Sunday, August 14, 2005
Announcing: Video Game Media Watch
The Video Game Ombudsman is now Video Game Media Watch. The same great video game media criticism you love, now with a new name, new design and a new address at VGMWatch.com. More information about the move is available in this introductory post. Update your bookmarks and head on over!
Tuesday, August 2, 2005
The Syndication of GameSpot
Thanks to quite a few people for pointing me to this Sports Gamer post which, in turn, points to this CNet Press Release. Amid much talk of CNet's financial results, the release lists out Gamespot's "content relationship" partners, including one that might surprise you:
In addition, GameSpot continued to extend content relationships during the quarter, adding Walmart, MTV and Target as licensing partners. These build on GameSpot's existing partnerships with Yahoo! Games, AOL Games, and EBGames.com, and Sony Playstation, among others. [emphasis added]
Most of these are pretty straightforward. It's hard to miss the Gamespot-provided content when you browse around MTV.com, AOL's Games Channel, EBGames.com or Target's GetIntotheGame.com. But Sony Playstation? Out of context, that's the kind of "content relationship" that some people might imply constitutes a conflict of interest?
By way of clarification, GameSpot Editor-in-Chief Greg Kasavin said the release refers to "a licensing deal with PlayStation.com, which feeds in some of GameSpot's product data as well as some of its articles." Indeed, a bit of searching finds Gamespot-provided news stories in Playstation.com's archives. Kasavin also pointed out that "this isn't an exclusive relationship, as you can see other publications' information on PlayStation.com as well." That's also true: IGN.com seems to be the one providing most of Playstation.com's news now. (IGN/GameSpy didn't immediately return a request for comment).
Kasavin also made it clear that "this relationship has no effect on GameSpot's editorial in any way, shape, or form. CNET Networks, parent company of GameSpot, prides itself on the integrity of the content of its properties. As such, it wouldn't make much sense for CNET to engage in (much less to publicly tout) a compromising relationship like the one that's being implicated here."
I don't doubt Kasavin when he says this. Considering the number of places that same GameSpot content is licensed, it seems kind of silly to think that they would specifically slant their coverage to keep just one licensee happy. Besides hurting the quality of their work, it would likely lead to a lot of resentment among the writers and editors if they were told to be nice to be extra-nice to Sony from now on.
What's less certain, as evidenced by the reaction to this press release, is whether licensing content to sites like Playstation.com is a good move from a public relations standpoint. No one's really going to worry about GameSpot giving preferential treatment to Target, but readers who see the Gamespot name on the official corporate site for Playstation might easily jump to the wrong conclusions. Is the extra publicity and/or money from these relationships worth the potential hit to credibility? It's something each site has to decide for itself, I guess.
In other press-release-transcribed news: GameSpot offered 2 million downloads of the Battlefield 2 demo in 24 hours through its new GameCenter service, and offered 6 million video streams in one day during E3. Numbers like these are sure to make any small to mid-sized gaming site quietly weep through the night.
In addition, GameSpot continued to extend content relationships during the quarter, adding Walmart, MTV and Target as licensing partners. These build on GameSpot's existing partnerships with Yahoo! Games, AOL Games, and EBGames.com, and Sony Playstation, among others. [emphasis added]
Most of these are pretty straightforward. It's hard to miss the Gamespot-provided content when you browse around MTV.com, AOL's Games Channel, EBGames.com or Target's GetIntotheGame.com. But Sony Playstation? Out of context, that's the kind of "content relationship" that some people might imply constitutes a conflict of interest?
By way of clarification, GameSpot Editor-in-Chief Greg Kasavin said the release refers to "a licensing deal with PlayStation.com, which feeds in some of GameSpot's product data as well as some of its articles." Indeed, a bit of searching finds Gamespot-provided news stories in Playstation.com's archives. Kasavin also pointed out that "this isn't an exclusive relationship, as you can see other publications' information on PlayStation.com as well." That's also true: IGN.com seems to be the one providing most of Playstation.com's news now. (IGN/GameSpy didn't immediately return a request for comment).
Kasavin also made it clear that "this relationship has no effect on GameSpot's editorial in any way, shape, or form. CNET Networks, parent company of GameSpot, prides itself on the integrity of the content of its properties. As such, it wouldn't make much sense for CNET to engage in (much less to publicly tout) a compromising relationship like the one that's being implicated here."
I don't doubt Kasavin when he says this. Considering the number of places that same GameSpot content is licensed, it seems kind of silly to think that they would specifically slant their coverage to keep just one licensee happy. Besides hurting the quality of their work, it would likely lead to a lot of resentment among the writers and editors if they were told to be nice to be extra-nice to Sony from now on.
What's less certain, as evidenced by the reaction to this press release, is whether licensing content to sites like Playstation.com is a good move from a public relations standpoint. No one's really going to worry about GameSpot giving preferential treatment to Target, but readers who see the Gamespot name on the official corporate site for Playstation might easily jump to the wrong conclusions. Is the extra publicity and/or money from these relationships worth the potential hit to credibility? It's something each site has to decide for itself, I guess.
In other press-release-transcribed news: GameSpot offered 2 million downloads of the Battlefield 2 demo in 24 hours through its new GameCenter service, and offered 6 million video streams in one day during E3. Numbers like these are sure to make any small to mid-sized gaming site quietly weep through the night.
Monday, August 1, 2005
Psychic Journalism
Thanks to Ombudsman reader Justin McElroy for pointing me to a Computer and Video Games article about some alleged Nintendo Revolution videos uncovered by a French gaming Web site. It's a pretty standard, substance-free rumor-mongering article, with an added psychic twist:
"We can't confirm or deny whether they're true either way, and of course if we asked them, Nintendo would issue its standard 'we don't comment on rumour and speculation'."
Now, C&VG is most likely right. At least nine times out of ten, big companies like Nintendo do just issue a standard no comment when asked about rumors like these. But there are at least a few times when they will break that shell of silence, and that is when the game journalism community should be asking, and listening, the hardest.
It's very unlikely that Nintendo would confirm the footage was real. Even if it was real, they would likely issue a "no comment" until they could officially unveil the footage themselves, albeit with much less fanfare than if the footage hadn't leaked out. This doesn't mean that a "no comment" is as good as a "yes," but it does leave the possibility open.
What's slightly more likely, and more interesting, is that Nintendo would deny that the footage was real. Nintendo has done this in the past, for example, denying rumors of a potential sale to Microsoft or reports of technical problems causing a delay in the GameCube's launch. Imagine if the reporters in these stories had failed to ask, simply assuming that Nintendo would not comment on the rumors. Readers would be left without some truly vital information.
Even better, when a company does actively deny something, it's a great chance to catch them in a lie later on. Take, for example, this story, in which Nintendo denied it would lower the price of the GameCube just three days before doing just that. Or this story where Nintendo denied Sega would be making games for the Game Boy Advance roughly a year before the release of Sonic Advance. These little nuggets of self-contradiction are gold for any journalist, and poison for any PR department (this is why companies give so many "no comments" in the first place).
Of course, if I contacted C&VG about this, they'd probably just tell me that they didn't have time to contact Nintendo before posting this little airy nothing of a story, and they just made up an excuse to avoid looking lazy. Hey, if they can make up likely answers, then so can I.
"We can't confirm or deny whether they're true either way, and of course if we asked them, Nintendo would issue its standard 'we don't comment on rumour and speculation'."
Now, C&VG is most likely right. At least nine times out of ten, big companies like Nintendo do just issue a standard no comment when asked about rumors like these. But there are at least a few times when they will break that shell of silence, and that is when the game journalism community should be asking, and listening, the hardest.
It's very unlikely that Nintendo would confirm the footage was real. Even if it was real, they would likely issue a "no comment" until they could officially unveil the footage themselves, albeit with much less fanfare than if the footage hadn't leaked out. This doesn't mean that a "no comment" is as good as a "yes," but it does leave the possibility open.
What's slightly more likely, and more interesting, is that Nintendo would deny that the footage was real. Nintendo has done this in the past, for example, denying rumors of a potential sale to Microsoft or reports of technical problems causing a delay in the GameCube's launch. Imagine if the reporters in these stories had failed to ask, simply assuming that Nintendo would not comment on the rumors. Readers would be left without some truly vital information.
Even better, when a company does actively deny something, it's a great chance to catch them in a lie later on. Take, for example, this story, in which Nintendo denied it would lower the price of the GameCube just three days before doing just that. Or this story where Nintendo denied Sega would be making games for the Game Boy Advance roughly a year before the release of Sonic Advance. These little nuggets of self-contradiction are gold for any journalist, and poison for any PR department (this is why companies give so many "no comments" in the first place).
Of course, if I contacted C&VG about this, they'd probably just tell me that they didn't have time to contact Nintendo before posting this little airy nothing of a story, and they just made up an excuse to avoid looking lazy. Hey, if they can make up likely answers, then so can I.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)