Polygon posts ad/re-worded press release as 'News' & deletes user comments [Removed]

I kind of like the site. Already getting over the layout. At first it was a shock, but now it is kind of neat. Some of it is a little out there, and I think they are responding to similar comments.

This did stink a little. Copying and posting, free or not feels wrong. They could have made it a little more personal.
The funny part is the part where they defended it. And then admitted it didn't meet standards. Some props?

And for me I can still find it on the main page.
 
RedNumberFive said:
It's great that Jeff thinks about it, but that's a pretty passive decision. Stepping up and doing something about it is another matter. Telling everyone how gross this PR stuff is, then engaging in it like an all-you-can-eat buffet doesn't negate the fact that you're part of the problem. I think you're letting your love of Giant Bomb color your opinions on this matter.
Click to expand...

You say this like Jeff didn't leave Gamespot and create an independent video game site because of advertisers trying to influence reviews.
 
Zabka said:
You say this like Jeff didn't leave Gamespot and create an independent video game site because of advertisers trying to influence reviews.
Click to expand...

And so what? Does that mean he gets free reign for all the free trips and swag while other outlets don't? Do your standards change on preference?
 
Satchel said:
I get it. You guys expected more from a gaming website, and gaming journalists in general.

There's your problem.
Click to expand...

You've got it completely upside down.

Their expectations are not a problem. Plenty of media outlets across the world meet these incredibly standard expectations. That no/vanishingly few video game enthusiast press writers/personalities/commentators meet these expectations is not the problem of the people with these expectations, because those standards are there whether or not the audience pays attention to the writers/personalities/commentators who blur or destroy the line between PR regurgitation and original content.
 
I'm not going to comment on the larger issue at hand, but the removal of said article and the general handling of it was poor by any standards.

Personally I'm not surprised.
 
JebusF said:
That's fine, and if you can come up with another way (or multiple ways) for a website to make money to pay staff, I'd be all ears!
Click to expand...
One way is, quite obviously, to charge. Now, before someone tells me "it wouldn't work!" there are ways to make it work.

I don't know how successful GiantBomb's premium subscriptions are, but I'm sure they bring in some revenue, and that's one way. There is a football blog site I know of that charges around £3 per month and has a very active community - membership of which is only available if you pay. There are plenty of free sites covering the same topics, but the argument of "people won't pay when there's free alternatives" is disproved because, being a primarily opinion-based site with long, detailed pieces, it justifies its cost to its members. Another site does similar but with weekly video shows. It's not games related, but I see no reason why similar principles can't be applied - if the articles are good enough, I believe people would pay for them. Look at Edge - I would guess that most people who buy the magazine buy it for the writing and the features/articles.

There are ways to make a pay site work. A site just needs to have the content to facilitate it.
 
Calcaneus said:
What are these behaviors, exactly?
Click to expand...

Throughout all these "games journalism" threads over the last few days we (for the most part) have frowned upon the lavish press kits, exotic junkets, and general buddy-buddy behavior with PR. Giant Bomb, via Jeff and Patrick, have essentially said "yeah we do all this stuff, but we're immune to the influence, trust us." If that satisfies you, then there's nothing I can say to you, but it seems like some GB fans are creating a double standard.
 
RedNumberFive said:
And so what? Does that mean he gets free reign for all the free trips and swag while other outlets don't? Do your standards change on preference?
Click to expand...

No they don't change, it's just that no one called out Polygon on the stuff you mention here, which is what the thread is actually about. The free trips and swag are rarely an issue (point me to a recent controversy around those in particular, cause I can't remember any), and are not what is up for debate at the moment.

We're talking about quality of and standards of writing with regard to Press Releases and editorial attitudes and responses to audience complaint. Non of which has ever been a problem with GiantBomb.
 
PaulLFC said:
One way is, quite obviously, to charge. Now, before someone tells me "it wouldn't work!" there are ways to make it work.

I don't know how successful GiantBomb's premium subscriptions are, but I'm sure they bring in some revenue, and that's one way. There is a football blog site I know of that charges around £3 per month and has a very active community - membership of which is only available if you pay. There are plenty of free sites covering the same topics, but the argument of "people won't pay when there's free alternatives" is disproved because, being a primarily opinion-based site with long, detailed pieces, it justifies its cost to its members. Another site does similar but with weekly video shows. It's not games related, but I see no reason why similar principles can't be applied - if the articles are good enough, I believe people would pay for them. Look at Edge - I would guess that most people who buy the magazine buy it for the writing and the features/articles.

There are ways to make a pay site work. A site just needs to have the content to facilitate it.
Click to expand...

I think you're making it sound a LOT easier than it is.

Giant Bomb can charge because they will have a HUGE audience already built in, with which to charge with.

What does a new site, who sticks to all the ethics and guidelines that a reader would hope to see enforced, do, in the years it takes to build that community from scratch, with no "big name" ex-big-site writers in their stable?

Unique content is one thing (and it's something I personally try to get plenty of on our site), but it's the hardest thing in the world to push. Nobody googles "New content from site X", they just throw "Halo 4 review" into google. Worse yet, people complain until the cats come home about "site X", then they revisit them time and time again.

Remember, you're not talking about a couple of people, you're talking about a staff of 6-10 people who'd need a wage to live on. It's just not as easy as removing ads, going "indie" and living the high-life for everyone.

The idea that a press kit, or freebie, would colour a review is (to me) quite strange. Anyone who is that easily influenced, well, they kinda invalidate their work pretty quickly. Yeah, we get free stuff, and it's nice, but it means nothing really. A review is of the software provided, you're not reviewing the t-shirt that came with it. It's irrelevant to the review, or should be. A game being "free" doesn't mean you'd like it any more. It's either good or it's bad.
 
Blog and news sites posts this kind of promotion all the time. I think the way this was write make feels like a advertorial or press release copy. If they have a more casual writing, like "hey dudes, halo stuff with pizza" feels more natural.
 
So why don't they just clearly label these as the "press releases" they are and post them verbatim?

Its not like their subtle changes provide value. If we're interested in a game we'll be interesting in some of the press releases along with original content.
 
C'mon, RedNumberFive, let's hear your complaints about GiantBomb's word-for-word regurgitation of press releases, or their insufferably puffed-up hype videos, or their forcing positive only comments or just the straight shutting down of comments sections or their flip-flopping of editorial decisions.

Yes, come, regale us with the tales of all the many instances of unethical, trust-destroying GiantBomb behavior...
 
PaulLFC said:
One way is, quite obviously, to charge. Now, before someone tells me "it wouldn't work!" there are ways to make it work.

I don't know how successful GiantBomb's premium subscriptions are, but I'm sure they bring in some revenue, and that's one way. There is a football blog site I know of that charges around £3 per month and has a very active community - membership of which is only available if you pay. There are plenty of free sites covering the same topics, but the argument of "people won't pay when there's free alternatives" is disproved because, being a primarily opinion-based site with long, detailed pieces, it justifies its cost to its members. Another site does similar but with weekly video shows. It's not games related, but I see no reason why similar principles can't be applied - if the articles are good enough, I believe people would pay for them. Look at Edge - I would guess that most people who buy the magazine buy it for the writing and the features/articles.

There are ways to make a pay site work. A site just needs to have the content to facilitate it.
Click to expand...

Nice to see somebody reference the Tomkin Times (You could probably add the Blizzard to that with their split hard copy/internet magazine).
 
RedNumberFive said:
Throughout all these "games journalism" threads over the last few days we (for the most part) have frowned upon the lavish press kits, exotic junkets, and general buddy-buddy behavior with PR. Giant Bomb, via Jeff and Patrick, have essentially said "yeah we do all this stuff, but we're immune to the influence, trust us." If that satisfies you, then there's nothing I can say to you, but it seems like some GB fans are creating a double standard.
Click to expand...
Yeah, its obvious what the companies are trying to get at with those junkets and the swag. The ones I really find fishy are the review events they have sometimes. So yeah if that stuff makes you weary I don't blame you.

The buddy buddy stuff? In what way do you mean?
 
I remember Jeff saying one time in one of his videos that swag and trips don't really matter to him and if you think some amount of swag or a short trip was enough to buy his opinions than you need to find a different site or something like that.

I also remember him talking about people in the industry and saying he lost friends over reviews because they worked for PR or on a game that scored low.

I know GAF is all aboard the hate train right now but you need to pick better targets. This stuff should be talked about but labeling everyone until the proof is out there makes us all look bad.
 
Calcaneus said:
Yeah, its obvious what the companies are trying to get at with those junkets and the swag. The ones I really find fishy are the review events they have sometimes. So yeah if that stuff makes you weary I don't blame you.

The buddy buddy stuff? In what way do you mean?
Click to expand...

I suppose he means their relationships with harmonix and double fine, along with other figures in game dev.
 
TheSeks said:
And that's the problem, how are you not getting this? The "age of page click/ads" needs to be over for the sake of higher level discourse and writing that isn't blatant ads for the sake of the game journalism industry.

But no, "let's get over ourselves" for your sake because OMG HALO 4!
Click to expand...

I think the issue here is that I don't care enough to be so upset.

In the end, we're talking about videogame journalism. I'm not sure what you guys expect?

As I said earlier, sports journalism isn't too different. The bigger difference is probably the kick backs.

But all levels of journalism have their garbage levels they'll all stoop to. Like say, phone tapping?

I'm aware many many members of GAF have this idea of gaming "growing up" as a medium, but I just don't share that view.

I don't see the gaming industry as a whole being taken all that seriously for at least another 10-15 years. Mainly because that's when Gen Y will be running the show, which will play a big part. Perhaps.
 
When your motivation is to get as many clicks/hits as possible, then you have lost the real reason why you exist in the first place. This and the surrounding controversy is just a clear example of how far the media has fallen.

The fact that anyone would even be defending this as "newsorthy" or a story worth posting, demonstrates just how much the advertising age has succeeded.
 
JebusF said:
I think you're making it sound a LOT easier than it is.

Giant Bomb can charge because they will have a HUGE audience already built in, with which to charge with.

What does a new site, who sticks to all the ethics and guidelines that a reader would hope to see enforced, do, in the years it takes to build that community from scratch, with no "big name" ex-big-site writers in their stable?

Unique content is one thing (and it's something I personally try to get plenty of on our site), but it's the hardest thing in the world to push. Nobody googles "New content from site X", they just throw "Halo 4 review" into google. Worse yet, people complain until the cats come home about "site X", then they revisit them time and time again.

Remember, you're not talking about a couple of people, you're talking about a staff of 6-10 people who'd need a wage to live on. It's just not as easy as removing ads, going "indie" and living the high-life for everyone.

The idea that a press kit, or freebie, would colour a review is (to me) quite strange. Anyone who is that easily influenced, well, they kinda invalidate their work pretty quickly. Yeah, we get free stuff, and it's nice, but it means nothing really. A review is of the software provided, you're not reviewing the t-shirt that came with it. It's irrelevant to the review, or should be. A game being "free" doesn't mean you'd like it any more. It's either good or it's bad.
Click to expand...
I think my answer to that is that you look at how to make it work, develop a strategy and build it up. I know it's difficult to get your name out there, but I believe if the content you produce is good enough then eventually, you get noticed. Paul Tomkins, who runs the football site I talked about referenced below, was a blogger. He's an author now too, but as far as I know he started off as a regular forum poster and blogger. It's now his blog that has a big paying userbase - and he has a good way of attracting memberships by providing some of his articles for free, along with the first few paragraphs of others, the rest behind the paywall. Other articles are fully behind the paywall, as is the ability to comment and join in discussions, and the removal of adverts. It seemingly works for him, as the site has been going for a while with no changes to the subscription system from what I can see.

So I think it can be done, as long as the articles are good enough. You slowly get noticed, build up a following, and then as more donations and subscriptions start to come in, you expand - slowly. Take on another writer once you can afford to pay them. I don't believe you need big name writers - it helps, sure, but it's not essential. Who were they before they became big names? Everyone starts somewhere.

I think that managed correctly, it would be possible. It happens in other fields, so why should games be different? It's all about the content as far as I'm concerned.

Stuart Campbell made a very good point in an article on his site that we get what we pay for with games journalism. Nobody wants to pay for it, so it's where it is. That's why we get regurgitated press releases and a ton of adverts. I pay for GamesTM because I like their articles and feel that the magazine is worth it. I imagine those that subscribe to Edge feel the same way. For me there's no reason a site couldn't be behind a paywall, as long as the content is there to justify it, and maybe one article in every dozen or so is made free as a sample of the work to entice new subscriptions. I've rambled on a bit there in places, but those are my thoughts on it.


Cerebral Assassin said:
Nice to see somebody reference the Tomkin Times (You could probably add the Blizzard to that with their split hard copy/internet magazine).
Click to expand...
That's the one. The Blizzard is excellent also, they have a good strategy with pay what you want over a set price for the hard copy magazine, and true pay what you want for the PDF versions. Fantastic writing, too.
 
ThusZarathustra said:
No they don't change, it's just that no one called out Polygon on the stuff you mention here, which is what the thread is actually about. The free trips and swag are rarely an issue (point me to a recent controversy around those in particular, cause I can't remember any), and are not what is up for debate at the moment.

We're talking about quality of and standards of writing with regard to Press Releases and editorial attitudes and responses to audience complaint. Non of which has ever been a problem with GiantBomb.
Click to expand...
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=497024
 
Satchel said:
I don't see the gaming industry as a whole being taken all that seriously for at least another 10-15 years. Mainly because that's when Gen Y will be running the show, which will play a big part. Perhaps.
Click to expand...

It won't happen magically just because the people working there aren't the same. It changes because consumers of their content demand better and call them out on bullshit. If you're still puzzled about the existence of these standards after having this explained to you then I don't know what you think you're contributing to the discussion.
 
Satchel said:
I think the issue here is that I don't care enough to be so upset.

In the end, we're talking about videogame journalism. I'm not sure what you guys expect?

As I said earlier, sports journalism isn't too different. The bigger difference is probably the kick backs.

But all levels of journalism have their garbage levels they'll all stoop to. Like say, phone tapping?

I'm aware many many members of GAF have this idea of gaming "growing up" as a medium, but I just don't share that view.

I don't see the gaming industry as a whole being taken all that seriously for at least another 10-15 years. Mainly because that's when Gen Y will be running the show, which will play a big part. Perhaps.
Click to expand...

Nah man, it's not about gaming be taken seriously or any of that shit. It's about Polygon's expressed attitude and goals not lining up with their run-of-the-mill this-is-the-norm execution, that's all.

beastmode said:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=497024
Click to expand...

I meant about GiantBomb, but yeah, it's a bad practice for sure in the larger sense. I may have enough experience with GiantBomb that I can tell when their biases show through, I wouldn't trust some neophyte writer for a purposefully faceless site any further than I could throw them. Like I said earlier, different situations means different expectations.

The standards are way lower than they should be for all this stuff, so when someone says that they're raising them and it turns out they're not, it's easy to see how people could get mad.
 
ThusZarathustra said:
C'mon, RedNumberFive, let's hear your complaints about GiantBomb's word-for-word regurgitation of press releases, or their insufferably puffed-up hype videos, or their forcing positive only comments or just the straight shutting down of comments sections or their flip-flopping of editorial decisions.

Yes, come, regale us with the tales of all the many instances of unethical, trust-destroying GiantBomb behavior...
Click to expand...

They post plenty of trailers with little comment. That's essentially regurgitating a press release.
 
GatorFan said:
Polygon installs spyware on your computer confirmed. That might explain why the site is a slow, convoluted mess.
Click to expand...

It's actually content targeting: these ads appear because you guys are using the word "pizza hut" a lot. I kind of thought everyone knew that though. If it really bothers you, just clear your cache.
 
RedNumberFive said:
Throughout all these "games journalism" threads over the last few days we (for the most part) have frowned upon the lavish press kits, exotic junkets, and general buddy-buddy behavior with PR. Giant Bomb, via Jeff and Patrick, have essentially said "yeah we do all this stuff, but we're immune to the influence, trust us." If that satisfies you, then there's nothing I can say to you, but it seems like some GB fans are creating a double standard.
Click to expand...

What will it take to satisfy you? Them paying for the trip themselves? Them not interacting with PR whatsoever, because they'll obviously become corrupted?

It comes down to trust. If you can't trust the GB crew, then fine. But I think they've earned the right to do what they need to do to function as a website. I trust them.
 
PaulLFC said:
I think my answer to that is that you look at how to make it work, develop a strategy and build it up. I know it's difficult to get your name out there, but I believe if the content you produce is good enough then eventually, you get noticed.
Click to expand...

It's just not that easy. We have great numbers, but that doesn't = a community. Being noticed also does not = making money. We've discussed a members only area, but I don't like putting content behind any kind of wall, and there's all kinds of things that need considering.

PaulLFC said:
So I think it can be done, as long as the articles are good enough. You slowly get noticed, build up a following, and then as more donations and subscriptions start to come in, you expand - slowly. Take on another writer once you can afford to pay them. I don't believe you need big name writers - it helps, sure, but it's not essential. Who were they before they became big names? Everyone starts somewhere..
Click to expand...

Right, and I agree to an extent - but back then, print was all the rage and the internet was just coming of age. Now, you could have a new games site up and running in 10 minutes flat.

Edit: Too in depth, nevermind.
 
ultron87 said:
They post plenty of trailers with little comment. That's essentially regurgitating a press release.
Click to expand...

They are entirely different kinds of media with entirely different goals, approaches, production methods, everything. Holding them to the same standards is pedantic and, again, symptomatic of poor critical thinking.

At no point does a reader/viewer see a game trailer and not know that it came from the company who made the game. The same is not true of a regurgitated press release which carries the weight of editorial oversight. When press release pieces are written poorly they are done as in the Polygon example in this thread: nearly word for word, but with the editor's name attached as though they themselves wrote it. That makes an ocean of difference to anyone with a critical eye and the fact that so many cannot see the difference is sad and telling.

That said, I'd have no problem with them not running trailers, though I have no idea what kind of ad traffic they see from them.

Scapegoat said:
GiantBomb's trailer page says "Developers and publishers want to sell you games! Trailers are how they do it!"

Seems pretty transparent to me.
Click to expand...

What he said.
 
ultron87 said:
They post plenty of trailers with little comment. That's essentially regurgitating a press release.
Click to expand...
GiantBomb's trailer page says "Developers and publishers want to sell you games! Trailers are how they do it!"

Seems pretty transparent to me.

I don't mind them posting about the competition, however I do think it goes against Polygon's core "ethics" to push it out in the PR laden way it was. Why did it have to be a briefly edited version of the press release? Why not a "For our UK readers who like Halo 4, pizza, and want something free, check this out:". When it's so clearly a press release, why doesn't the article start with "MS and Pizza Hut have just released a press release detailing a new promotion..."
 
Curufinwe said:
Can you link to this?
Click to expand...


jbfaLnmS8CFYw0.png
 
Unreal. I posted this as a joke in the gaming journalism trainwreck/thread last night as a joke, and around the same time the discussion was going over having transparency about what is a press release when it is posted on the site.

Then this goes up on Polygon and they employ crazy tactics to shut down criticism.

I kind of feel like no one gets it at this point.
 
A Link to the Snitch said:
If I read the thing correctly, it should be in a screen ap earlier in the thread.
Click to expand...

He didn't call anyone out for not liking EA. He just said if people have based their opinion that they are the "worst company in the country" on anything that he wrote, that he doesn't feel he's doing a good job of expressing himself.

I don't think he said anywhere that you should like EA, or even that you shouldn't feel that they are the worst company in the world...just that you shouldn't base that on his own articles.

Anyway...back to the name calling thing. What was it that you just referred to him as?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

In a 557-word post to end all posts, Gearbox boss Randy Pitchford fully lays out the "misunderstanding" over Borderlands 4 $80 comments
2
58
562
Scrawnton replied
Little Nightmares III release October 10th
News 
18
101
Putonahappyface replied
Codemasters (WRC) Twitter Account Deleted - Social Media Presence Being Removed
7
212
Zacfoldor replied
Sony has removed regional purchasing restrictions from their PC releases
41
398
Idleyes replied
[Polygon] 8BitDo no longer shipping to US from China due to Trump tariffs
News  2 3 4 5 6
252
3K
Renozokii replied
Top Bottom