Exclusive reviews are ethically troubling

IGN.com just came out with its review of "Grand Theft Auto IV" and it's a perfect 10 rave.

I want to note up front that I haven't played much of "GTA IV" yet, so I have absolutely no basis to claim it's not a 10. The bits of it I have seen in previews are really good. So I'm not at all accusing IGN of being dishonest in this particular case.

HOWEVER... what the hell is with the concept of an "exclusive review?" Is anyone else as troubled by this entire concept as I am?

I just got an email from an IGN publicist titled "FYI: Exclusive GTA IV Review @ IGN.com, scores 10" alerting me that "IGN.com, the Web’s leading videogame and entertainment information destination, has posted the first and only review of Grand Theft Auto IV." I'm reminded of when Game Informer ran an exclusive review of "Mass Effect" a few weeks before any other outlet and gave that game a 9.75. I was shocked since I really didn't think "Mass Effect" was that great (and said as much in my review), but of course it's very possible that the Game Informer folks just disagreed with me and that's well within their rights.

(Though I have to say I still found the Game Informer review problematic, since they gave "Mass Effect" an almost perfect score despite noting that "most of the skirmishes, which begin and end in the blink of an eye, run into balancing issues, problematic AI, and a difficulty in comprehending what is transpiring" and "it controls admirably, but it doesn’t live up to the large stage the story sets or the standards you’ve come to expect from action games and RPGs." Those are pretty significant faults.)

However, anyone who knows anything about videogame journalism knows that when an outlet gets a review copy of a game, they agree to an embargo -- not to run their review before anyone else. In these cases, Game Informer and IGN.com clearly got permission from Microsoft and Rockstar, respectively, to run their reviews before any other outlet. And it means they got their copy of the game pretty damned early in order to have the review ready to run early.

Of course, once one outlet runs a review, nobody else feels beholden to an embargo and they probably start running their reviews soon. So I expect we'll start seeing more "GTA IV" reviews popping up on websites over the weekend. (Having only gotten my copy today, you won't see one in Variety for another few days).

But being the first outlet to review a highly anticipated new videogame is a big deal. It means a major boost in Web traffic or magazine sales. Anybody who cares about "GTA IV" has probably read the IGN review already, or will very soon. And every major videogame blog is probably linking to it. I have already had several friends e-mail it to me and of course here I am writing about it.

So, we have a situation where a publisher gives a videogame website or magazine a major commercial advantage by providing an early copy of the game and an early embargo so they can run the "exclusive review." This probably results in more magazine sales or Web traffic and thus more revenue.

So, again, I'm not saying that "GTA IV" doesn't deserve a 10, or "Mass Effect" its 9.75. But how can we trust a videogame review when the outlet running it has been given a major commercial favor -- one that's worth money -- from the publisher of the game? You never see a paper or TV station getting special access from a movie studio or TV network or book publisher to run an "exclusive review." Imagine the L.A. Times or Roger Ebert touting their "exclusive review of 'Iron Man.'" Absurd, right? So why do we tolerate it for a videogame?

Exclusive reviews are really ethically troubling, for all the reasons I've outlined above. And I'll state it flat out: I personally don't trust any review labeled "exclusive." Is anyone else as disturbed by this practice as I am?

(I should note that, of course, every videogame publication and lots of newspapers, including my own, run "exclusive" news and feature stories that sometimes result from cooperation with a company. But I consider reviews  to be an entirely different beast. Even if a company cooperated on a news or feature story, the facts are still the facts. You can't report something that's incorrect <and still be doing your job, at least>. But 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.")

Update (4/26): Perhaps I was wrong about one thing. Even though IGN ran its review yesterday, nobody else seems to have one up. Not even IGN's biggest competitors GameSpot and 1UP . Apparently they're all waiting on an embargo that Kotaku says is tomorrow (Sunday) morning. That truly blows my mind. In my world, if I had a story or review ready to go and was waiting on an embargo, the minute somebody else ran the same review or story, I would run mine. If a publisher or studio or whatever gave me a later embargo, tough sh*t. Any self-respecting publication with a "Grand Theft Auto IV" review ready should be running it now. If mine was ready, I know I would. (Mini-preview: I've been playing it a while and it's really good. But it's not 10/10 "best since 'Ocarina of Time'" good. It does have faults.)

Comments

[Krippa]

Mainstream gaming journalism at large pretty much being on the take is hardly anything new, it existed even back in the Amiga days. As independent consumer journalism, gaming media fails and always have, except for a select few publications and sites. Good thing's that there's some nice indie reviewers and gaming blogs about.

[Krey]

"I honestly don't see the problem with having an exclusive review, as it definitely is a business decision that benefits both parties involved."

Both? Both? There are three parties involved, you maggot!

In the words of Bill Hicks: Kill yourself.

[Someone]

Finally, someone who agrees that video game journalism is utter shit. I do not trust any reviews from the big sites, I often look for niche sites that are focused on a genre and know what they are talking about.

Its so easy for anyone to become a Videogame "journalist" and no critisicm in place to weed out the crappy ones. Everyone looks at each other for scores.

[Paul Masterson]

It's more likely that GTAIV had such high scores because of all the hype surrounding the game. If you look at the reviews of any of the GTA3 series, you'll see that the early reviews were notably higher than reviews that came out later. If this is due to reviewers who feel the need to "balance" out total review score, or simple that after the hype died down and people actually had time to think about the game they realized it wasn't as "good" as everyone else said; I can't say.

It's troubling that you clearly state that you'd break embargos. This is usually grounds for the company (Rockstar in this case) to break PR relations with your company. Similar in result (but not cause) to the EGM/Ubisoft situation (Though that situation is stupid in it's own right). Embargos usually mean contracts (Though some could be argued as mere "guidelines"), which means you'd invariably break a legally binding document. Editors who knowingly violate embargos are huge headaches to both their managers as well as the PR people from the developers side, and will likely find themselves without a job eventually.

[Drew Kerr]

1up is not the #3 games site -- GamesRadar.com is. In March, Comscore had GamesRadar at 4.5mm uniques, while 1up was at 3.2mm

[Doug]

Game Reviews like Movie Reviews are only one person's opinion of the game. I barely trust the word of one media outlet for the quality of a game. Does a bad review caution me against buying a game, yes, but do I still read user reviews, absolutely. Everyone is going to have a different opinion of a game

[Watts]

Just as a quick note to people who keep saying there are in fact "exclusive reviews" of movies: as far as I know, you're misunderstanding the way the movie industry works. Many movies (although not all) have advance screenings for critics, and this is how some critics have reviews out before movies open. But there's no quid pro quo between the studios and the critics going on, no exclusive access in exchange for a positive review.

Also, note that an exclusive "preview" is not the same thing as an exclusive review: previews aren't advertised as critical judgments. A lot of magazines and TV shows are given exclusive behind-the-scenes looks at movies, but again, those aren't promises for great reviews when the movies are finally released.

As much as Roger Ebert pissed off video game enthusiasts a couple years ago by saying that video games weren't art the way movies were, I think this dichotomy in the way reviews are treated actually makes his case much better than navel-gazing about whether a given game or game sub-genre is sufficiently artistic. If the industry wants the artistic potential of games to be taken seriously (and I think it deserves to be), it's going to have to start taking the idea of "video game criticism" seriously -- and that means no longer trying to make reviews into paid advertisements.

[eddie]

@ baah:

First off: 12 years of existence does NOT equal "DECADES." IGN has been around since 1996. Not "DECADES" as you so happily proclaim. The video game INDUSTRY is barely over 30, just over 20 if you start things at the NES / Master System (as they were the wildly popular start of a major industry, the previous systems, while nice, didnt take off the way that Nintendo and Sega did).

Second off: He didnt belittle GTA 4, Lern2Reed.

-----
@ Chester89X

Go back to your crappy consoles and leave us real (PC) gamers alone.

See how silly it is?

I highly doubt GTA4 will be better than, in the same way that nothing has been better than, games such as Half Life 1/2/episodes, Sam and Max, System Shock 2, Grim Fandango, Marathon, this list goes on and on. There is one very notable exception: Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. There IS a reason this is the best reviewed game in the history of gaming. It is THAT good. Half Life 1 and 2? Very close to OOT, but not surpassing it.

GTA4, better than OOT, Half Life series, System Shock 2?
Highly, highly, HIGHLY doubtful.

Whats more likely: IGN gave a good review because of money, or because its a OH EM GEE PERFECT GAME.

------

Seriously, would you people PLEASE stop visiting IGN, Gamespot, and the like? You know they are in the publishers pockets, and "objectivity" is not something they know the concept of.

[Ivan Trembow]

Also, the difference between Game Informer and IGN is that Game Informer has a history of journalistic integrity, while IGN has a history of conflicts of interest and fairly consistently keeping their review scores slightly higher than the GameRankings average. Game Informer has earned the benefit of the doubt; IGN has earned the opposite.

[Ivan Trembow]

Even if one just gives IGN the complete benefit of the doubt and says IGN's score of GTA IV wasn't inflated by the exclusivity, even if they wouldn't have otherwise given it a slightly lower score, even if that huge conflict of interest didn't manifest itself THIS TIME, there should be little doubt that it has and will continue to occur on other occasions.

IGN also has huge conflicts of interest whenever it reviews a PC or console game that has an online gaming partnership with IGN/GameSpy.

[Matt]

There is no such thing as a perfect game. There never has been and there never will be. There have been times that a game has come very close to reach the pinnacle of the industry but falls short in an area or two. GTAIV is just another example of how the industry as a whole needs to rethink how information is passed along to the consumer. Sure if the game is advertised well, hyped up by various sites, and even through word of mouth, the game will sell a bazillion copies. Therefore with that being the case is there really a point to publications big or small delivering a blow hard review of a title. Sure there is, Money.
I am by no means saying that publications are paid better for their positive reviews for the big games as opposed to those that either hate on the game or deliver a less acceptable rating / review. What I am saying is that there is a certain amount of sway the mighty dollar will have on the editors and even reviewers.
I have been in the industry for a while and have seen many things that pose a problem for me ethically, the subject of this article being one of them. Not really the exclusive reviews as pointed out in this article but more the reaction certain games are granted considering the hype. Look at games like Super Smash Bros Brawl, Mass Effect, Halo 3, Ratchet and Clank Future Tools of Destruction, and even Bioshock, all of these titles received high marks. Some deserved these high marks but they by no means deserved the almighty perfect.
The reason I say this is that if it is perfect, it is all anyone will ever have to play. It will have the best multiplayer, best graphics, best story, best gameplay, the best everything. I mean in theory the way that perfects are being handed out it is almost like reviewers are saying that is the best game in the series so far, well great but what about the next one is that an automatic perfect because you know it will be better than the previous? Or is it something else is the value of the ten being diminished where it just doesn't matter anymore. Sadly, I fear that this is the reason for the overabundance of perfect scores.
We as journalists in every field have a job to do, and that is to be open and honest in our opinions to deliver the consumer the best possible understanding of the quality of the product we are writing about. The PR, Developer, Publisher, The Franchise, and certainly not the amount of Money, should never factor into our journalistic approach. And yes I consider videogame journalism to be on the same playing field as all other journalism, to say that it is not is like saying videogames are only for teenagers and kids. As we all know, that is not true.

[GhituFir3]

My main issue with the IGN review system is how in the past the PS3 version gets docked points (a la: Orange Box) due to issues that plaugue the 360 version of GTA.

So why not dock a .3 or so from the 360 this time around. Makes no sense to me... unless some "other" reason exists...

/out

[George]

I honestly don't see the problem with having an exclusive review, as it definitely is a business decision that benefits both parties involved.

Having worked in gaming PR and worked closely with journalists from IGN, GameSpot, 1up, etc. all parties involved understand the significance and importance of getting an exclusive.

Videogame journalism isn't the same as other types of journalism where someone can get a "scoop" by digging around, investigating facts, interviewing people close the source, etc.

Videogame journalism, like all other forms of entertainment journalism, rely on the PR people, aka "suits", they work with to get exclusive information that is relevant and interesting to their audience. It's a necessary evil that makes both sides happy: the PR people get a large blown-up feature on a well-known and reputable site; the publication in question gets an "exclusive" story that will generate interest and get people visiting their site/buying their magazine.

However, having said that, I want to also clarify that not all exclusives turn out the way the GTA IV or Mass Effect review did.

There have been some exclusive reviews that have been "lukewarm." Take WoW for example, when PC Gamer gave it a 91. Still good, but not necessarily what you would expect for the most successful game of all time. Still, the game was accurately recognized as being "good" and given VIP cover story treatment.

For examples of exclusive reviews gone bad, I recommend sorting through some of IGN's, GameSpot's and others that have gotten the "exclusive review treatment's" exclusive reviews. You may see that they indeed got an exclusive (by the date it was posted or published), but the review ended up failing to garner "Feature" status on the reviewer's web site because of the fact that the game actually sucked. (Brute Force anyone?)

Long story short, I understand that "exclusive reviews" can be frustrating to those that aren't given the opportunity to participate in this, but I highly question how it is "ethically" troubling.

IGN, GameSpot, PC Gamer, etc. etc. will sign NDAs, agree to embargos and whatnot to get the exclusive, but they certainly also will cover their own asses ethically by informing the PR person that a "good review" is not guaranteed.

From what I have heard however, Take 2 and Rockstar do go out of their way to implement some heavy-handed review tactics that are indeed unethical, but it's rather unfair to make a general sweeping statement that all exclusives are subjected to such Draconian measures.

To summarize, the exclusives game is definitely a scratch my back and I'll scratch yours situation, but I don't see it being the scandal that you're trying to make it out to be, but this statement - like your article - is just one person's opinion and of course you are duly entitled to it.

[Tom WIlliams]

Am I the one that was reading GTA IV reviews before IGN?????
There were atleast 2 official ones that came out, one from XBOX magazine I think.
None of the big sites had reviews but IGN was hardly official

[Matt C.]

Where was your ETHIC OUTRAGE when Ubisoft restricted a media outlet(1up.com) from ever seeing a preview or advance review for any of their products, all because they didn't like the reviews that 1up gave their mediocre games. <-- That's an ethic outrage

Not so fun now that you're not included for once. The Ubisoft maneuver should never have been tolerated by the gaming media, but the thirst for the EXCLUSIVE STORY and the megaton ownerships of websites like ign.com keep anyone from growing a set.

[BlessedBullet]

I'm more disturbed about how gamers don't demand ethics. People don't seem to care about whether a game has been properly looked at. They buy into the hype for so long, they ache for the relief that a definitive A+ or 10/10 gives them.

The poor ethics doesn't just stop at exclusive reviews. Certain reviewers get exclusive access before hand. They also go to publisher sponsored parties and/or events. Shane Bettenhausen from 1up recently went to Japan to a secluded mountain retreat to play Metal Gear Sold 4 from start to finish and claims he can score the game. That's fucking shady. If he came back with a score in hand to share, gamers would have focused on it and not the circumstances of which it was given.

This stuff has gone on for so long and gamers have allowed it. IGN probably recognizes this and good for them - there's no shame in playing a fixed game if the millions of idiot spectators will watch it.

On the IGN review specifically, I don't like how they give the game perfect 10's on multiple levels (each on a 100 point scale) and have the audacity to include a disclaimer saying that a 10 does not denote a perfect game.

[joey]

Most people seem to miss the point of this post. The score is irrelevant, the game itself is also irrelevant. What is relevant is that the publication is potentially obligated to provide a favorable review in return for the game publisher allowing the publication to run its review before others, because the traffic generated by being the first ones allowed to post a review will result in revenue.

If the reviewer posts a negative review of the title, then that publisher will be less likely to make a similar arrangement with that publication in the future resulting in lost profits for both the game publisher and publication. A bad exclusive review would essentially kill the product before it's even hit the shelves. At least when a game hits all reviewers at once, there are bound to be some good reviews and bad reviews depending on variance of opinion (unless you're game is so dismally poor, everyone hates it). Most likely to reduce the risk of a bad exclusive review, the publisher had to approve it first before allowing the publication to post the review.

This sort of editorial control, and the seamless relationship between marketing and information media invites a distortion of truth favorable to those who stand to make money off of such deception, in this case both the game publisher and the publication.

[Trip3TripE]

Wow, I sense a lot of idiots replying to this blog with pitchforks and torches in hand. Oh, wait... They already have.

Waah! GTA IV deserves a 10/10! Waah!

That's what I'm hearing. Get over it, people are entitled to their opinions. Yes, even stupid ones like the ones complaining about someone else's opinon and trying to get them to "see the light." Geez, if you were only so defensive about yourselve, you kids might have a bit more self-esteem.

Aside to mrhumph, if I attend a screening of Iron Man (which I did) and reviewed it... Does that make it an exclusive review? Cause, by your standards... It does, doesn't it? Well, I give it a 5/10. Just because.

[Andrew]

There really should be more awareness raised in the gaming community that IGN is basically a pile of bullshit.

[Chris Remo]

Ben,

I completely agree. As somebody who's been covering video games full time for years, I've always found the idea of exclusive reviews to be a troubling practice.

Certainly in any branch of entertainment journalism, the arm of PR is longer than it is in hard news, but the games industry's PR machine seems to possess multiple extra appendages.

[baaah]

You're just pissed that you didn't get your silly copy of GTA 4 before IGN...IGN has been around for DECADES. They started as a stupid little bunch of reviewers and grew...that's PROGRESS...you can't expect everyone to suddenly become that popular. Personally though I'd rather go with Game Informer or Gamespot but that's just me. Don't belittle GTA IV until you play it THEN make your crummy review. Reviews aren't the end-all tell-all so how about your writers just shut your effin' traps and let us game consumers....the ones that matter.....have our fun. We'll take your opinions but ultimately we'll find our for ourselves if the game is awesome or not. You aren't the gods of gaming so quit yer bitchin'.

[koblenza]

(1) arguing that GTAIV is in fact a perfect 10 does not argue against his hypothesis that there's something inherently unethical in exclusive reviews. yes, maybe this particular game is perfect, but there's still something very true to the notion that an exclusive review does at least UNCONSCIOUSLY bias the reviewer -- the sheer excitement at being given the honor, the subtle feeling of wanting to show how happy you are to have received it, etc..

(2) movie studios do exclusive showings all the time.

[IGN666]

Anyone who says a killing/mugging/raping simulator is the "American Dream" needs to be exported to Iran. Period.

[MadSamus]

Actually, this article is wrong. Movie companies hand out exclusive reviews, as do book companies. I remember reading a not-so-glowing exclusive review of Phantom Menace in either Entertainment Weekly or Time.

[Chester89X]

You guys who say this isnt 10/10 are idiots look at everything thats in this game absolutly nothing has come close to GTA IV so go back to your Wii's and leave us actual gamers alone.

[Luke]

I run a large Australian website and I fully agree. The game is out and we still haven't received a review copy. We get ours after launch always. While I'm happy to be involved and get these games at all I find it hard to compete when your not even given the same chances or opportunitys to play the game fairly at the same time. That's what sucks the most. Imagine if everyone had the same time an date. It's then up to the best writer.

After this game and a few others of late I'm now looking at retail friends to hook me up first to be more competitive.

[flawed]

One has to agree that with this system in place, the rating system is deeply flawed

Rating is just another advertising machine and not really consumerist based

[mrhumph]

You claim here that there is no such thing as the concept of an "exclusive" review in film. However, a "first" review of IRON MAN has recently been put up on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TB4loah_sXw by your publication. They have clearly been given exclusive access and have, in turn, provided praise. Are you going to direct the same scorn to your own editor and the producers of this movie as you have against GTA IV and IGN? Will you write a few lines about how skeptical you are about the conclusions in it? There have been about 140,000 views of the video so far, do you see this as publicity for your paper in exchange for positive press or is there another rationale? Variety has famously been criticized for printing Sony sponsored reviews, has it not?

I don't expect you will address this concern as hypocrisy is so easy to shrugged off or mask with claims of ignorance, but it does seem strange that Variety as a publication would behave in such a schizophrenic way.

The rest of the GTA IV reviews seem to be positive. Will non-exclusive reviews of IRON MAN be as well?

[Prodigy_BE]

Hm.. As ex-editor in chief of an official PlayStation magazine in Europe, I know for a fact that Take 2 goes a long way in getting great reviews. With the release of GTA Vice City, the rules where simple: Take 2 permitted you to publish a review BEFORE the game was released if you gave it 95% or more. You sign that document, you got playable code. All the others got their first playable code in the form of a retail version, at the day of release. By then, the press already had tons of 95+ releases, and no-one dared to oppose these reviews, in fear of getting butchered by GTA fanboys.

I wrote an article about the whole thing, and almost got a bunch of NY lawyers on my neck. People from Sony UK managed to prevent things from escalating.

Magazines, websites, everybody is pushed into making more money, so the proposition (early review that attracts lots of readers, + lots of money through GTA ads) made by Take 2 is tempting for just about everyone.

In the end, gaming press should be the last line of defence for the consumer, but the financial grip of publishers made them into cheap hookers.

[georgeGR]

Normally we would have run a review as soon as another site posted theirs that's the law of the Internet - in this case Rockstar had all other media outlets (other than IGN) sign a legally binding NDA before they were allowed to review the game. This was 9am US/5pm UK on 27/4.

The problem is - every other website which hadn't had early access and not signed an NDA were free to crib IGN's review.

It is a ten, though.

[Booboo]

Wow, too many misconceptions and errors about how the gaming media works here to go into all of them, but had to point out one thing--'at the movies' (ebert's show) has indeed done exclusive reviews, basically reviewing movies one week before everyone else.

(BTW, Bigger problems not brought up in the OP: Rockstar insisting on who reviews the game.)

[Mark]

With all the problems the 360 version of GTA IV has, no way does it deserve a 10/10 a 8.5/10 would be more suitable, and a 9.5/10 on PS3. (again which is not perfect, but alot more perfect than the 360 version).

In short, IGN penalised the PS3 version of Orange Box, for the same problems that plague the 360 version of GTA IV, but have not adjusted the scores in the dame way.

[DirkBelig]

The bashing of IGN over this review certainly took on a new light as the embargo lifted and several other sites gave it "perfect" scores and a few in the 9.5-9.8 range. If IGN was the outlier with a higher than average score, the insinuation that shenanigans were involved might have some merit, but it's clearly not the case.

If anything, it appears that Ben Fritz is bitter that he wasn't invited to the events in which writers were invited and put up in hotels to play GTA IV for a week straight. Instead of questioning whether these junkets are kosher - something that no Variety writer could without his movie junket attending co-workers giving him a wedgie about - he tries to smear IGN when their only sin was getting to go to press first.

If any outlet should be scrutinized for overscoring their genuine exclusives - sorry, but being able to publish two days before everyone else when you're a massive outlet like IGN isn't much of a perk - it is PC Gamer magazine which routinely seems to land 5-10% above the average with their exclusive scores. Doom 3 was a particularly egregious example that they are still suffering from. Currently Crysis is the title that they've squandered their credibility on, even getting intramural squabbles going during their podcast as former editors disagree with the 98% it was gifted. (I've been bored stupid by the game, but still have a long ways to go.)

With all the great praise GTA IV (or any highly-rated title) gets, there are going to a dedicated group of naysayers who are going to seek to flyspeck the game to come up with a complaint that no one else has seen fit to scold before so they can elevate themselves as being the once who noticed whatever is worth knocking a point off for. Fritz has already tipped his hand that he is seeking to be such an equalizer with his premature comments based on limited play. (I suppose Star Wars wasn't that good because early on, Luke hadn't saved anyone or done anything heroic.)

My Greatest. Game. Ever. is the first Half-Life even though the Xen sequences at the end of the game played like Super Mario Life with all the platform puzzles. Still, even though there was some design issues, the overall experience has yet to be surpassed for me. To dock harshly without regard to the overall whole is childish.

In 24 hours, the world will be a couple hours into the game and be able to decide for themselves. Since Fritz won't have his review out in time to sway those early purchasers, his incentive to nay-say is multiplied. Whether the whole game is more than the sum of its parts won't matter to a writer with a vendetta and a score to settle. From the reviews I've read, GTA IV sounds like an epic, bar-raising achievement and a bargain for $60.

[Funky J]

Yes, it's opinion Vs fact, but we all know facts can be "interpreted" and "omitted".

Even with exclusive stories, it is well known, at least to anyone who has worked or studied media, that you go easy on the talent if you score an exclusive interview.

So explain to me what the difference is?

And isn't ethically troubling that someone from a news source that didn't get exclusivity whinges about it? For example, would you have made the same post if Variety got the exclusive??

[jackinthexbox]

I'll agree on the point that the 360 version should get a lesser point score for it's performance issues in comparison with the PS3 version. That's where the bias towards the 360 is undeniable. But if the bar has been set this high by GTA IV, then IGN's whole review system needs to be completely overhauled for this generation of games. They will only (hopefully) get better. Thank YOU Rockstar!

[jackinthexbox]

I'll agree on the point that the 360 version should get a lesser point score for it's performance issues in comparison with the PS3 version. That's where the bias towards the 360 is undeniable. But if the bar has been set this high by GTA IV, then IGN's whole review system needs to be completely overhauled for this generation of games. They will only (hopefully) get better. Thank YOU Rockstar!

[jackinthexbox]

I'll agree on the point that the 360 version should get a lesser point score for it's performance issues in comparison with the PS3 version. That's where the bias towards the 360 is undeniable. But if the bar has been set this high by GTA IV, then IGN's whole review system needs to be completely overhauled for this generation of games. They will only (hopefully) get better. Thank YOU Rockstar!

[d3p0]

I either agree with the writer of this article or he/she is whining because they weren't invited to the cool kids party. Supporting the later thought is the fact that Metacritic has listed at least 2-3 review scores for at least a week before IGN's review. As of writing this there are 13 scores listed for GTA's 360 SKU on Metacritic (two days after IGN's "exclusive") so I have to wonder if embargo's aside, GTA just takes a long time to review. Maybe the author of this article, embittered by the lack of an even more advanced copy of the game should go to his or her typewriter and show Rockstar who's boss. Yeah! I wonder if there is any ethical dilemma with writing a hip dissenting review because he/she wasn't treated with the importance they deserve?

Or maybe you're right, I mean, I didn't like Mass Effect very much.

[Chris Jensen]

As someone who has worked as a game "journalist" for nearly 20 years now, having co-founded the original Online Gaming Review (OGR.com), having worked as an editor at Next Generation Magazine, and having written over 20 strategy guides for Prima, Sybex, Gamespot and Brady Books...no one has seen more industry BS than myself. I had planned on writing an article this week about embargoes in the game industry, mainly from the angle of this most recent event, which is vile.

This article is correct in raising concerns. You would rightfully think that once IGN posted their review, a review they were allowed to post by being #1 on the tiered-embargo list, that every other site would follow. They didn't. They didn't because breaking the embargo would sour their relationships with Take2 and Rockstar. Every website and magazine is now utterly beholden to PR companies and Publishers. The power they exert constantly manifests itself and game media seems not to mind.

I personally stopped accepting all travel and perks from game companies many years ago, but I fear I'm the only one I know. In the case of GTA IV, many writers from first-tier sites were flown out to SF/NY for five days of fun and games, all at the expense of Take 2. All this so these "reviewers" could pass judgment on their game. Nice and cozy. It should make everyone sick.

Unfortunately, it's a scandal no one seems to give a crap about.

[Daniel Purvis]

@ vril - you didn't read the article, did you? Come on, just admit it!

I've been considering the exclusive "Review" thing and have been held to embargo for a number of reviews. However, I managed to get a store owner to lay on me a copy of GTA IV Thursday last week and had the notion of crashing through the game and throwing a review up online Friday evening. Thus, breaking the embargo I would have been under had I received a copy from Rockstar directly.

So, I was thinking, how plausible would it be to go "Guerilla Reviewing". As in, obtaining a copy of the game pre-release (I would hope by purchase, though playing a leaked copy might prove plausible) and then throwing the review up before the embargo end date. Technically, you wouldn't be beholden to the publisher's embargo date, you'd get a huge boost in traffic, though you suffer the risk of getting black balled.

[pish]

IGN's reviews has always been top-notch. though i don't always agree with them, that comes with having your own opinion, BUT i always respect that IGN's editors always defend their ratings with good objective facts about the game...even when i disagree with the rating.

you wanna talk about editorial integrity?
how about a site that try to cause some controversy to get people visit their crappy site? oh you know... like this one?

it's fine to question editor's ethics and articles, but before the game comes out? hell, maybe your right (which i doubt), but what if the game IS perfect in the consumer's eyes? then obviously ign's 10 was justified, which would make this article, and site look stupid.

you guys better hope GTA4 isn't what it's cracked up to be, cause you'll all look like dumb asses if it is.

[RandomRage]

Great article, I agree with you completely. This is yet another example of how game journalism still needs to "grow up."

@MvmntInGrn:
BioWare was the developer for Mass Effect, Microsoft was the publisher.

[Dexter]

A decent article but I guess I'm left wondering where this article was during the Assassin's Creed days? You seem pretty keen on jumping on IGN but really standoffish about Game Informer, or any other publication for that matter. Do you recall Game Informer (or Game(stop) Informer) giving AC a 10 out of 10? what was your take on that game? The article makes decent argument for getting rid of exclusives but I can't help but thing you've got some kind of riff with IGN..or maybe you just didn't feel important when you woke up.

The article has some key flaws, considering it's not even mentioned that there had been a few print publications that ran their own reviews for the game (10/10's) before IGNs.

[jaster]

@yowoe

Thats not really how it works. Exclusive content is granted well before the review is written. Chances are IGN paid for the exclusive review, not the other way around. They hope to make that money back via advertising due to more traffic then normal on their site. If anything that makes their review mode credible since they had to pay for the right to do it first.

[Jerry]

You would not have written this article if it weren't for the whole Gamespot CNET debacle.

However the IGN editors are good honest people (especially the reviewer Hilary), not to mention with all the work and love poured in this game it's probably going to be awesome.

You're just trying to use GTA's popularity to make a big article to get a lot of hits, stop writing trash.

[betaray]

"If IGN gives a 9, but does all the other stuff . . . "

Then Rockstar's marketing department tells the IGN editorial staff that they "would like to give IGN and exclusive review but outlet XYZ gave a the game a 10, and they don't feel they can give an exclusive the lower scored review unlesss . . ."

So, IGN fixes "corrects" their review and they get the exclusive.

[games journo]

First off, great article Ben. It's refreshing for someone to put their b*lls on the line, stand up and declare this practice is dangerous. Hopefully this issue will become such a pressing issue in the eyes of readers that any self-respecting, credible games publication refuses to accept exclusive reviews in the future - clearly we're still awhile away from that, yet.

This is exactly why GameSpot doesn't do exclusive reviews. I think it's hard to get code before release without it being an exclusive, and they have to test online modes etc. to ensure it's a thorough verdict.

GameSpot reviews editor Justin Calvert explains why they don't do exclusive reviews in the new reviews blog, Under Review: http://us.gamespot.com/news/blogs/review-blog/909185210/26333761/not-exclusive.html

Oh and IGN weren't the first. The UK Official Xbox Magazine and UK Official PlayStation magazine both had exclusive reviews this week. Guess what? They also gave it a perfect 10 :-/
http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/933037.asp?q=grand%20theft%20auto%20iv

What's your opinion on "official" magazines? I don't trust anything they write, as the whole premise revolves around them getting exclusive access to Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo games ahead of anyone else (and paying a substantial amount for the privilege).

[Xen]

I agree completely with your analysis Ben (pity some of the fanboys above completely miss the point).

Will GTA be a good game of course it will but with all the hype and money/reviews at stake any faults in the game will be glossed over.

Then a few months from now after everyone has played it everybody will magically go great game GTA4 but the [insert faults] really let it down in parts without any reviews reflecting it. The only person/review to really take a stab at it will be Zero Punctuation.

Happens to all major hype titles like Oblivion, Halo 3, Mass Effect, Gears of War etc.

[Ken]

I say bollocks to it, we all know the game is good. So play it and see for yourself.

[Ron]

If the review from IGN came at a significantly higher score than other sites, I'd say you're right. The only way to figure this is to see how the other sites are reviewing the game. For example, if you see an exclusive review score a 9 but thereafter you see other sites give it 6's and 7's then I'd say there was something fishy but I don't think this is the case here.

On the other hand, I do see how journalistic integrity can be compromised here due to money issues.

[MisterTwoTurbo]

With the IGN review, if they flat out just gave it a 10 with a 1 page review. Then we obviously know they're being paid or something. But they gave a pretty lenghty 7 page review on why they think the game is great. And then proceeded to explain why they think it deserves a 10.

And for crying out loud, they haven't given a game a 10 since 1999 for Soul Caliber on dreamcast.

IGN just doesn't hand out 10's pretty easy.

However the only thing troubling with IGN is they're lack of consistency with reviews.

In old reviews like Dirt, or Skate or pretty much any multiplatform title. The PS3 version would always get .2-.5 less overall points than the 360 version because of a less stable frame rate, less anti-aliasing, longer load times, etc. Now I'm not saying that the PS3 version should be equal in point due to those faults. That's fine, it should score lower given it does have those issues.

But GTA IV on 360 is suffering from less anti-aliasing, longer load times, pop-ups, less stable frame rate. But still managed to receive the exact same score as the PS3 version. Where's the 9.9 or the 9.8 for having such issues?

So in a way dude, I agree with your article and disagree in a way. I agree in the fact that the whole "Exclusive" Review thing might be ran by the publishers like Microsoft or Sony. But I only disagree just because I think GTAIV might be an exception to the conspiracy. I think it just truely does deserve a 10/10 for delivering everything they promised. Excellent graphics, story, multiplayer, long single player campaign, etc. It's 10 times more game than any game out right now for the same price of $59.99 and for that. It definitely deserves a 10.

Now a game that didnt deserve a 10/10 everywhere was Halo 3. I would give it a 7/10 at most. It had crappy character models, aliasing up the ying yang, the story was dry (the arbiter was just a damn tag along), and gameplay was no different than Halo 2.

[Makidian]

I don't understand, it' just business, and I didn't hear anyone really complaining about review scores when they were getting tons of schwag from Microsoft. So what if someone gets an exclusive review, it sounds like you would take one if you could, so keep up the good work and you could get your own. Plus the embargo lifts tomorrow morning doesn't it?

[mike clyne]

It's like Mr. Ben Fritz here scanned my brain. I am of the same opinion and completely agree with you.
I already don't trust 90 percent of videogame reviews, as they tend to reek of either payola (from the big media sites) or blind fanyboyism (from individual blogs).
Not every single review, just most. And this sort of emphasizes how bought off some reviews are (or I suspect are). Exclusive reviews are red flags of being paid advertisements posing as neutral objectivity.

[vril]

Dude, shut the fuck up.

10 out of 10.

[smashpizza]

And I don't think anyone will break an embargo from Rockstar without the OK from Rockstar.

For example, a French gaming site, jeux-france, broke the embargo on the MGS4 preview from the journalists invited to Japan, but no one else broke the embargo until Konami said they could post to everyone else.

For this exclusive review, Rockstar granted IGN permission to do so- and not anyone else. so unless other publications want to be banned from future Rockstar productions until after release, they won't be breaking the embargo. They are scheduled to release reviews at 10 AM EST Sunday, according to Eurogamer and Kotaku.

[MvmntInGrn]

If this was the case they would not have noted any difference between PS3 and 360. The 360 ver. will sell more in America, why would a paid reviewer down the top seller?

[yowoe]

And you got one thing wrong:

Bioware published Mass Effect, and is now a part of EA. So Game Informer would have had to get permission from Bioware/EA for the exclusive, not Microsoft.

[yowoe]

The way exclusive reviews work is.....
These guys do the reviews FIRST. In order to grant an exclusive review, a company evaluates a number of things: The review scores (of the publications), and the coverage offered by the review outlet.

For example, if IGN gives a 10 and EGM (1up.com) gives a 9, IGN gets the exclusive.

If IGN gives a 9, but does all the other stuff: a 7 page review, the awesome review video, a podcast devoted to the game, etc., and EGM gives a 10, IGN once again gets the exclusive- much more coverage, and great descriptions.

If EGM said, however, we'll give GTA our cover (instead of say Socom or Splatterhouse), and we'll do tons of online stuff (like IGN), then they will get the exclusive.