Editor: Upset with Coverage, GameCo's Cut Ties with EGM

My opinion EGM has always been for Sony. I hate their biased reviews especially when orig xbox was getting games reviewed. They wouldnt review the game on the better system with better graphics and even live insted they say also on xbox haha. Maybe Sony didnt pay EGM enough $ this time around. Sony was probly a bit short on cash from the Warner Brothers bribe.

You know, as much as I want to disagree, let's face it. It's within these company's rights to do this. You have a print magazine which seems to be reviewing consistantly under the curve on your products (Assassin's Creed springs to mind immediately) yet gloriously hyping your previewed product to a reader base. Often delivering the review after the game has launched. Traditional print mags are sliding into oblivion.

And as a developer, if your sports game gets bashed because it's just another iteration to an annual franchise, why should you support the people bashing your product? I forget the review I read but it was about a JRPG on Xbox 360. The first paragraph praised the fact that it was a Japanese RPG on 360. Then the next 3 pages were spent bashing everything about JRPG conventions.

Besides, EGM is still free to cover these games, they just won't get junkets, exclusives, or review copies.

Right... First of all if Midway's MK team is pulling out there they probably would be pulling out from many many other gaming publications too (Given the rather mixed and middle-ground reviews they got for MKD and MKA)

Sony is a given and probably see (falsely) EGM as being on a Microsoft bias (which is silly really)

Not totally sure about Ubisoft though... Usually I havent seen much bad words said about them :P

@DevilMan

You probably don't read a whole lot of EGM, but out of every game publication thats out right now, they have to be the most UNBIASED and BALANCED magazine there is. I've been a fan since 1999, and I have never witnessed them tip to one end over another. This is more apparent even in the recent issues. How exactly have they "been for Sony"?. Giving a good review to game you ended up not liking doesn't count :P

@Gameboy:

They gave Assassin's Creed a 7.0, 6.0, and 4.5. They highlighted the animation and the game world itself as significant positives, but the game is way too repetitive. The average score is pretty much what every game review site, magazine, etc. has been giving the game.

Ultimately, the game sold more sizzle than steak.

If they rated AC a 7 then they are a more objective media outlet than most. That game was a gorgeous repetitive grind. Stories like this bother me and reinforce the lack of actual journalism in game journalism

Since this indicates that these companies buy review scores, I'll have to assume that if I ever see a game of theirs with a good score, it's just a piece of shit to avoid. Good marketing, guys.

They're bound to sell more copies of their games now that they're putting less money into advertising them. Wait, something about that sounds incorrect to me. It can't be that they're trying to encourage the magazine to raise its scores in order to gain exclusives in the future, can it?

EGM has been biased before and will always be.

For years they had a slight Nintendo bias.
Then the Dreamcast comes along and they are with Sega.
Then that thing fails and thy go with Sony.

Publishers have a right to withhold review copies of their games from EGM.

And EGM has a right to tell us (the reading public) what's going on.

And we have a right to backlash against the publishers for throwing a hissy fit.

"why should you support the people bashing your product?"

Because game companies need to start respecting the artistic integrity of their products (granted, sports games are not art...) if they expect the government and mainstream media to stop using them as scapegoats. If you are a politician that considers video games similar to McDonalds fries, cigarettes and other potentially harmful products, then you will have no compunction against passing ill-informed laws to limit their sale. EA and Ubisoft think their games should be entitled to the same constitutional protection as movies and books, then they need to start taking their employees' work more seriously.

I'm, remaining skeptical about this.

VERY skeptical.

I read EGM, it is one of the few mags I read anymore due to being tired of biased reporters.

EGM in my opinion is very un-biased. They have three people review every game. Three different people means three different opinions, and then the final score is an average of those three.

I've seen one reviewer give a game a 4.5 and the next give it a 8 and the third give it a 6. It comes down to personal opinion. Some people like certain types of games. I prefer RPGs personally, if I where to review say, a RTS, I might give it a low score because those aren't my favorite games, to me they are boring. While Joe over here might be an RTS nut and give it a high rating.

That is what I like about EGM, they give you the review from THREE different perspectives. As far as AC is concerned, they have always said it was a beautiful looking game, but they where worried about controls and other issues.

In fact, in one of their issues, they even gave AC a second chance, they made complaints and UBI came back and tried to address them, such as controls, UBI told them, well if you spend hours playing, the controls get easier, and EGM agreed that the controls got easier the more you played, but that they would be difficult and frustrating for anybody just picking up the game (this was before they even got a full review copy).

Hence, the poor review, because UBI's basic answer was, well, the more you play, the easier it gets (well DUH! but its the steep learning curve that is the problem!).

Once again, this is a situation of the developers trying to buy or bully the reviewers. How are politicians going to look on this? Well, you don't like their review, so you bully them, how do we know your not doing that to the ESRB?

It is going to turn around to bite them in the ass, end of story.

@Waffles

Too many times in GI did I see a letter cussing out the staff because Halo 3 didn't get perfect and they have no idea why

if this is confirmed, then i will think very low of any games produced by said producers.
tbh, if a mag is biased then tough, the people wont read it.
however, if producers go around saying 'no' to the reviewers they dont like, they not only damage their own reputation, but possibly the rep of those they are interviewing.

I've been a subscriber to EGM since forever. They are unbiased simply because the writers have different opinions. You can even see in some of the issues what their favorites are; they don't hide it. To me, EGM is a better judge of games then, say Game Informer. Like mentioned before, 3 different opinions on each game gives it a spin on how you should view each game. Go with the reviewer you usually agree with. Read the review rather then just going by the score. Read other reviews instead of just the mag.

Publishers are idiots. Just because a few of them now are pissed and may hold information doesn't make the magazine go away. EGM has a quite a few ways to gather information according to Hsu. Ubisoft, Sony, and anyone else who get's all whiny about how the games get scored need to suck it up and move on.

EGM is full of it, anyways, so boo-hoo. They brag endlessley about their Battlestations! cover with a tomato-laden PS3 and their predictive powers, but totally neglect the wii vs PS3 issue they did a few months earlier, in which they deemed Sony the processor-powered winnar and Nintendo the kiddy-game suckar. In their latest issue, they devote 3 pages each to upcoming Wii and 360 games, and then 4 pages to the least-selling, least-upcoming-game-having PS3! EGM is about as fair and balanced as Fox News, but with PBS' reputation. WTF is up with that?

Hsu has ranted endlessly about "game journalism", but then complains when they actually have to research games by themselves, without expensive press junkets and exclusive articles that lead to increases in ad revenue. Like I said; boo-hoo. It's an enthusiast press supported in part by publishers, so get over yourselves. Whining and crying in an attempt to raise the fervor of the inter-tubes against the publishers who slighted you is hardly worthy of the moniker of journalism.