@Ish_basic said:
Embargoes are respected for the same reasons people on the news don't ask politicians the hard questions - because if you do, they won't come back. When I was doing this, we got presskits and passes and that's how we were able to deliver exclusive pics and information when there was no tangible product. Interviews may often be initiated by the publisher themselves. Ignoring things like an embargo is an easy way to no longer get access, and that means losing your readers to another site.
With regard to journalism in general I think we have different experiences here. I don't know where you're from, but I do not feel that in my country (The Netherlands) journalists generally do not ask the hard questions. Sure, there are instances where journalists could have been more confronting, but I feel there's a pretty open journalistic landscape when it comes to discussing the difficult issues with the people involved.
Also, I'd say political/societal journalism shouldn't be so directly compared to journalism involved in the consumption of luxury items. When it comes to the entertainment industry there's obviously a lot more pre-release control by publishers, because people don't just report on these products, they judge them. Appreciation and sales rely on taste, experience and preferences and people are largely relying on opinions to make a decision. There's often too much at stake to be lenient with the embargo. And there's very little publishers can do after the game is released, so I understand their pre-release caution.
@Ish_basic said:
I don't think any reviewer would have a problem with waiting until a week or so before launch to publish their review, but some games push it all the way to launch. I'm sure it's good for business, but that doesn't mean it's not shady. It's fair to ask: if you really have a good product, wouldn't you want people to know sooner?
I don't think so. You want a clearly delineated period, because you don't want sales to be influenced by a few early reviews that might have been rushed just to be the first. You want people to base their purchase on a lot of balanced reviews. Look, I'm sure that's not the actual reason publishers have embargoes, but I cannot sympathise with impatient consumers. Once the embargo is lifted, games will generally get the judgement they deserve. If you can't wait a little longer, then that's your fault. Consumers not taking any responsibility in this is just as shady in my book. To me there's no inherent harm in having embargoes. Consumers create that harm themselves.
@Ish_basic said:
Also, of course journalistic integrity applies to criticism. If you intentionally skew the facts and then build your criticism on that skewed data, that is an integrity issue. If you withhold criticism that could help your readers make a more informed choice (and any good criticism should contain objective bits of information that qualify as journalism) because it is more financially beneficial for you to do so, that is an integrity issue.
That's a good point. I shouldn't have painted such a black and white picture. I'm just very hesitant to see criticism as journalism. I think that at their core they are two very different things, but that doesn't mean some journalistic principles can't be applied to criticism. However, this is about selling luxury products, products that are owned by publishers, products that are not vital to our existence. To me it makes sense that a publisher exerts more control in that context. In the end, we don't actually need videogames, so a publisher has to do everything to make you want to need it. But really, without impatient consumers embargoes seem pretty harmless, because it doesn't stop a bad game from being judged as a bad game when the reviews eventually come out. And I don't think publishers have to cater to consumers who lack discipline. From a moral standpoint I guess you could say publishers shouldn't exploit that consumer tendency, but well... one could also question lazy and impatient consumers.
Log in to comment