Quote from: Gazz on Jan 02, 2019, 03:04:05 PM
Quote from: Clanleaderyautja on Jan 02, 2019, 12:52:21 PM
Quote from: KiramidHead on Jan 02, 2019, 12:51:56 PM
Joy, the shill conspiracy theory.
Funny how open source information can show it's not a theory. Numbers don't lie. Follow the money.
There isn't money to follow. It's the pizzagate of the movie world.
Stay with me now. I know it's not movies, but it's not a far fetched example. I'm asking to put on your thinking cap for a couple minutes.
Perhaps you've heard the story: publisher Bethesda was due to give developer Obsidian a bonus if their post-apocalyptic RPG averaged an 85 on Metacritic, the review aggregation site. It got an 84 on PC and Xbox 360, and an 82 on PS3.
"If only it was a stable product and didn't ship with so many bugs, I would've given New Vegas a higher score," wrote a reviewer for the website 1up, which gave New Vegas a B, or 75 on Metacritic's scale.
"It's disappointing to see such an otherwise brilliant and polished game suffer from years-old bugs, and unfortunately our review score for the game has to reflect that," said The Escapist's review, which gave the game an 80.
If New Vegas had hit an 85, Obsidian would have gotten their bonus. And according to one person familiar with the situation who asked not to be named while speaking to Kotaku, that bonus was worth $1 million. For a team of 70 or so, that averages out to around $14,000 a person. Enough for a cheap car. Maybe a few mortgage payments.
Citation:
https://kotaku.com/metacritic-matters-how-review-scores-hurt-video-games-472462218Baring that in mind...
In the Kotaku post the community was eager to find out if any top reviewers had been blatantly paid off for review scores. Surprisingly enough, the anonymous publisher admits that they don't directly pay for scores but they do it in a number of other ways after being asked about directly influencing review scores, saying...
Reviews only have an impact if they're 90+, and then the impact is huge.
We don't take steps to get good reviews, we take steps to make good games. Then we invite reviews to fancy promotional events to warm them up on the game before they play it on their own.
I think of our launch parties as warm-up comedians for the main act. Warm-up comedians are there to get you laughing and excited, so when the star performer walks onstage, you're primed and ready to enjoy the set. Our promo events are the same way. We bring out media to a fancy location, wine and dine them, show them the best parts of our game, and generally build anticipation for release. The theory is that, once they get the game and play it privately, they already have a positive association with the game, which may influence their final score.
Free $60 game? Check. Fancy party at a ritzy hotel suite? Check. A few hot babes/dudes to set the mood? Check. Free dinner at a lavish restaurant? Check. The excitement of seeing a review with a 90+ after all those perks? Priceless.
This has been reiterated a couple of times throughout pieces from industry vets...about how they're flown out to fancy parties or events to experience the game in a heavily influential setting, just as the anonymous publisher notes, so that media walks away from the event with a very positive outlook on the game well before it releases.
If game reviewers are bribed...is it a stretch to think movie reviewers aren't? C'mon man.
Citation:
https://www.cinemablend.com/games/Publisher-Admits-Game-Review-Scores-Heavily-Influenced-By-Trips-Parties-Swag-48395.html