Games Journalism General

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
GethN7 said:
I work for ChristCenteredGamer, it's kinda an outlier because it's a Christian religious non-profit (officially registered as a ministry) thus not connected to the bigger secular rags, but I can share details on how they do things for reasons of transparency.



1. Game developers choose to send CCG review keys and game copies. Atlus in particular was kind enough to gift us stuff to review for quite some time and still do, but some other companies it's kinda up in the air. Square-Enix kicks a review copy or two our way once in a blue moon, but only when they care to, we otherwise have to request it, and they've ignored most requests.

We also have NO quid pro quo with game reviews. They'll send it to us to review, but we make clear up front we'll review it honestly, without any partially, and our review process is open to all reviewers, so we peer review each other for bias.




2. Most of CCG is volunteer staff, meaning we literally do it for free. The most we get is free games to review, but to keep us honest we have to sign a contract saying we will review a game in a certain amount of time or we will have to reimburse CCG the cost of the game in full. We do have some paid reviewers, but being a non-profit, it doesn't pay that much.




3. On top of actual big name devs, we also get review keys via Steam's Curator where anyone and everyone can send us review keys, and we've often had to decline reviews for porn only games (which we do not review for reasons of policy) and games which have no censored ports. I was once assigned "How to Raise a Wolf Girl" by Sekai Project once because it was on our PC review key list and we needed to get it done ASAP and I was available, but I only was able to review the censored version because we don't review uncensored works with pornographic content, again for policy reasons.

Some fun insider facts: We have gotten obvious troll devs sending us terrible asset flips and games so obviously filled with porn that we've had to abruptly decline because some people think it's funny to troll a Christian oriented games reviewer by sending us that sort of thing. We mostly roll our eyes, decline the troll game review keys, and move on.



4. Back when there was that big leak of game reviewers, my bosses admitted had they attended, their information would've been leaked (and they wouldn't have been overly concerned, they don't bother to hide their IRL names). By default, while you CAN write under a psuedonym for CCG, we are encouraged to write under our real names, which I elected to do because I have nothing to hide and you can use writing for CCG as work experience on an actual resume, and that's easier to do under your real name.

While efforts are made to protect the privacy of those who choose to write under aliases, anyone who shows up to a public CCG event (we occasionally have our own table at some gaming events and expos) pretty much agrees to let the world know who they are by default.



5. We do have a policy when it comes to moonlighting for more than one journalism outfit, as a few of us have done. If we review a game for CCG, we generally make clear in some manner to both CCG staff and the staff of whatever other outlet we reviewed it for CCG first (or vice-versa) so we don't get accused of plagiarism, especially if we use parts of the review for one site for another (and if we do, we try to note that)


6. It was instituted shortly after my signing on to CCG's writing team, but we do have a Discord with a "#reviewers-only" channel. It's for more rapid communication by the review team on various reviews and where we get told by the bosses which reviews are priorities (review key games from developers get priority all the time and sometimes we have tight deadlines to get them out) to get shaped up for release.

Our forum has a review section where we present the working drafts of our prospective reviews and get peer reviewed for mistakes and other criticism. After we polish it up to address all that, the reviews are eventually added to our site after CCG's staff decided it should go live. We can edit reviews after publication, but if it's something more than a minor typo correction, we are expected to leave notice in the review if correcting a serious mistake and why.


7. Finally, CCG, is, as I mentioned, a Christian oriented games reviewer, but you DON'T have to be one to write for them. However, you are expected to be tolerant of Christians and respectful of their beliefs while on the forum or Discord, and in any official capacity, you are NOT to come off badly in a way that would embarrass your place of employment.

This generally means that if you are responding to review criticism after publication or otherwise speaking for CCG, you don't act like an anti-Christian heathen, but off the clock, they don't care less what you do.
Click to expand...
Oh I've heard of these guys. I really like they're practice of keeping the gaming and morality scores seperate... really a practice that certain outlets should consider (just replace morality with ideology)
 
Found some random thing in an article about Xseed's online store just giving you giving you free shit if you order anything from the merch section.

Took a gamble(since everything was like 5 bucks)

I got items from games that were 20 years old. Color me impressed.

I got a few CD soundtracks, posters, and artbooks all free.
 
Tanner Glass said:
I don't know Tim Rogers, would anyone call him talented? I took a quick peek and all I can see is a litany of garbage.
Click to expand...

I used to read Tim Rogers when he had his own site and moped around Japan complaining about how hard it was being poor and the lack of vegetarian options in restaurants, that and his nonsense stoner-style pseudo-philosophy made up the lions share of his articles about games. It was a fun satire of people like Kieron Gillian and the navel gazing style of personal essays that game journalism was turning into, like an Old Man Murray take on blowhards.

I stopped reading Tim Rogers when I realized it wasn't satire.
 
Dr. Geronimo said:
Does anyone here read RetroGamer Magazine? I'm considering getting a subscription.
Click to expand...
Like @Notgoodwithusernames I read it on occasion. It can be hit and miss. There's more filler than I like, such as 2 page spreads for 1 screenshot of Outrun or something. It can be quality or tedious depending on the game they're covering and the story behind it.
 
ViacomCBS to Weigh Options for CNET as Buyers Show Interest

ViacomCBS Inc. is weighing options for CNET after receiving takeover interest in the product review site, according to people with knowledge of the matter.

A number of potential suitors contacted ViacomCBS about the unit after Chief Executive Officer Bob Bakish said he’s looking to offload non-core assets following a merger with CBS Corp. last year, the people said, asking not to be identified as the matter is private. Bakish continues to assess options for a number of businesses and hasn’t made a decision on a sale of CNET, the people said.

A representative for ViacomCBS declined to comment.

CBS bought CNET for $1.8 billion in 2008, adding sites such as TV.com and GameSpot.com. CNET’s value is likely to have shrunk since then, the people said. CNET provides consumer electronics product reviews and news.

ViacomCBS, which completed the merger in December, is looking to generate $500 million in cost savings.

Bakish has already decided to sell CBS’s midtown Manhattan skyscraper known as Black Rock, which could fetch more than $1 billion, Bloomberg News reported in December.

www.bloomberg.com

ViacomCBS to Weigh Options for CNET as Buyers Show Interest

ViacomCBS Inc. is weighing options for CNET after receiving takeover interest in the product review site, according to people with knowledge of the matter.
www.bloomberg.com www.bloomberg.com
 
Save the Loli said:
Is this the end of Gamefaqs?
Click to expand...

It's probably not the "end" of anything - but CBS's "video game" arm is likely going to get spun off. I'd imagine it includes CNET and Gamespot as described - but also Giantbomb.com and Gamefaqs.com.

I would imagine that anyone interested in buying all of them probably isn't interested in keeping all of them - I can't imagine you would need four different websites doing essentially the same thing (video reviews) - doubly so with the bleedover that Giantbomb and Gamespot already have.

If they get picked up by a great company - it could mean good things for them. If they get picked up by a shitty company, it could mean drastic changes for any or all of the websites.

Megaroad 2012 said:
What is wrong with Gamefaqs other than just being obsolete now a days?
Click to expand...

Gamefaqs is nearly 100% obsolete and the parts that aren't 100% obsolete (forums, old guides) are straight up, 100% trash.
 
The number came out for what Sony paid for Insomniac studios, it was 229 million.

That may sound like a lot, but they bought them for making Spiderman games, "Into the Spider-verse" made more than that for Sony with 375 million. The Spiderman PS4 game sold over 3 million copies(which means around 200 million in profits give or take pre-order DLC) when it first came out.

After the disney kerfuffle, Sony has a larger stake in spiderman than they did before. Basically get ready for Spiderman to be cross promoted with everything playstation routinely.
 
Sophia Narwitz decided to kick the mainstream gaming press in the balls again today. There's not really any information in it that would be new to most of us here, I guess other than that she found someone in the industry willing to talk about it (anonymously). Here's the intro:
An influential figure from a leading gaming website says that a clique of like-minded media figures are colluding to prevent right-leaning journalists and developers from having a voice in the industry.
“If you were openly a conservative and tried to apply to any of the mainstream outlets that are on the coasts, I don’t think you’d have a chance in hell of getting in,” says the senior source, who wishes to remain anonymous for fear of repercussions.
“There’s a lot of us that probably think there’s a clique, well, that know there’s a clique,” they say.
The “clique” is composed of journalists from well-known gaming and tech websites: among them Kotaku, Polygon, Vice, Ars Technica, GameDaily, Gamespot, Eurogamer and loads more.
“People won’t write something, or we won’t say anything on Twitter or whatever because you spew one wrong opinion and you’re asking for trouble,” says the source, who has admitted keeping their own opinions private to avoid sanction.
“Unless you don’t care about potential opportunities within the industry, a lot of people just don’t say what they’re actually thinking.”
Click to expand...
The best part of it is Jason Schreier decided to shoot his big mouth off about it, his Twitter is now a shit-storm and he's blocking people en masse.
www.rt.com

‘If you are conservative, you have no chance’: Games journalism insider outs ‘clique’ that runs industry like private domain

An influential figure from a leading gaming website says that a clique of like-minded media figures are colluding to prevent right-leaning journalists and developers from having a voice in the industry.
www.rt.com www.rt.com
archive.ph

‘If you are conservative, you have no chance’: Games journalism insid…

archived 19 Feb 2020 20:20:05 UTC
archive.ph archive.ph
Upper Echelon Gamers was in the loop on the research and has made a video about it as well:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom