Having dealt with Kohnke before, I'd assume they were providing early release/beta participation for the potential reviewers. In addition they probably had first right of publication refusal to any reviews from reviewers that they had provided the perks to. Whether the refusal was implied or required is a matter of opinion.

They probably also contracted when reviews would hit to coordinate them properly and to give the earliest reviews to the larger and/or more controlled publications.

I am on their mailing list for PR and I don't recall seeing much about Gods and Heroes, but cocaine is a hell of a drug.

austinpoet

What about reviewers who blackmail publishers? I'm sure it happens...

baccardi84

Luxury the nephilins. Found And the fociles of them in india

typeofbreastcancer.info

I won't get up on a soapbox again regarding the effect of "big business" on the gaming industry, but I will say this...there will be much more of this sort of thing to come and it ain't gonna be pretty at all.

GameraTheGreat

Where PR firms are concerned, is it really upon any of our shoulders to prove that they have "good" intentions? I think it's fair to assume that their main intentions are:

1) Make money
2) See (1)

I think it's a great idea, making money-wise to state this in a public forum. It gets the word out to publishers in a subtle way. An Eidos suit, for example, could see this and say, "positive reviews? I need positive reviews! We should hire Kohnke!"

It's obviously a situation endemic to the industry, and judging from Gamespot's recently steady pageview statistics, it isn't likely to end soon.

RcP

"The incentive came to the PR firm if they were successful in creating pre-release "buzz" and in "convincing reviewers to write positive reviews about the game."

I wouldn't read into it too much. I imagine this has to do with providing positive "previews" etc. For example, look at the praise Space Giraffe got here and elsewhere prior to its release. I'll admit, I bought it because of it. But good lord, was the game horrible. Some may say I don't "get it" but that doesn't change my opinion.

Luckily, the next game to get this kind of feedback here was Everyday Shooter and that turned out to be delightful.

FanDam

@Andy S.: Brilliant logic. I couldn't agree more. Kotaku and everyone else who wants to hold onto some moral highground with respect to this question should simply return the free swag.

Only by throwing it back to the game companies and making sure that they know you care nothing for the freebies can any modicum of objectivity be maintained.

Remember that perception of conflict is just as bad as actual conflict of interest when it comes to damaging credibility. That's why this is so important.

Unless you have a legitimate reason to hold on to something a game company has sent you - ie. a free, early review copy of an upcoming game - you should send it back.

No contest.

DangerChimp

And this is surprising how? ;)

I've had games I've worked on over the years canceled for the sole reason that marketing and PR didn't know how to slot it into their advertising/PR campaigns because it didn't fit the formula.

I've seen it where we had to paint our walls a certain color in the office for a couple of days because corporate wanted to wine and dine a huge client at our studio and that was their network's color. We didn't work all day on our current project but had to put up screens of their IP to "show" them that the whole studio was working on it.

If companies/publishers go crazy lengths for something like that they DEFINITELY are doing this kind of "business"..

JohnnyLA

@okenny :): That's Kohnke saying they were paid to deliver good reviews. So there's no mudslinging, just a statement of fact. The question is what exactly were the doing to make that delivery.

crecente

@Dullspork: Yeah with individual reviewers the past has plainly shown that hype works.

Hype can bump a score up, and if a PR firm can help create some hype, that's what they will do.

I think the "controversy" of all this is the fact that reviewers and publications don't like to talk about this side of the industry.

Now they have been forced to say openly to their readers: "Yes companies are trying daily to influence my reviews, no I cannot prove to you that I'm not taking money"

The only thing a reviewer can do is ask that you trust them; it's an uncomfortable topic for them.

Astrofox

Isn't that what attack of the show is for?

rebelphoenix

@vine: I know what you mean. The reason a game company holds a party is to generate positive press, and I think this would have an emotional effect on reviewers.

I trust IGN and listen to their podcasts. I think those guys get very excited about certain franchises, but that is because a game has rubbed them the right way, not because of direct monetary involvement or pressure from a marketing deal.

However positive impressions can be made in many different ways... maybe nostalgia of an old intellectual property or friendly game executives showing off their game at a party... some of these things cost money.

So essentially all reviewers a "wooed" to an extent. It's up to them however, to not let game company PR influence affect their review of a game.

But now we're talking about two different things... game journalists receiving personal incentives to favour a game, and the separation of editorial and marketing divisions of a big publication like IGN and Gamespot.

Astrofox

During the last eight years of doing marketing and PR in the gaming industry I never got the impression that anybody was "selling" good reviews in US game publications. At least, not with anybody that would be considered a reputable publication.

The stuff quoted in the Kohnke suit is pretty straight forward stuff. I don't see any real controversy here. Sure, PR people will try to influence reviews. I mean, quantity of reviews and the aggregate scores are how PR Firms measure their success. Of course they're going to do what they can to influence them. I question the efficacy of this supposed "influence" though. Yes, you can easily influence the number of reviews by getting the game out to as many reviewers as possible and you can pester people to actually review the game. The squeaky wheel does get the grease. Influencing reviews? Not so much. I mean, in the end they don't really wield any power over reviewers. The relationship is more symbiotic than that. That won't keep PR people from trying, though.

Publisher influence though... that's something else. They are the ones who pay for advertising and that advertising is how magazines and websites make money.

Dullspork

More dune wisdowm perls:

Thinking, and the methods by which thoughts are communicated, inevitably create a system permeated by illusions.
-Zensunni Teaching

The person who takes the banal and ordinary and luminates it in a new way can terrify. We do not want our ideas changed. We feel threatened by such demands. "I already know the important things!" we say. Then Changer comes and throws our old ideas away.
-The Zensufi Master

The mystery of life is not a problem to be solved, but a reality to be experienced.
-Meditations from Bifrost Eyrie, Buddislamic Text

I hope sciencie-fiction ethical quotes are on-topic :-)

tei

Marketing first - it's the American way.

scarshapedstar

@bassiladelph: And when I say "ratings system", I mean the ESRB.

bassiladelph

@crecente: Hopefully, the increased exposure will cut down on it.

I'd like to think that, but I don't see how that will be the case. There's too much money involved in this, and it'll just mean more under-the-table dealings, and taking away from what could actually influence a positive review (i.e, a game that doesn't play like a turd).

And as long as there are people who are willing to exploit the lack of a watchdog in the gaming community (aside from the ratings system), then it will never change enough to even be somewhat satisfying.

bassiladelph

We should be careful to just jump on some bandwagon here and see every little thing in light of the Gertsman saga as subversive. We have to remember how prevalent mud slinging is in both media and law and not just move forward especially when broad stroking statements are made without merit. I listed to the CAGCast and as much as I love those guys, it made me uncomfortable to listen as CheapyD implying that only blogs held credibility that readers should trust and the big gaming portals were merely symbols of corporate interest. He was quickly checked by a guest Joystick editor on the podcast who asserted that it's not a matter of credibility and that hardcore gamers probably just have a larger and deeper appetite for industry news that blogs can feed. It still felt disingenuous though that people keep this guilty till innocent mentality for major news portals' opinions and reviews simply based on wild accusation and speculation. The potential for corruption exists everywhere and we do a great disservice to ourselves when we allow ourselves to believe that it can only be found in "some" places.

okenny :)

In the inmmortal words of Duke Leto I.

"My govern is good, but how people will know it withouth PR?"

Dune, book one.

tei

Nice to know the tracks are dirty on both sides.

bassiladelph

@crecente: But, when a website has a contest -- whether it's Kotaku, another Gawker site, or anyone else -- the primary purpose is to draw in more visitors or at the very least further secure your grip on the visitors you have. More visitors means more ad revenue.

If you receive a free thing, and then you give that thing away in a contest, you've just used that thing to benefit Kotaku (contest benefits Kotaku, free thing makes contest possible, therefore free thing benefits Kotaku). So really, that's no less sketchy than simply keeping the free stuff for yourself.

Now, I'm not implying that Kotaku was swayed by the fact that MS gave them free stuff, I'm just saying that it's not like you didn't get anything out of it. If you (or any other reviewer) wanted to keep your hands truly clean and your ethics above reproach, you would have just sent the whole shebang back to MS, as Dean apparently did.

Take pictures of it before you send it back if you want, but make sure MS (and every other publisher) knows that their free swag is of no use or value to you.

Andy S.

As someone who works for and around an advertising company, there is no such thing as separation of Church and State. A company who wants to receive a more favorable review will start running print ads (magazines) or banners (online) several months before the product is released. The Sales Department will pressure the Editorial Department to give a little in the review to continue the advertising relationship.

Some publications will work in reverse. That is, they will print a favorable review in anticipation of the manufacturer/publisher buying advertising space in the future. You know, the whole "you scratch my back; I scratch yours" type of mentality.

This will unfortunately never change. Magazine profits are roughly 80 percent derived from advertising. Internet websites are 100 percent reliant on adveritising. You do not want to bite the hand that feeds you ... at least, not to the point where it starts bleeding.

LostToys

@vine: I think secret or well known, it should always be pointed out when it comes to light. Hopefully, the increased exposure will cut down on it.

crecente

@crecente: I trust you guys, and know you gave it away :)

What I'm interested in, being a journalism graduate, is the direction this non-standardized industry is headed in. Game journalism is becoming more and more important as the game industry grows, and at the moment, it is very exploitable.

Reviewers now control a lot of buying dollars, and the only ethical standard seems to be a duty to the readers.

This is why I love open comments sections such as these, it creates accountability. Gamespot was deleting threads about the controversy in its forums, and this just upsets the delicate balance that readers and online publications have created in this post-print world.

Astrofox

C'mon guys, you aer all missing the next big step in this dance.

Those with review scores to sell (I'll leave it to the invidual reader to assume which outlets do this) should start offering ways for fanboys to invest in their favorite titles. THAT is where the next revenue generator is. They are letting publisher's buy review scores, why not let the fanboys in on it. They obviously have income they have marked as disposable (how else do you explain all those action figures for video game characters) so why not let them put their money where their mouth is as far as review scores for their favorite games?

*Sarcasim disclaimer for those who missed it.*

NightOwl

As soon as IGN, Gamespot, 1Up, etc. started relying on advertising dollars to exist, the game review industry changed. I can only midly stand Kotaku because their advertising dollars are mainly from non-game industry companies.

It's funny that people regard this as a dirty little secret, but it's widely known throughout the game industry. When a company has a game coming out they will fly out the major publications and sites for a media day. When the reviewers room and board and all the alchohol they can drink is paid for by a game company, do you really think you're going to get an honest review? Why do you think IGN and Gamespots pre-release numbers are so much higher than the final review scores? For the pre-release they are wined and dined by the marketing department whereas the final review is done by the reviewer back in their office once the hangover has worn off.

It's not some big conspiracy, it's just business as usual.

vine

A very disheartening article. Coming from someone in the PR industry, we always try to highlight the best features and tell the most interesting stories about a game/product, but, in the end, that game or product needs to speak for itself, and no amount of money or bribing should ever alter a review of any kind.

pyrealnova

I guess if you were promised money based on a game's success after launch, and then the game never launched you would feel obliged to sue.

Chewbenator

@Astrofox: I think a number of people did different things on it. Dean mentioned that he was returning it. Gizmodo and Kotaku gave it away to readers. I believe Joystiq, Destructoid and Evil Avatar all did the same. Not sure about 1up and Gamespot.

crecente

Honestly, not trying to flame.

I would like to see an article investigating what I think is one of the most overlooked events in this vein. That is the $800 Halo 3 gym bags sent to reviewers before Halo 3 launched..

I was expecting a big retrospective on this, but it seems to have been forgotten.

Astrofox

@Zann: This makes alot more sense. Positive reviews boost sales, but with MMO reviews often hitting weeks after the game drops it seems more likely that previews do the heavy lifting.

Agies

@Zann: This was talking about pay they would receive based on subscriptions three months after release, so I'm pretty sure they meant review.

crecente

@Zann: "Positive Post-mortem" now. It's dead jim.

Ghede

Keep in mind, this might just be a terminology thing -- the marketing firm using the wrong term. The game hasn't been released yet, so it seems more likely they could demonstrate convincin some people to write a "positive preview" instead.

Zann