In IGN, and other similar site’s defense, they are rarely paid directly for the review itself. Rather, the money, one can assume, is all related to marketing and public relations. The big money makers for any website that posts news. All of our income is produced off of similar methods, where companies come to our ad agency and offer certain amounts of money to display advertising. Naturally, if we talk negatively over and over again about a product it will make them less likely to advertise it to our fan base thus hurting income. Setting aside our inside source, which even if you have a hard time believing us let me just say that if this was false I would sell this site to any fan for 1$ (that’s how confident I am), this entire story starting initially making rounds today off the words of Rich Stanton on twitter. Rich Stanton is a freelance writer who is known for his work with Future Publishing/PC Gamer. While he is hardly the elite of the elite, it simply adds a lot of weight to the ongoing problem in the industry that many Journalists, and fans, are just afraid to admit to.
Who were the dodgiest PRs for doing deals (review scores etc)?” Most is Driv3rgate game that got most obviously dodgy reviews?” Yes do review scores in future publications sometimes magically change before it hits the self” They control everything Do publishers/platform holders ‘pay’ for covers? In either ad spend or access.” I warn that there are some vulgar words used in these direct quotes off twitter:Įdge gave GTA IV but the review didn’t Just give us the worst story on Future you have and get some rest!” I’m genuinely amazed that nobody has picked up on the fact that GTA4 got a 9 which became Rockstar’s much sought-after in Edge. PC Gamer asked me to take some photos of something very specific.įuture will do anything to accommodate advertisers. This wasn’t approved! Do you know what PC Gamer’s editor, Tim Edwards, did? He denied I had ever been asked to do it. Said PCG were merely the innocent recipient.
In short, this is an industry-wide concern.
0 kommentar(er)
