User:DSA510/dossier

The purpose of this report is to present, in detail, breaches in journalistic ethical practices in the video games press.

A long line of controversies and scandals have tarred the reputation of video game journalism dating back many years and continuing into the present. Game enthusiasts have become increasingly concerned about unethical practices within the industry, and recent high-profile revelations have caused them to reevaluate their trust in video game journalism. An equally important issue raised is the consequences of unethical practices for people involved in the industry.

This report will discuss the general state of the video game industry at varying levels before examining a number of scandals where instances of unethical conduct occurred.

Executive Summary
This document aims to acquaint the reader with current ethical issues in the video games industry. It provides an overview of the concerns voiced in recent years, and the negative impact these events and actions have had on the video game industry.

Major elements of the video game press have engaged in multiple breaches of ethics over the years and have had scandals similar to other tech-related fields. As a multibillion-dollar industry, it is expected that the video game press adhere to a higher standard of ethics and critique. However, experience has shown that they have not, and currently do not, adhere to these standards.

The issues raised in this document contain examples of events such as the blacklisting developers based on financial or ideological standpoints when media exposure is critical to financial success for their Intellectual Property (IP). The same trend applies to journalists who aggressively critique high-budget IPs—these individuals are shunned and sometimes fired when publishers feel that the criticism gives a bad impression of the IP in question. Publishers also exhibit a tendency to obsess over reviews and scores journalists dispense, to the point where there is an active attempt to force the gaming media to cover these games under the condition that the game will not be criticized and a favorable impression is guaranteed.

Recently, information has surfaced suggesting that competing publications in the games media have been colluding behind the scenes on issues ranging from the general tone of their coverage to unlawful firing and blacklisting of employees deemed as "problem children." The consequences of this collusion ranges from reviews—where the tone of coverage dictates whether or not developers keep their jobs and earn their bonuses—to how various events in the industry are covered. Throughout, journalists exhibit a strong propensity to follow what Electronic Arts COO Peter Moore terms, “standard, shoddy, website journalism recipe, born out of a desperate need to increase click-thru rates to support advertising revenue."

This document examines the majority of these concerns, and concludes that the issues raised require reasoned debate so that fair and ethical solutions can be implemented. To this end, the document promotes discussion of these issues and addressing the concerns at hand, so that the end result is a better industry for everyone involved.

Ethics in Journalism
The press, in whatever capacity or situation they operate, must show an ultimate loyalty to readers. Journalists should strive to put the public interest, and the truth, above all else. Ethical journalism is dedication to acting responsibly in the best interests of the reader.

In the same manner that journalism shapes public debate at national and local levels, journalism within a hobby or market will select topics of conversation, voice opinions, and direct attention to internal and external issues affecting the hobby. With that in mind, the role of journalistic ethics in video game media is no less important in conveying the truth to readers than in other fields. As an independent press benefits a nation, a “niche” independent press benefits a hobby. As corrupt journalism would harm a nation, it would harm an industry such as video games.

This document will evaluate possible breaches of journalistic ethics in the video game media. A commonly held metric of ethical journalism is found in these guidelines as summarized by Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel in their book The Elements of Journalism:

Journalism’s first obligation is to the truth.
 * Its first loyalty is to citizens.
 * Its essence is a discipline of verification.
 * Its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover.
 * It must serve as an independent monitor of power.
 * It must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise.
 * It must strive to make the significant interesting and relevant.
 * It must keep the news comprehensive and proportional.
 * Its practitioners must be allowed to exercise their personal conscience.
 * These guidelines are fundamental to quality journalism, regardless of the scale or topic, and are echoed in the code of ethics which the *Society of Professional Journalists espouses. Changes in journalism caused by the internet do not diminish their importance. There are certainly gray areas left to discretion, and no one is perfect. However, the public good requires journalists to abide by these guidelines as best as they can.

Reporting accurately and from a neutral standpoint is a cornerstone of ethical journalism. Inflating events for impact, espousing a one-sided narrative, stereotyping, or being disproportionately negative only serves to make the press less reliable in the eyes of the reader. The most thorough stories take the time to investigate and take into account varied backgrounds and perspectives.

The role of the public in this equation is to hold journalists accountable for their reporting, be it through economic or legal means or simply via open discussion. Relying on the standards outlined above, this document seeks to hold accountable those in video game journalism who may have not acted in the best interests of the industry they report on, and the readers they service.

Video Games: A Multibillion-Dollar Industry
Video games are a highly lucrative industry with individual game franchises often bringing in hundreds of millions of dollars. Individual companies that create and support the industry can be worth billions of dollars.

According to a collection of studies by The Entertainment Software Association, in 2013 American consumers spent $21.53 billion (USD) on video game software, hardware, and accessories. Another report by the IDATE digital research and consultancy firm places the worldwide worth of the video game industry at €53.9 billion ($68.2 billion). This is larger than the revenue of FIFA and the NFL combined.

Video games are a multibillion-dollar industry. Global industry revenue was forecast at $65 billion in 20116 and $78.5 billion in 20127. The Entertainment Software Association, trade association for the industry in the United States, estimated that in 2009 American companies made $10.5 billion in retail sales, noting that the entertainment software industry exceeded 10% annual growth during a time when the nation’s annual growth was below two percent. In California alone, the video game industry employs more than 50,000 people and contributes more than $2.2 billion to the state’s economy. The Japanese video game market, despite experiencing a decline in growth, was reported to be worth $4.6 billion in 2012, while gaming in South Korea was a $9.16 billion industry in 2013. The China Game Industry Report revealed its worth to be at $9.7 billion in 2012 and boldly projected it to grow to $21.7 billion by 2017.

Revenue comes from retail and online sales of game software as well as hardware sales of consoles, handhelds, and gaming PCs. In 2012, consoles were the core of the market, making up $34.7 billion of global revenue. The fastest growing areas were online games (up 16.9% in market share from 2011) and mobile games (19%)14.

The video game industry's largest franchises regularly surpass Hollywood blockbusters in terms of revenue produced. In 2011, The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim made $650 million in its first month, almost double the revenue brought in by Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 over the entire year. In August 2014, Marvel Studio’s Guardians of the Galaxy made $94 million on its opening weekend. The following September Activision announced that their recent game, Destiny, had made $325 million in its first five days. As a result, Hollywood has taken interest in acquiring game franchises for adaptation to the big screen. The Resident Evil franchise has been highly successful, with five movies already in the series and a sixth in the making. The first five films have already grossed over $915 million worldwide.

Technologies that change the face of gaming are worth equally exorbitant amounts. Intel’s PC division delivered $9.2 billion to its overall revenue of $14.6 billion in Q3 of 201419. Oculus VR, creator of the virtual reality headset Oculus Rift, was purchased by Facebook for $2 billion, with Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook, stating that he believes the technology will be the “platform of tomorrow.” Twitch, an online streaming service for broadcasting real-time gameplay footage, was acquired by Amazon for $970 million.

Given the scope of the industry as outlined, demands for ethics in video game journalism are well warranted.

The Worth of a Review
Online video game and technology review sites play an important part in the landscape of the video game industry. Scoring systems may differ from site to site, but they form an invaluable source of information to many consumers and may influence their decision to purchase a game. However, the ability to influence a consumer causes concern—particularly in matters of trust between the games press and their readers.

In the United States, 59% of the population plays video games. The average household has at least two people who play games and owns at least one game console, PC, or smartphone. In a survey of gamers, 48% said that either the quality of game graphics, an interesting storyline, a sequel to a favorite game, or word of mouth was the most important factor.

IGN, an entertainment review site established in 1996, is one of the most well-known game coverage websites. They are seen as one of the top providers of information relating to video games and have been identified as a valuable media asset. IGN’s Google+ page is followed by almost 4 million people while their Facebook page has been Liked over 2.5 million times. In 2005, IGN was bought by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. for $650 million.

Many review sites regularly accumulate millions of views and high praise by visitors. In July 2014, Giant Bomb, a site that includes personality-driven videos and commentary, had an estimated 6.4 million visits over the month. The site itself was voted in TIME as one of the Top 50 Best Websites in 2011. The Escapist, an online games magazine, was also voted as one of TIME’s Top 50 Best Websites in 2011.

The Influence of Reviews on Consumers
The ability of the media to inform and influence a consumer in their decision to purchase a product has been well documented. In 2008 Ad-ology Media Influence on Consumer Choice surveyed an online panel of 1105 adults. The survey reported that 54% of video game or console purchasers were influenced in their decision to buy by online video. Approximately 38% said online product reviews significantly influenced their purchase (38% equates to approximately 69 million consumers in the United States alone). President and CEO of Ad-ology Research C. Lee Smith states, “Gamers want to see new releases in action before they buy, and online video is an effective way to show actual gameplay.”

In 2010, Electronic Entertainment Design and Research (EEDAR) and The Guildhall at Southern Methodist University studied the influence of video game reviews on people. Mock reviews were created of popular game Plants vs Zombies and used to gauge their influence on players. 188 students were divided into three groups: a control group given no review scores before playing, another given high review scores prior, and a third given low review scores prior. The findings revealed that those shown higher scores prior to playing were more likely to give higher scores themselves (a mean of 85 compared to the 90 they were shown). Their scores were 20% higher than those shown low reviews prior to playing (71 mean compared to the 61 they were shown). The control group gave mean scores of 79, close to what those the higher review score gave and not far from the original Metacritic score of 88.

After playing the game, participants were offered to pick between either $10 in cash or a copy of the game. Those that were shown higher reviews were twice as likely to take the game than the cash. They were also 40% more likely to recommend the game to their friends than those in the lower review score group. EEDAR’s Jesse Divinch states:

Divinch also warned that publisher bribery for good reviews could lead the industry to become one where consumers no longer trust or believe in critics. Ultimately, the study suggests that reviews are able to influence both consumers and the marketplace, even when consumers may not completely believe the reviews given to them.

Metacritic and its Influence on the Industry
Metacritic is a website that aggregates reviews from around the web and creates an average numerical score. The site provides a color-coded system on top of its scores in order to summarize recommendations from critics. The website is highly influential, particularly in the video game industry. It has less influence in other entertainment sectors due to more popular alternatives existing (such as Rotten Tomatoes).

According to Metacritic, their “Metascores” are created through a weighted average, where some sites and critics are given more importance over others based off their quality and stature. The scoring system is subject to far stricter guidelines than in any other industry, however. While movies, television, and music are awarded with “universal acclaim” with a score between 81-100, games only obtain this level of rating at 90-100. Full Sail University performed a study to discern the weightings given to individual publications, but Metacritic rejected the results as false. The weighting given to each review is still unknown, but Metacritic states that they impact far less on the final score than is thought.

However, the aggregated scores themselves have considerable weight in the industry. Developers often have monetary incentives for reaching a target score. In March 2012, it was reported that Obsidian (under contract to Bethesda) missed out on their developer bonus due to a Metascore of 84—one point short from the product royalties they would have otherwise been paid. The news came one day after a round of layoffs within the company which were reported to be the result of a cancelled project. Obsidian did not comment on if the layoffs were a direct result of the Metascore; however, it is thought that without the bonus they were unable to continue paying their staff.

A 2013 Penny Arcade study on layoffs in the video game industry plotted studio Metacritic scores against how many employees in a team were fired during layoffs. They discovered that console-focused developers who scored above 80 on Metacritic did not encounter any layoffs (however, MMO-makers did experience layoff even with 80+ scores). The report commented on a “Metacritic 85 or bust” mentality amongst publishers, referring to the push for many publishers to reach a certain target in order to be deemed successful. A loose pattern was also discovered where development teams with lower-rated games lay off more people compared to teams that rate higher.

The “Metacritic 85 or bust” mentality also affects how people are hired by developers. A job listing in 2012 by developer Irrational Games had requirements that the applicant have "Credit on at least one game with an 85+ average Metacritic review score.”

Kotaku interviewed Feargus Urquhart, CEO of Obsidian Entertainment, to share his experience on the effect that Metacritic has on the industry. Urquhart explained how demands from publishers can also get “unreasonable” when it comes to scores, expounding on what he terms “the 85+ mentality of publishers”: “..when we're talking to publishers… there are conversations I’ve had in which the royalty that we could get was based upon getting a 95. . . and I explained to them, I said, ‘Okay, there are six games in the past five years who have averaged a 95, and all of those have a budget of at least three times what you’re offering me.’ They were like, ‘Well, we just don’t think we should do it if you don't hit a 95.’ ”

Approaching the issue from a publisher’s perspective, an anonymous source told Kotaku that Metacritic scores were an “excuse publishers use in order to deprive developers of the bonuses they deserve.” However, another source stated that using the scores allowed publishers to “minimize risk” when funding a game.

In an interview with Larian Studios’ Swen Vincke, Sean Ridgeley from Neoseeker asked about the influence Metacritic has on the industry. Ridgeley brought up a comment from public relations company The Rednar Group about how “sales teams live and die by Metacritic,” as well as the sentiment that PR and publishers do not see funding a game worthwhile if the game does not reach a Metascore of 90. Vincke replied: “I saw a curve once from a [big publisher] showing the correlation for an RPG between Metacritic score and sales. There's an incredibly strong relationship, which is exponential. An 80 will get you a couple of hundred thousand sales, say, where a 90 will get you a couple million if it's marketed properly. That's a very scary thing, that one number can have such a huge impact on whether or not a studio is going to be allowed to make its next game... Studios are killed over bad Metacritic scores. That happens every day almost.”

Company stock prices are also affected by the Metascores of games and can play an important part in if a studio is kept open by a publisher. After Homefront received less-than-favorable scores in the 70s, THQ’s stock prices fell $1.25 bringing them down to $4.6938. Kaos Studios, the development team behind Homefront, was closed not long afterwards. Publisher Funcom also blamed Metacritic in an investor relations update after their own stock price halved following The Secret World receiving a score in the 70s.

Considering what is at stake for both developers and publishers, reviewers can become conflicted when they give their final score for a game. At IGDA Toronto Rant and Rave Night 2014, reviewer Liana Kerzner made the following statement:

Kerzner would later claim that this statement was a joke. Whether or not she was serious, Kerzner’s statement shows that the issue of devs losing their jobs over scores is so well-known that people are able to joke over it. The statement also exemplifies the lengths that reviewers may go to in order to protect developers from being laid off by publishers, as low scores can even cause entire studios to shut down.

In 2011, it was revealed that two BioWare employees had posted perfect user reviews on Metacritic for their game, Dragon Age 2. The scandal resulted in a consumer backlash with people posting punishingly negative reviews in response in order to deliberately bring the overall User Score down. In a similar vein, two developers at Telltale Games were also caught trying to fix its user scores with perfect reviews for their game adaptation of Jurassic Park. When consumers found out about this tampering, they too posted overly-negative reviews in retaliation.

Scores being used a punishment for the disagreeable actions of developers or publishers or the contents of their games is not uncommon. Both Dragon Age 2 and Jurassic Park were a result of consumers taking issue with the actions of developers. Journalists may also use scores as a way of punishing developers for things they do not agree with. In October 2014, Polygon ran a review of Platinum Games’ Bayonetta 2. While the game scored an aggregate review of 91 on Metacritic (with many individual sites giving perfect or near-perfect scores), Polygon awarded it 7.5/10. This lower score was given based off the reviewer taking issue with the “blatant over-sexualization” of the protagonist in the game. It should be noted that Polygon has identified itself as a “progressive” outlet and would potentially be embracing these kinds of critical reviews as standard fare—however, this clarification was not provided until a few days after its Bayonetta 2 review.

Giuseppe Nelva of DualShockers criticized the Bayonetta 2 review soon after it was published. He commented on the state of modern game reviews and how they are now being used to push agendas:

Nelva goes on to say that while fully objective reviews are hard to achieve, “fair” reviews are something that should be strived for and expected. He also states that the purpose of a review is to inform readers on the quality of a game, and not school them on what they are allowed to like or not like.

Reviews play an important role in the video game industry. Not only do reviews figure into how many units a game may end up selling, they may also decide the fates of those in the industry. Due to the emphasis publishers often place on the final aggregate score, developer livelihoods and jobs are frequently tied into the critical reception of a game. This encourages publishers to use scores to their advantage when funding developers, as well as place undue pressure on reviewers to give a high score—an act which not only maximizes profits, but also secures high share prices for stockholders. This is a major contributor to the unethical practices found in the video game press and explains why developers, publishers, and journalists often overstep their boundaries in their relationships with one another.

The negative effects of these relationships for the consumer include biased, uninformative reviews and a proliferation of low quality or untimely reviews from sites. For sites that defy publishers, they may end up being threatened with advertisers pulling out, or being blacklisted from receiving review copies. While sites that take advantage of publisher offers may benefit in the short-term, these practices have contributed to a growing distrust between the consumer and the press. Evidence of these practices surfaces on a regular basis, coloring consumer perception of the video game press negatively.

Ethical Concerns in the Relationships between Publishers and Reviewers
Over the years, relationships between publishers and media have been well-documented. These relationships can vary in scope and severity, with some of the more severe instances including questionable gift giving, coverage being bought by publishers, and blacklisting publications from receiving review copies. Journalists have sometimes resigned or lost their jobs as a result of these scandals.

“Content for Sale” and Publisher Reactions to Low Scores

One high-profile scandal came to light when former editorial director of GameSpot Jeff Gerstmann’s non-disclosure agreement expired and he was finally able to speak about his dismissal from the website. Despite being dismissed in 2007, it was not until 2012 when Gerstmann would explain his side of the story. Gerstmann said a new management team had been brought in that was inexperienced in dealing with an editorial group. At the time, Eidos Interactive had been advertising their new release Kane and Lynch on the website. After a poor review score was given to the game, Eidos threatened to pull advertising revenue from GameSpot. Despite pressure from advertisers being common, the management team panicked, deciding that Gerstmann was unreliable. They dismissed him as a result.

Gerstmann stated, "We reviewed games, we instructed people about the quality of games, and we were completely honest. This management team buckled when faced with having a lot of ad dollars walk out the door."

Earlier in 2005, Dan Hsu, writing for Electronic Gaming Monthly, published an editorial discussing his experiences with “content for sale”. In the article, Hsu decried how the practice of covering games in exchange for buying ad space was so widespread that many publishers assumed that his magazine was the same. He alleged that many publishers would try to influence reviews or demand to see stories before they went to print. Hsu claimed that the bold nature of these publishers came from other publications giving them leeway.

In his editorial, Hsu explained how he contacted a public relations representative from a large publisher:“ ‘Yes,’ he confirmed. ‘We can pretty much get whatever cover we want from that magazine. All it takes is for us to meet with the publisher, promise that we'll buy some ads, and discuss the details from there.’ So...that magazine's cover stories are for sale. Great.”

In a roundtable interview for E-mpire conducted by editor-in-chief David Gornoski, Hsu was also joined by Kyle Orland, who worked for VGMWatch.com at the time (he is now editor-in-chief at ArsTechnica). In the interview, Hsu indicated he knew of more than one publication and game publisher that was engaging in this practice, yet would not disclose their names as it would be, in his words, “petty.” However, Hsu’s editorial mentioned three separate publications—two magazines and one website—that he believed to be engaging in this practice. He also mentioned how he heard from another publisher about an act referred to as “Editorial Marketing,” where coverage would be gained through other means, such as purchasing ad space.

In a follow-up piece on the interview, Orland asked how changes in the industry will come about. He points to a statement from Hsu for the answer:“ ‘The consumers have to rise up and demand better from the press,’ Hsu says. ‘I’m not sure how they can do this if they themselves are not sure who’s doing the right things, and who’s not… but I hope the industry watchdogs … can help us clean things up, so we’re all get the proper respect that we deserve, as an industry as a whole.’ ”

After the release of Duke Nukem Forever in 2011, a public relations firm working for 2K Games named The Redner Group sent out an open threat on their Twitter account. The tweet stated those that had given Duke Nukem a poor score may be blacklisted and not receive review copies of new games in the future.

Ben Kuchera, writing for ArsTechnica at the time, wrote about the threat, explaining that the game got low scores initially during a preview event. However, he still found the final scores “shocking” considering the game’s budget and brand recognition. Kuchera also discussed how common blacklisting was in the industry, but how rare it was to be seen in public:“What's shocking about that tweet isn't that some outlets may get blacklisted—that's something you risk every time you give a game a low score, but that the Redner Group would release a public statement letting outlets know they are on notice if they went ‘too far’ in their review. This sends a chilling message to those who review games professionally: hold your tongue if you feel strongly about a game, or you may not have timely coverage of a future release.”

2K Games eventually dismissed the group with an apology.

Low scores on websites may have many effects on the industry, from advertisements being pulled to publications being blacklisted for review copies. Publishers are uncomfortable advertising a game on a site which scored it poorly, believing it leads to a drop in revenue. When combined with Dan Hsu’s explanation of “content for sale,” a picture begins to emerge of an industry that needs to start addressing the issue of where marketing begins and advertising ends. Without a line separating the two, a review outlet can slip into becoming an extension of the publisher’s marketing department instead of an independent voice of critique.

Early Review Exclusivity Deals and Shopping Around for Favorable Reviews
Publishers will sometimes offer media outlets exclusive first reviews with the understanding that a game will be given a positive score.

One fairly publicized example in 2007 involved 2K Games and their attempt to strike a deal with review site IGN in order to secure a positive score for their game Prey. 2K Games had placed an embargo over Prey to prevent outlets releasing reviews early. At the same time, however, they were also attempting to strike deals with selected outlets by allowing them to release their review ahead of competitors on the basis they would give it a high score. A former IGN editor, who wished to remain anonymous, said they heard their editor-in-chief at the time Doug Perry speaking with 2K Games’ PR manager Marci Ditter about obtaining a review exclusivity deal.

The anonymous editor recalled Tom McNamara being in charge of the review of Prey, but understood that he had not yet played the game due to an earlier conversation that day. He would then recall overhearing Perry and Ditter talking about the game and its review:

While Perry did not take the offer, the news about it had already damaged the review’s integrity. He pressured the reviewer to score the game before playing it. Even though the game was eventually awarded a nine out of ten, there is no certainty that the review was not affected. The review was still tainted with possible bias due to Perry’s pressuring.

Another incident occurred in 2007 between EGM, 1UP, and publisher Ubisoft over early review releases for the game Assassin’s Creed. A few days before Ubisoft’s review embargo for the game ended, 1UP noticed that several outlets were already releasing their reviews. This was not just an exclusivity deal. 1UP sent an inquiry to Ubisoft about it and learned that, if a review score was high enough, they were allowing outlets to release their reviews early. As 1UP’s score was only a 7.0, they were required to abide by Ubisoft’s original embargo date. The three reviews that had been allowed to break the embargo had given the game perfect scores.

In an attempt to address why they were one of the last sites to release an Assassin’s Creed review, Dan Hsu at 1UP prepared a news story for publication. He and others at the site wished to explain to readers why this selective release of reviews existed. Ubisoft interpreted this as non-cooperative and blacklisted both 1UP and EGM (another of Hsu’s employers) from receiving future review copies. Even after this blacklisting, Ziff Davis Media, 1UP and EGM’s parent company, refused to allow the story to be published to avoid attracting more ire from Ubisoft—who was also a major advertiser for them. Hsu stated that this was one of the reasons why he eventually resigned from both publications.

In another similar event in 2014, Warner Bros offered YouTube reviewers early review copies of the game Middle-Earth: Shadow of Mordor through PR firm Plaid Social. Those who accepted would be paid to promote the game on the condition that they would only do so in a positive light. A copy of the contract stipulated that reviewers were to follow a number of conditions, including not showing any game glitches, persuading watchers to buy the game, and discuss the game’s “nemesis system” at length. The reviewer was also informed that they must submit their video for approval by the company and adhere to changes if necessary.

Erik Kain, writing for Forbes, voiced his dismay at the paid branding deal and pointed out the ethical problems they can create for all those that review games:

Ultimately, Kain raised concerns that deals such as these will hurt the game’s image as well as its developers and publishers. They also “discredit Youtubers and insult consumers,” he states, creating a no-win situation for anyone involved.

Reviews Events and Gifts
At a preview event in Paris for the game Watch Dogs, some journalists reportedly received an Asus Nexus 7 tablet as part of the event’s “asset kit.” These tablets were not needed to preview the game. The giveaway was first mentioned by Official Nintendo Magazine UK editor-in-chief Steve Hogarty on Twitter:

Since then, the event has been backed by other prominent reporters, some of which stated that they would not accept the tablet or were giving it away in the name of charity. In response to Hogarty’s tweet, Gamesindustry’s Dan Pearson said,