Since the release of Play Meter Magazine in 1974, consumers have depended on print publications for impartial reviews on the latest releases. This dependence may have diminished somewhat with the proliferation of the internet, but a large amount of the videogaming community still utilise print as their primary source of referral when it comes to purchasing a new title. Not only are they becoming more accessible with the emergence of services such as Zinio, there is an expectation that they will provide content of the highest quality, due to the price of the pages themselves.
[drop2]It came as a painful surprise, then, when Metacritic told CVG this week that the website had been forced to remove a media outlet from their database after discovering evidence of corrupt practises. Marc Doyle, the co-founder of the scoring aggregator, failed to confirm the outlet’s name and the way in which it carried out its corrupt practise but, even so, it doesn’t take extra details for the gravity of this situation to be fully realised. Although the stone may have just been thrown into the water, the ripples are sure to have an effect on every magazine and website working in the industry today.Given that key information regarding the outlet itself has been withheld, we are forced to think hypothetically. If Marc was forced to remove a videogaming website from Metacritic, this would no doubt come as a huge relief to Future Publishing and Imagine, two of the largest publishing houses in Britain today. Small, independent websites are typically approached with a fair bit of caution anyway, so the best case scenario states that Marc chose to remove a barely established domain that nobody really knew. However, this seems implausible as an appearance on Metacritic is not something that is provided lightly; the website in question would have had to prove itself beforehand, thus pointing to the removal of a larger website with an expanse of regular visitors.
It’s clear that IGN, Gamespot and Eurogamer all remain, so this reduces the possibility of the corrupt website employing staff on the payroll. If the website was manned by unpaid volunteers then the issue is unlikely to trouble the big guns any longer and sit instead on the doorstep of unsalaried websites. Regular readers will know that we strive to provide informed and entertaining content, but there is no doubt that this revelation may well have an impact as to how newcomers to the site perceive our content. The same could be said for other websites that work upon the same ethic; a degree of distrust culminating is almost inevitable.
[drop] Comparatively, if it turned out that a videogaming publication was removed and not a website, the ripples of the aforementioned stone may well be a whole lot greater. Only this year did Future Publishing report a 45% fall in pre-tax profits, and this could possibly add fuel to the already burning fire. Videogaming publications have always prided themselves on offering a journal of unparalleled expertise and information, and this principle is one of the reasons why print is still managing to hold its own against the monumental mammoth that is the internet.If a magazine was indeed wiped off Metacritic, it would shatter that layer of integrity that has always been associated with print, and potentially result in another decline in sales. Personally, I find this extremely saddening; having briefly worked inside a publishing house myself, the passion and talent that exudes from the employees inside is unmistakable, and to think that a payoff to one reviewer could leave the reputation of print in tatters makes me extremely angry. It would simply act as another reason for consumers to fire up their laptop and click on the address bar, something that cannot happen if the print market wishes to continue in its current form.
All of the above is comprised from my personal conjecture, and nobody knows (apart from Marc and those inside Metacritic) whether it was a videogaming website or indeed a publication that was pulled from the database. I’m inclined to say that the outlet in question should be announced; at least then one market would be saved from the aura of suspicion that will gradually emerge.
Corruption is a definite issue, but it’s important to remember that just because you disagree with a review doesn’t mean it’s corrupt; they are opinions after all, and they are bound to differ. In saying that, it would be naive to say that this revelation won’t have an effect on how future reviews are received. The videogaming industry has long been one of trust, but with corruption somewhere in the ranks, it’s a value that may not hold as much worth as it once did.
yogdog
This article just seems quite sensationalist and melodramatic to me, so what if one publication has been caught red handed with corruption, there’s dozens worldwide, and many more sites online. It’s one publication, not a dozen. It’s not massive at the moment, and from what I understand it could have happened a long time ago and has only just been brought up so it can’t be too serious. This won’t destroy printed publications and make sales decline, as you seem to suggest, as most people don’t even know about this.
Toby M [Dexter17]
For the majority of your points please read my response to Crocadillian below.
It may have happened a while ago, and while yes, if a major publication was removed from Metacritic (PSM3, EDGE) then it would be noticed. However, there are so many websites on there that they all seem to dissolve into one, so even if a larger website was removed (aside from the likes of Eurogamer) I think that it would be much more likely to go unnoticed.
As for not many people knowing about it, it was reported on CVG in the week and then in turn got re-published on many other sites, so I assume that a fair few people know about it by now.
m61726b
I don’t use metacritic. Averaging scores is pointless unless you have read the opinions of all the reviewers.
colmshan1990
True, but you can look at it as a gateway.
They have links to nearly all the reviews (except printed reviews, obviously) so you can read them.
SpikeyMikey23
I don’t really use reviews any more. If their on this site then I’ll read it, but if I like the look of a game and i keep tabs on it, I normally end up buying it, or use the forums for a bit of friendly opinion and advice
Crocadillian
I think this article stereotypes and overdramatises a little too much. It’s very easy to make such brash assumptions, but you just need to use your head and think logically. One magazine ≠ every magazine, and no-one in their right mind would take it that way. Just because News of The World closed for example, doesn’t mean newspaper sales in general will plummet, or other newspapers reputations.
Toby M [Dexter17]
I agree with you in the respect that my hypothetical paragraphs may have focussed very much on a worst case scenario.
However, in this case I think that this announcement is more likely to affect every magazine and / or website, albeit not necessarily to the extent suggested by the words above. If the corrupt outlet was announced then yes, that single outlet would take the blame and that would be that. However, as it has not yet been pinned on a specific outlet I think that this makes it more likely to effect the whole market, due to nobody knowing who was guilty.
DJ-Katy
Been thinking about this the last days and have decided that people have short memories and it will all be forgotten about by 99.999% of the gaming population in about a week, or whenever gaming sites stop reporting about it – whichever happens sooner. Drop in the ocean. All the hardcore gamers know half the sites are biassed anyway.
DirtyHabit
Forgotten about what..?
:)
gideon1451
This is particularly relevant considering News International & all Mr Murdoc’s things.
BlueWolf
Toby, whilst I understood completely what you were saying, I feel that some of what others have said about the title and the piece itself is somewhat justified.
If it was truly about ‘The cost of corruption’, then surely you would have gone into detail as to the implications of false scores and the bearing that would have on sales. Let us take for example, Duke Nukem; whilst it is widely regarded as a poor game, what if this site/publication purposefully gave it a higher score? Yes, you could say that with so many scores, one single false one shouldn’t change the overall score that much, but the implications reach much further in that it begs the question, “why?”.
Was this site/publication a set-up by a games company? Were they being paid by a games company? What was behind the misleading scores?
As for Metacritic itself, I rarely visit it, and pay even less attention to their scores: if I like the sound of a game, it matters not a jot what score it got, as I have enjoyed and disliked games that have received low and high scores respectively.