Bethesda engaging in more unethical practices?

Post by **King of Creation** » Thu Oct 21, 2010 8:19 am

[ Company -> Update ] - More info on <a href="http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Bethesda Softworks">Company: Bethesda Softworks</a> | More info on <a href="http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout: New Vegas">Game: Fallout: New Vegas</a>

UPDATE: Dan Hsu <a href="http://twitter.com/bitmobshoe/status/28 ... ts</a>:
<blockquote>
Re: my Tweets, Bethesda wants to go on record that they 100% did not pressure any editorial and do not condone such activities.
</blockquote>
 
 
We <a href="../../forums/viewtopic.php?t=24695">reported earlier</a> that Bethesda was apparently engaging in some unethical marketing practices with regards to review quotes in a Fallout: New Vegas ad. Now, it looks like things have gone to the next level. <a href="http://twitter.com/bitmobshoe">Dan Hsu</a>, former Editorial Director at 1up and now of Bitmob, has uncovered what he claims is direct review intervention by Bethesda. Here are <a href="http://twitter.com/bitmobshoe">his tweets</a> on the matter:
<blockquote>
One site was forced to pull its Fallout Vegas review because advertiser Bethesda was unhappy w/ score. Sad this crap still goes on.
Heard (but haven't confirmed) two more sites delaying publishing poor review scores for Fallout Vegas until Fallout ad campaign is done.
To clarify, the site's boss pulled that review because advertiser wasn't happy, against writer's wishes.
Sorry, I know how this sounds, but I can't say which site cause this guy would be fired for telling me (they'd know).
 <a href="http://twitter.com/JustinHaywald">RT: JustinHaywald</a> @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://twitter.com/bitmobshoe">bitmobshoe</a> To be clear, 1UP has not published a review because both the reviewer and I felt he needed more time with the game.
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://twitter.com/BenKuchera">BenKuchera</a> I did get a 2nd, independent confirmation on this, tho. The review was pulled by CEO, then put back up when ad campaign was over
</blockquote>
If you work for a site and this has happened to you, let us know! If true, this is outrageous and totally reprehensible...yet not unexpected.
Thanks <a href="http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog ... Willooi</a>.

Username · Post by **Username** » Thu Oct 21, 2010 9:19 am

Wow not even the cunts at EA games would do stuff like this. Heck those cunts gave me a free CD key when I lost my for BF2. (yeah I did actually lose it...)

Fuck it now I'm seriously pirating the game if I'm ever going to try it.
As an aspiring journalist I feel sickened by these things, not to mention that they mock the what ever the ideal of reporting and reviewing once was in the past.

This reminds me of the good old Microsoft - Indie thing.
"Microsoft sux, microsoft is evil, microsoft does this and that".

Then apple breaks through. And it's just 10 times worse in every direction.

TheBearPaw · Post by **TheBearPaw** » Thu Oct 21, 2010 11:36 am

Yeah, if this stuff is true, it's fucking ugly, and those Besthesda bitches should be exposed and fined.

popscythe · Post by **popscythe** » Thu Oct 21, 2010 1:19 pm

Buy a dead franchise: Check
Make a terrible game under the new IP: Check
Hire someone to pour sugar on the feces you previously created and call it a new product: Check
Pay for good reviews of Feces: With Sugar: Check
Demand bad reviews for Feces: With Sugar be removed from websites: Check

Let me just extrapolate the next couple of moves by Bethsoft for you guys to save you some time.

Fire Obsidian after blaming poor sales of Feces: With Sugar on them: Check
Release a fucking horrible "game" only on 360 that is a "reboot" of TES, which does very poorly and is essentially a god of war clone with some fable-esque elements: Check
Abandon the Fallout franchise: Check
Get sold by Zenimax to some asian mmo company: 2014

Mark my words, boys. Mark em.

Cimmerian Nights · Post by **Cimmerian Nights** » Thu Oct 21, 2010 3:18 pm

If Bethesda were half as good at RPG design as they are at slimy PR...

crackedcorn · Post by **crackedcorn** » Thu Oct 21, 2010 3:56 pm

popscythe wrote:Mark my words, boys. Mark em.

If you insist...

TheTingler · Post by **TheTingler** » Thu Oct 21, 2010 4:19 pm

I think you guys are overreacting somewhat. I've seen nothing but glowing reviews for New Vegas from some of the harshest sites around. Anyone know what actual site supposedly pulled their review? Was it GameSpot (if so, quelle surprise)?

SenisterDenister · Post by **SenisterDenister** » Thu Oct 21, 2010 4:21 pm

Too many new people.

Superhaze · Post by **Superhaze** » Thu Oct 21, 2010 5:00 pm

We are on fucking reddit. This explains so much. Hello reddit, please leave us alone. Thanks!

Cimmerian Nights · Post by **Cimmerian Nights** » Thu Oct 21, 2010 5:59 pm

TheTingler wrote:I think you guys are overreacting somewhat. I've seen nothing but glowing reviews for New Vegas from some of the harshest sites around. Anyone know what actual site supposedly pulled their review? Was it GameSpot (if so, quelle surprise)?

I don't think the issue here is the perceived quality of the game, it's (and the gaming media is complicit in this) the fact that the publishers and gaming mags are in bed together.

That Bethesda (a major advertiser), thinks that these mags should "play ball" in exchange for exclusive content is pretty shady, don't you think?

How is this not a conflict of interests?

Why call it a review? Call it a paid-advertisement like you see in respectable newspapers and magazines.

But don't front like it some kind of unbiased review when the publisher/advertiser can weild this much control.

Bottom line - Bethesda are afraid of their products speaking for themselves.
Wheres the demos?
What's wrong with allowing me to judge for myself?

Kickstand27 · Post by **Kickstand27** » Thu Oct 21, 2010 6:08 pm

eh, its a two way street..

If a mag is willing to sugar coat for some exclusive info, or is willing to take extra cash for a good review, theyre just as guilty.

Ultimately the game will speak for its self and if its not good, those mags that painted it as such will not be looked as as credible.

Of course bethsoft is going to favor good reviews and try to grease the wheels to make it so.. it {i]is[/i] still a business, regardless of your thougts on that in relation to this or any franchise. but ultimately, its the medias job to be the media. imagine that.

Username · Post by **Username** » Thu Oct 21, 2010 6:34 pm

Kickstand27 wrote:eh, its a two way street..

If a mag is willing to sugar coat for some exclusive info, or is willing to take extra cash for a good review, theyre just as guilty.

Ultimately the game will speak for its self and if its not good, those mags that painted it as such will not be looked as as credible.

Of course bethsoft is going to favor good reviews and try to grease the wheels to make it so.. it {i]is[/i] still a business, regardless of your thougts on that in relation to this or any franchise. but ultimately, its the medias job to be the media. imagine that.

No they are not. It's just like saying "if a worker is willing to take that job with that shitty wage..."
In this case Bethesda is the side that pulls all the strings and holds all the aces. It's a matter of survival for the reviewer to do as they say because if they don't they do not get adds - and nobody pays for shit anymore which really benifits the big corporations.

If it was the other way around, if there were less wannabes just waiting to take X sites place and if Bethesdas future lay in the reviewers hands then the story would be different. The one with all the marbles sets the rules and its them that should be blamed.

Yonmanc · Post by **Yonmanc** » Thu Oct 21, 2010 6:53 pm

I stil havn't played it yet. It's a choice between new vegas, or drunkern debauchery. New Vegas can wait.

Post by **Manoil** » Thu Oct 21, 2010 7:09 pm

Yonmanc wrote:I stil havn't played it yet. It's a choice between new vegas, or drunkern debauchery. New Vegas can wait.

You still haven't made the youtube video reading off the list of words SDF can mean

Yonmanc · Post by **Yonmanc** » Thu Oct 21, 2010 7:11 pm

Manoil wrote:
Yonmanc wrote:I stil havn't played it yet. It's a choice between new vegas, or drunkern debauchery. New Vegas can wait.
You still haven't made the youtube video reading off the list of words SDF can mean

Shit I forgot. Well, I can't record anything this weekend, I'll get to it next week (something to add to my growing video schedule).

Kickstand27 · Post by **Kickstand27** » Thu Oct 21, 2010 7:24 pm

Username wrote:
No they are not. It's just like saying "if a worker is willing to take that job with that shitty wage..."
In this case Bethesda is the side that pulls all the strings and holds all the aces. It's a matter of survival for the reviewer to do as they say because if they don't they do not get adds - and nobody pays for shit anymore which really benifits the big corporations.

If it was the other way around, if there were less wannabes just waiting to take X sites place and if Bethesdas future lay in the reviewers hands then the story would be different. The one with all the marbles sets the rules and its them that should be blamed.

i think thats BS. its called journalistic integrity. if a reviewer thinks a game isnt good they should just go along and blow smoke up the readers ass to keep themselves "in the loop"? no, they shouldnt cater to the whims of devs. they are there for the readers-that should be the only peolle they pander to, unless they dont care about credibility with the very people that keep them in business.

The problem is that there are too many people that just play ball. Which is my point. bethsoft wouldnt be buying good reviews if pubs didnt sell them. make no mistake that bethsoft needs write ups. jsut like the business that pays workers the low wage need workers.. in the wage analogy, people form unions and whatnot to combat that kind of practice.

So ya, its a two way street.

RastaCC · Post by **RastaCC** » Thu Oct 21, 2010 7:31 pm

popscythe wrote:Buy a dead franchise: Check
Make a terrible game under the new IP: Check
Hire someone to pour sugar on the feces you previously created and call it a new product: Check
Pay for good reviews of Feces: With Sugar: Check
Demand bad reviews for Feces: With Sugar be removed from websites: Check

Let me just extrapolate the next couple of moves by Bethsoft for you guys to save you some time.

Fire Obsidian after blaming poor sales of Feces: With Sugar on them: Check
Release a fucking horrible "game" only on 360 that is a "reboot" of TES, which does very poorly and is essentially a god of war clone with some fable-esque elements: Check
Abandon the Fallout franchise: Check
Get sold by Zenimax to some asian mmo company: 2014

Mark my words, boys. Mark em.

In the words of The Dude: "that's like, your opinion, man." Fallout 3 was not crap and neither is New Vegas. I will agree with you if you say that the Fallout 3 GOTY on PS3 was crap. That version of the game was mainly unplayable. Also, I don't care if a lot of it is the same. There will always be one critic that wants it the same and another one that wants it to be completely different.

P.S. why all the bile for blood? Is it really something worth getting that upset about?

Yonmanc · Post by **Yonmanc** » Thu Oct 21, 2010 7:38 pm

lol RastaCC is a boob. I love these new guys!

Post by **King of Creation** » Thu Oct 21, 2010 9:54 pm

Updated the news post. Hsu is reporting that Bethesda want to go on the record denying his claims. Still waiting for Bethesda's comments

Frater Perdurabo · Post by **Frater Perdurabo** » Thu Oct 21, 2010 9:59 pm

Kickstand27 wrote:
Username wrote:
No they are not. It's just like saying "if a worker is willing to take that job with that shitty wage..."
In this case Bethesda is the side that pulls all the strings and holds all the aces. It's a matter of survival for the reviewer to do as they say because if they don't they do not get adds - and nobody pays for shit anymore which really benifits the big corporations.

If it was the other way around, if there were less wannabes just waiting to take X sites place and if Bethesdas future lay in the reviewers hands then the story would be different. The one with all the marbles sets the rules and its them that should be blamed.
i think thats BS. its called journalistic integrity. if a reviewer thinks a game isnt good they should just go along and blow smoke up the readers ass to keep themselves "in the loop"? no, they shouldnt cater to the whims of devs. they are there for the readers-that should be the only peolle they pander to, unless they dont care about credibility with the very people that keep them in business.

The problem is that there are too many people that just play ball. Which is my point. bethsoft wouldnt be buying good reviews if pubs didnt sell them. make no mistake that bethsoft needs write ups. jsut like the business that pays workers the low wage need workers.. in the wage analogy, people form unions and whatnot to combat that kind of practice.

So ya, its a two way street.

Bullshit. Unlike general journalism, gaming websites and magazines are almost entirely dependant on game developers and publishers for advertising money, free components, free games etc. If the developers and publishers pull the plug, that will be a substantial loss of revenue for them.

So pretend the review goes through and Bethesda pulls the plug on that particular magazine. EA or fuckknowswho comes along and says: "Hm, this magazine caters for gamers with independent thought who have above-average intellect. That's not my target audience and the last thing I want is a negative review. Shut 'em down."

Or even worse, instead of having these sites wither in the background with their negative reviews around, why not just bully them into not publishing the review in the first place?