Piece by Piece verification of @ChihiroDev's allegations. #Gamergate

As a former game journalist, I wanted to provide more in-depth verification of what @ChihiroDev has mentioned on twitter. You can find the full list here: https://storify.com/MySidesAreGone/chihirodev-s-allegations



1. Review code/disk/hardware given only to sites with x number of monthly hits, standard is 300k, higher for hardware.



True. When I first started putting together my industry contacts in 2009-2010, I was told by other game journalists that if you didn't have the stats on Alexa, don't bother emailing for review copies. With hardware such as consoles, you either have to have the hits or you have to know someone. I do know a journalist who isn't as well known who does get consoles and hardware on the regular.



2. Special edition reviewer samples given only to major outlets with the most "public sway", standard disk only or voucher codes for others.



True. Not just confirmed by me. Giant Bomb's Jeff Gertsmann once stated that their old offices could be filled with "swag." Jim Sterling has also shown off special editions (he once sic'ed Dtoid's forums on me in regards to one of them) as have other game journalists. Again, if you know the right people or have enough site hits, you'll receive these items. Personal disclosure: I only received one piece, which was a set of Killzone 3 plastic army men.



3. Blacklisting of your site if you are below a certain readership level and the PR firm don't like your review



True. Sometimes if lesser known sites were to trash a game, especially one that is well known, often times they would be put on a PR firm's shit list, or the shit list of a producer. Now, one thing that needs to be mentioned: game journalists do not have a right to review copies, and if a game journalist trashes a game for the sake of site hits, or doesn't finish it and trashes (see the cases of Ben Kuchera and New Vegas for the former, Jim Sterling and Final Fantasy XIII for the latter), these PR firms have the right to refuse review copies. Then again, those cases are due to Kuchera and Sterling being incredibly unethical. Not all PR firms take those grounds from my experience.



4. Larger sites prioritized on review code / availability, often given ahead of smaller sites by as much as 2 weeks, allowing them to scoop.



True. I received games from Sony as much as two weeks prior to release. Blistered Thumbs received some other games early as well, such as Gears of War 3 and a few Square Enix titles. Sadly, one of those was Mindjack. Yes, I reviewed that one.



5. Major sites have sway enough with some PR firms that they can "convince" firm to delay or "run out" of review code for competing sites.



True. Some game journalists have a lot of pull when it comes to PR firms. The schmoosing they do at cons and such is where they often network, and any businessman will tell you that the bar is an awesome place to network. Again, this is one of abuse. Journalists shouldn't have that kind of pull.



6. Gifts, gaming swag related to the game being given, or special editions provided to reviewers which are rarely ever disclosed in review.



True. Even as I was co-writing Blistered Thumbs' ethics policy with Joe, I don't think anyone anticipated us ever getting anything like that. I always made it a point to disclose in one way or another, but it wasn't in our ethics policy officially. Shortsighted on our part I suppose. Regardless, I don't think that these items hold sway over a reviewer's judgement on a game. With that said, I'm saying such as thing as an experienced critic. Not every reader will think the same way, and ultimately the more info given to a reader in a review, the better.



7. 70% of review code disks ends up on ebay, often listed before the review is even started so when they're done they can just ship it out.



True, to degrees. I can't confirm the percentage, but most PR firms and companies don't care about what the reviewer does with the game afterwards. For some smaller websites, I heard of folks who saw physical copies as a business. They review the game, and then hock the title for a net gain. Out of principal I often kept the games I reviewed for a time, but I have to disclose that I sold some of them when I was in a financial rut.



8. Several major sites used flashed 360 consoles and modded PS3's to review games that publishers would not provide.



True, but I can't reveal my source on this one. During some online play in the early release days of a game I was reviewing, I chatted it up with some other journos who admitted as such. Granted, they were from a small site that I don't think even exists any more.



9. A "certain site" intentionally damaged a connector on their review console so they could get the edge in views over a competing site.



I've heard this story as well through some industry contacts, but I've heard a few different sites in the telling of the tale. Regardless, some websites don't care about a game's score as long as it gets them hits and money in the meantime. If you look at some reviews of Fallout: New Vegas at the time of release, or even Mad Max now, there is a MAJOR inconsistency between actual quality and reviewer "opinion." Though some would give reviewers the benefit of the doubt, I know better.



10. Some reviewers for larger sites dump and upload press copy games to 0day sites for cracking groups and distro groups to post.



This is the only one in this I can't say yes to without certainty. The others I can say yes to but I can't reveal where I heard it from to protect their jobs. This one I've heard rumblings about as far back as 2010. Certain games like Gears of War 3 and Crysis 2 came up on torrent sites very, very fast. Inhumanly so. The only way they could have is if a game journalist leaked the files or disk to one of these groups. If they received money for it, then they're in felony territory if I recall correctly.

Reply · Report Post