Kotaku 
Enter your username and password.
Denver, 4:45 PM
Wed Dec 2
63 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip us:
Editor-In-Chief:
Brian Crecente
| AIM | Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Stephen Totilo
| AIM | Twitter
Senior Editor:
Michael McWhertor
| AIM | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor, Japan:
Brian Ashcraft
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, East Coast:
Michael Fahey
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, Oceania:
Luke Plunkett
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, Weekends:
Owen Good
| AIM | Twitter
Correspondent, San Francisco:
AJ Glasser
| AIM | Twitter
Columnist:
Leigh Alexander
Columnist:
Tim Rogers
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
10/06/09
Now, on the other side of the coin, anything OTHER than the game itself, might be subject to scrutiny. Why do you need a t-shirt to review the game it's based off of? And sure, giving you a game-licensed controller to review the game with is theme-appropriate, but does it make the game suck less?
The easy answer here is just to disclose everything the author of a review may have received, whether it be a copy of the game or shameless loads of swag. If the author has any chops at all, his readers will be able to tell whether those "materials" have influenced his review.
10/06/09
10/06/09
(Hey, I see the schwag you get. And I see that you give some of it away. ) hint hint
10/06/09
I never consider reviews before buying a game, I always look into people's opinions instead, and I suggest everyone to do so.
10/06/09
A review is someone's opinion on the game, so what do you mean? Whether it's a gaming blog like Kotaku or some "larger site" like IGN, gametrailers, or gamespot, each reviewer states his or her opinion about the game and (usually) gives it a score.
How's it different? Or do you mean friends opinions and people you personally know?
10/06/09
It's actually not the same. not for me at least. Because a reviewer has to give a critic about every aspect in the game, and there are some aspects that mean little or nothing to me. So basically I just get informed on the aspects Im interested in.
10/06/09
10/06/09
10/06/09
10/05/09
10/05/09
Besides.don't we basically know who gets "endorsed" by reading the reviews and hearing about it from actual gamers?
10/05/09
If bands want to sell singles nowadays they have to get on TV, and not MTV by the way. They either need to get their own Disney show, or get one of their moody songs playing in the background during an emotionally intensive scene on a network drama series.
Apple and car commercials are also good gets too.
10/05/09
It amazes me that people can believe that making this process political, especially in relation to a regulatory agency with essentially unlimited discretion and no real oversight, can actually produce anything but a negative effect.
this argument presumes a few things, the most important thing being that the government bureaucrats are heavenly angels who are not corrupt themselves and will not game the process for their own ends. yeah, all you have to do is look at the FDA and the drug companies to see how effective that line of reasoning is.
"But some reviewers are corrupt." No shit Sherlock. This is why we look at more than one freaking review. they're basically trying to make an excuse for people to not increase their search costs in relation to what they spend their money on. they should have some "authority" do it for them to save them the trouble.
For those of you who think this is a stepping stone to improving review quality, I can only say you are most naive. the first thing that will happen is that people will see that reviewers are given free stuff and therefore assume that the reviewer is biased, regardless of the quality of his commentary. After this goes on for awhile, bloggers will begin simply not accepting any gifts or free stuff of any kind, which will really make their jobs more pleasant.
This is of course only a stepping stone. It'll be interesting to see how the FTC goes through the process of defining "blogger" the same way it did for "dominant market share" or "anti-competitive practice" in its handling of antitrust cases. Make no mistake, they have already said they should follow guidelines. if enough of the bloggers don't comply to them it is basically guaranteed that "guidelines" will become "law". And we will be all the poorer and less free when they do.
10/06/09
10/05/09
Otherwise, full and clear disclosure is the solution- seems pretty simply really.
10/05/09
I missed the edit window. I suck. :(
10/05/09
10/05/09
In the end, nothing has changed.
10/05/09
10/05/09
10/05/09
10/05/09
10/05/09
They should also mention if they received any shwag relating to the game.
10/05/09
This doesn't seem unreasonable at all to me.
10/05/09
10/05/09
10/05/09
THIS! OMG THIS!
Brutally honest my ass....
10/05/09
10/05/09
I'm STILL bitter at them for their Ninja Gaiden review on original Xbox...
Not to mention FFXII...
Or the existence of Morgan Webb.
10/05/09
10/05/09
I wish the new rules applied to TV.
Alot of tech review sites have been thought to engage in some shady stuff with reviews in the past. I think even a couple were caught offering better reviews if a company bought advertising. So I think openness isn't a bad thing.
But I think the rules have the potential to cause a mess by being too vague and by being too difficult to enforce.
10/05/09
I used to love Xplay too, Drunk Link was my absolute favourite.
It was a good show, not perfect but hella better then this glittered turd it is now. The reviews are smaller and less thorough then before.
10/05/09
10/05/09
10/05/09
*pops knuckles*
10/05/09
Now good sir, I don't agree with you at all, not in the iota, teeny weeny bikini bit.
But it's your opinion that it sucks, there can a variety reasons on why you don't like CC and why X play nailed it to the variety of reasons why I like CC and why Xplay did it for ratings/hits.
We can sit here and discuss/debate for posts and it wont change any of our opinions.
I respect your dislike, it's cool, because, really at the end of the day...it doesn't matter simply because CC sold like damn near 2 million copies.
So I doubt your dislike and my like will change that, SE like most things related to the FFVII compilation, rode it to the bank.
So I say good day....I SAY GOOD DAY!
10/05/09
Bring me back the Screen Savers, not this Olivia Munn BS and Attack of the Show!
Oh how I miss Leo Laporte…
G4 is now nothing more than a Spike wannabe equivalent in the gaming press.
Ugh, it saddens me to see how much G4 has gone down in quality (the original G4 wasn't too impressive, but they actually managed to ruin TechTV! AMAZING…) over the years.
I still remember how Leo Laporte actually went on television and made this meaningful rant on how the guys at Comcast and G4 were firing all the old tech guys and replacing them with relatively inexperienced and useless hosts, along with axing great shows and only dumbing down the ones left…
*sniff* You go FTC! Knock out these poor bastards for what they did to my…
*CRY~*
10/06/09
10/06/09
@Boom-Chicka-Ah: Here to Create a Star Commenter Empire: Web Soup? I have no idea what you are talking about! ¬_¬
..../;__;\
10/06/09
10/06/09
God is it crap.
I'd rather drink the real Web Soup of 4Chan and dunk my eyeballs in blood than to watch that show! :P
10/06/09
10/06/09
10/06/09
10/06/09
10/06/09
10/06/09
But I kind it finda said that the only hope I see in G4TV for gaming is in Sessler.
At least he actually knows his materia.
10/06/09
10/06/09
10/07/09
10/07/09
Well at least we still have his podcasts. :'P
10/07/09
10/05/09
10/05/09
If anything, it's a shame that "journalists" haven't been doing this to begin with.
10/05/09
10/05/09
All it means is that the reader might be better able to detect when a review isn't totally trustworthy. If a guy is reviewing Halo 3 and is also receiving money from Microsoft, they now have to tell you that (Not that I'm suggesting that sort of thing actually goes on).
10/05/09
10/06/09
That's actually so naive it kind of was enviable as well..