The PR Machine
December 1, 2008
I had some trouble thinking of what to write today, but I think I’ll take a moment to look at something that’s been popping up on websites. I’m talking about the PR company that admitted it was trying to raise Metacritic scores for a company. The story is related here. Apparently this is a concern for people. True, the admission was a strange occurrence, which Penny Arcade points out. I find it strange that people are crying in outrage at this event, and today I’ll break down why.
This shouldn’t be a surprise: There are two ways to look at companies trying to improve public perception of their product: on the one hand, good public perception means more money, and on the other, you’ve worked hard on making something you think is of high enough quality to merit such perception. If I spent two years developing a game you can sure as hell bet that I’d want people to not tear it down in a matter of minutes on launch day (if not before).
It’s their job: PR firms are hired with the sole purpose of making games look good. Bad press is counter to the entire existence of PR firms, and so they are motivated to prevent said bad press and promote good press. It has also been noted (on the 360 Fancast) that many firms receive bonuses based on Metacritic scores. I’m not about to call that good business, but it is business, and if it was your bonus you’d ask for better scores.
They didn’t do anything wrong: What I mean is that the companies neither threatened action against poor scores nor offered any incentive for good scores. All they did was ask for people to hold off on posting scores that consumers don’t connect with a “must buy” title. I’m actually toying with the idea that these guys should be praised for that. I admit that it isn’t how I’d like businesses to run, but at least they weren’t dicks about it. That being said, I do agree that if a company has any reservations about review scores they should hold back on sending out review copies of the game. I won’t think any less of companies for giving out retail copies of games on release day rather than getting the media machine going early for a possible fail weeks in advance.
We, the consumers, share the blame: Let’s face it, if people didn’t get so scared off by a 7, companies wouldn’t mind having them in reviews. I’ve stated my distaste for numerical reviews before, and this is part of the reason. Personally, I find a lot of games out there that I quite enjoy get as low as a 6.5. These games aren’t bad, nor are they broken. They simply appeal to my personal tastes more than others’. I find this is often the case with franchises that are based on super-heroes, or other niches like Tomb Raider. If more gamers invested a little less in numbers and a little more in their own judgement companies wouldn’t dread scores which reflect differences in taste.
Obviously, it bears noting that I remain unimpressed with the situation. I am of course playing devil’s advocate, but I think that needs to be done. I mean, is anyone really surprised that stuff like this goes on? I’m sure that the company didn’t really mean to let the cat out of the bag quite so blatantly, but at least they didn’t lie about it. Would I like to see the ethics of the industry as a whole polished a little, especially when it comes to the media? Of course. But, with all the nasty things which could have happened, I think this is pretty minor.
Entry Filed under: Gaming Media. Tags: game reviews.
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed