts and hurts bad when something like this happens.
Just because you don't always see eye to eye with someone doesn't mean you don't respect them
You know why publishers go after writers for bad review scores? Because they are lousy marketers, and editors are easy prey. We have to face the fact that advertising drives our medium – unless we fund things out of our own pocket, we are at the mercy of publishers to provide us with material for review and ads for revenue. For the cost of a CD, the publisher gets their game put on display and analysed, and possibly recommended to our readers (in PALGN’s case, 350,000 each month). That’s pretty damn cheap advertising, especially if the game is good.
So then why complain if the result isn’t as good as you intended? Marketers are meant to be able to cope with these sorts of things, and should have the ability to spin things in their favour, but rather than doing that, they take the easy way out and threaten to pull any ads. To a publisher, an ad on a site like PALGN is chump change, but to us it is life blood. A review won’t last on the page more than 5 days anyway, while an ad campaign can last a month. You don’t see movie studios threatening to not invite Roger Ebert to the next critics screening because he didn’t like their last film (they're more likely not to screen it for critics at all, and won't complain when it gets a bad review). We as content producers need to grow a bit of backbone, come together, and stop crap like this from happening.
Moves like this compromise our integrity – there is a wall between editorial and advertising that should never be breached. It doesn’t just affect people in salaried positions like GameSpot; even at a smaller site like PALGN, I’ve had complaints about review scores from publishers (I won’t name names, games or scores), even with Metascore support in my favour. I've never backed down, and will not back down over review scores - what you see is my honest and informed opinion. The fact of the matter is that this crap should not be happening – it goes against our freedom of speech, and betrays you, the reader, to whom we have pledged our objectivity.
Would one more score of 60% really mean anything to something averaging 68%?
The second part of this week’s rant is to do with pricing of software and digital distribution in Australia. One of the local gaming blogs I read on a regular basis is Screen Play, which is run by veteran gaming writer Jason Hill on The Age’s website. Recently, Jason has been pushing local distributors on the matter of pricing, and I’d like to throw my support behind Jason 100% - publishers are running out of excuses to treat us the way they do. Only one publisher, Ubisoft, answered the questions about why pricing is the way it is. One thing that astounded me is the fact that our prices are still tied to Europe – understandable for the PS2, Wii and to a lesser extent, the Xbox 360, but the PSP, DS, PS3 and PC are region free – why not source them from the United States?
I am starting to sound like a broken record on this issue, but I think once again, readers need to be reminded of the advantages of importing. I’ve prepared a table comparing the price of acquiring ten of the most popular games at retail in Australia with the cost of acquiring them overseas (with postage included). Obviously if you don’t take action and start importing, you’re a ninny.
Just the facts, ma'am
I will acknowledge that there are ways to do it cheaper than that at retail, but we don’t all have the wheeling and dealing knowledge of hinduguru – importing is much less time consuming too.
Digital distribution has been another method relied on by some consumers as a means of getting games at a fairer price. Folks who pre-ordered the Orange Box from Steam were set back a mere $55, a darn sight better than the $89.95 it would have cost to pick it up from a store. However, recently there has been a lot of complaining and price fixing from the publishing side of the industry, obviously not wanting Australians to get in on the good deals that the rest of the world is entitled to. THQ has blocked the sale of all of its Steam products to Australians, while Activision has taken action to get the Australian price of Call of Duty 4 changed from $US49.95 to $US88.50 to reflect its local retail price.
One of the best Australian gaming blogs
There is absolutely no justification for this. As Jason Hill stated, publishers will frequently cite localisation costs, local classification costs and the cost of doing business in Australia when attempting to justify the increased retail prices in Australia – but with digital distribution, all of these costs are thrown out.
There is the very real possibility that Digital Distribution could be the way we will all be playing our games in coming years, and no amount of retail protection is going to stop that. I cannot stand when archaic industries bitch and complain about being superseded; watch magazines cling to the last of their sales while bitching that they should get the brunt of publisher support and exclusives. Why do they protect retail sales? Because they are scared – digital distribution eliminates the middle man – there will be no need for publishers when digital distribution takes over. I hate middle men, they are the unnecessary step in the supply chain, sweeping in to scrape a little cream off the top for themselves, and adding absolutely nothing in the way of value in the process. The sooner we do away with the current retail model, the better.
Please feel free to voice your opinions and feelings in the comments thread.
Follow Up
Last month I went on a bit of a nasty streak and predicted gloom and doom for a number of titles due for release this holiday season. With one month of the season out of the way, I’d like to give to do a progressive scorecard on how I’m faring, and call as many of the contests as I can.
Assassin’s Creed: Wasn’t the be all and end all that many predicted, with scores ranging from 4/10 by games tm to 9 from a few outlets, with many of the major publications awarding the game 7s. And what about all those glitches - I saw them coming; too many Ubisoft games are released without thorough testing. I acknowledged the game would still sell, and it has, but anecdotal evidence is suggesting that it may face heavy returns and trade ins. I award this one in my favour.
Crysis: Crysis entered the All Formats charts at #10 and lasted one week. It fell to second on the PC charts behind Call of Duty 4, which didn’t make the All Format charts. I won’t call this one yet, but I say it is looking to swing towards me.
Fun Fact: Jade Raymond's only other mainstream title to date is The Sims Online
Eye of Judgement: Eye of Judgement never even charted. I win.
Haze: I played it at eGames, and didn’t think particularly highly of it. Then it was delayed. I win again.
Lair: It had no retailer presence didn’t even dent the charts. I win.
Raving Rabbids 2: I’m not seeing it on any charts, and the review scores were less than favourable. Another notch in the belt
Timeshift: Failed to chart. However, impressions have been a little more favourable than expected, even if they’re middle of the road. I’ll let this one go.
My biggest folly - damn you casual gamers!
The Simpsons Game: This is a tough one to call. I should have classed it as a turd, because the game that was released is nothing less than a cliché ridden lump of poo with a couple of Simpsons vignettes thrown in – and they’re not even all that funny. My call of failing to sell is mixed; the game has not been a success on the new formats – The Simpsons Game is selling considerably well on the PlayStation 2 and charted highly on the DS to begin with. That says something about the market that buys licensed titles. I’ll concede.
Zack and Wiki’s been delayed, but if NTSC sales are anything to go by, I should claim this as a win – which sucks, as the game is apparently a real gem.
One title remains – Resident Evil: Umbrella Chronicles, which received mixed feelings from my colleagues at eGames, though had a moderate start in the Japanese charts. We’ll have to wait and see, but I think I may be wrong on that one.
Final score
Wins: 6
Losses: 2
Too Early/Close to Call: 2
Easy Mode is written by Matt Keller, a six year veteran of the game industry. Views and opinions expressed in Easy Mode and its subsequent comment thread remain those of the author, and do not in any way reflect the views of PAL Gaming Network, its sponsors, affiliates, advertisers and other related parties. No middle men were harmed in the making of Easy Mode - I was too lazy.
.
I'm not buying stuff there if I can help it now.
Loading...
