Comments on: Eidos UK PR firm: We are “not in the position of telling reviewers what they can and cannot say”

By: zoydwheeler

zoydwheeler — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 20:16:56 +0000

“We love Tomb Raider and believe it merits a score of at least 8/10, but if someone disagrees that’s entirely their prerogative. No problem at all. Seriously: no problem…”

OH, FUCK OFF! JUST FUCK. RIGHT. OFF.

By: Harry

Harry — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 00:46:33 +0000

In my experience PR folks often ask for such stuff because the order has come down from on high. When the PR bod asks you they do so in a way that leaves you knowing they think it’s dumb and don’t expect you to say yes. You say no. The PR bod has followed orders and asked. And the world turns happily.

I was recently asked not to post a review if the score was below a certain level. It was a minor title from a small publisher. I said no. But away from the ethics was a purely practical matter – my writers work freelance and are paid for features that get posted on the site. So an unposted feature meant no reward for someone’s hard work. And the idea of that offends me more than being asked to take a dive.

By: Curious_Orange

Curious_Orange — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 00:31:30 +0000

Embargoes are part and parcel of modern games publishing.
Accept it, deal with it. While sites like GamesRadar and Gamespot have editorial integrity, it’s often easier to respect the publishers wishes on a minor thing like delaying for a few days, and keeping a good relationship that allows them to get future access to the games and more importantly, advertising.
It’s a dirty word, but Ads sell mags and keep websites afloat. The writers don’t work for free and the games sites and mags are not a public service. They need the cooperation of companies like Eidos to keep doing what they do.
Does this compromise editorial integrity? Well, not usually, 99 times out of 100 the writers and editors are engaged in a constant struggle with publishers and ads people to keep giving the readers their honest unbiased opinions on the games with no interference.
That doesn’t mean that almost every games publisher tries to influence mags and sites in a variety of ways – from embargoes, to free stuff, to attractive PR ladies coming round trying to charm journos with their womanly wiles (not being sexist but 99% of game hacks are blokes). The big thing here is that the frigging tea boy or whoever it was at Barrington Harvey showed remarkable stupidity in openly admitting an unsavory practice that everyone in the industry knows goes on, but doesn’t mention so brazenly. Methinks he’s not long for a job…

By: wickedman

wickedman — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 00:24:52 +0000

the movement of Lara is really bad and the camera is the worst,i think comparing this game to Drake is not even close,drake will beat Lara like a b@#$, if u feel my drift

By: Michael O'Connor

Michael O'Connor — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 19:17:38 +0000

It does? My experience of the game has been nothing but excellent. It’s an extremely well polished title.

Which makes this pseudo-embargo all the sadder.

By: wickedman

wickedman — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 18:46:29 +0000

the game really sucks, and is really sad because i am a fan of the series of games they did before this one, but Underworld really,really,really SUCKS!!!!!

By: No_PUDding

No_PUDding — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 18:14:34 +0000

My step dad is a Fed Ex delivery guy and delivers to quite a few publishers including Eidos. Anyone have any requests?

I can ask him to shit in the lobby or something.

By: morriss

morriss — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:52:37 +0000

I’ll have another look.

By: JonFE

JonFE — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:36:42 +0000

morris, pardon my ignorance, but didn’t he (Simon Byron) blatantly deny that anyone had to delay their below-8 reviews by saying :

“Any site, be it Gamespot or whoever, is entirely within their rights to post whatever score they want and no-one is under any sort of obligation to delay any review.”

Unless I’m mistaken he does address the issue. Whether he or his employer is lying (because both cannot be telling the truth), though, is another story.

By: Egon Superb

Egon Superb — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:18:27 +0000

Didn’t Pat say the game is out today? So surely, Gamespot can just play it /really really/ quickly, then put up the review now.

By: Deanzor

Deanzor — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:13:46 +0000

By: Dean

Dean — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:08:58 +0000

“Barrington Harvey is not in the position of telling
reviewers what they can and cannot say.”

Fair enough. Nice of you to explain, Mr. Byron.

“We need you to hold your review till Monday.”

Umm… errrr.. whaaaa?

Mr. Byron hasn’t even explained why, if BH don’t do this kind of shit, one of their employees is a: telling a GameSpot reviewer to play nice, and b: telling Pat that this is what they do.

This stinks of lies.

By: Blerk

Blerk — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:08:50 +0000

Eidos just came round and torched my office.

By: morriss

morriss — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:08:45 +0000

He didn’t really address the real issue: Why should they hold back until Monday if the score is lower than an 8? Why is it acceptable to make the public think it’s better ‘across the board’ than it actually is, just to generate sales for the product?

Still, made my Friday, anyway.

By: JonFE

JonFE — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:04:29 +0000

Blerk, you’re on fire

By: OrphanageExplosion

OrphanageExplosion — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:04:16 +0000

to suggest that we can in some way “silence” reviews of the game is slightly overstating our influence.

And yet I still don’t see that GameSpot UK review… perhaps they’re just being a bit quiet as opposed to being ‘silenced’…

By: Blerk

Blerk — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:53:26 +0000

Not before Monday, you don’t!

By: TheDifficult3rdAlbum

TheDifficult3rdAlbum — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:53:00 +0000

I rate this story 6.0 / 10

By: Blerk

Blerk — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:51:33 +0000

Sorry, “strongly suggest” when to say say it.

By: Blerk

Blerk — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:49:47 +0000

We can’t tell them what to say, but we can tell them when to say it.