Metacritic has told CVG that it has been forced to remove a games publication from its review listings after uncovering "corrupt practices".
Metacritic co-founder Marc Doyle wouldn't confirm whether the publication in question was paid off by a games publisher, nor reveal its name.
However, when asked by CVG if he'd ever had to wield the axe due to crooked dealings, he told us: "Yes. On one occasion I did discontinue my coverage of a publication's reviews because of what I considered to be corrupt practices."
The admission comes after Doyle's involvement in a fascinating podcast over on ajumpsbshoots.com.
The exec revealed an eye-opening list of criteria for why certain media is not listed on MC, and admitted: "There are many reasons why I would drop somebody [from games review listings]. There's corruption - people can be bought, absolutely."
He commented that MetaCritic's team annually evaluates whose reviews it adopts - a process it takes very seriously: "It [comes down] to a number of things: It's the quality of the analysis, the quality of the writing; do they have an audience; are they respected in the gaming community... is there a reputation for scoring integrity?
"[That means] are they going to give [a game] 4/5 and say it's one of the best of the year, and then give another game 4/5 and say it's really a letdown. I've got to see that they're being responsible internally with that scoring. If they're not - if they're being irresponsible, or being contrarian or ridiculous, which happens all the time - I won't pick them up."
Doyle also revealed that some sites have been dropped for "not taking their responsibility so seriously", and made clear that Metacritic strongly polices the sites that contribute to its average scores.
"And then there are some big [sites] who didn't necessarily want to be on Metacritic, or they're doing some things that I think make them not such a great fit for our system."
Doyle explained that some sites had objected to having their ratings systems converted into Metacritic's 100-point metric. The firm has failed to reach an agreement with G4TV on the subject, but Doyle told CVG: "We've continued to discuss the matter with G4 over the years, and if we can see eye-to-eye on the conversion method, we'll certainly consider re-adding them."
However, it is the news that the CNET-owned site has exposed corruption amongst the games media that will most shock the industry - particularly in a market where the bonuses of developers and publishing execs are dependent on a positive Metascore.
Electronic Arts, Take-Two and others have admitted that Metacritic scores are at the very heart of their self-evaluation practices.
Take-Two boss Strauss Zelnick said in March: "Unlike many other entertainment businesses - there are a just a few - ratings by Metacritic and others' reviews really can influence the success of a newly-released title. In fact, if your ratings go below a certain level, it can really hurt your ability to sell the title, and above a certain level can make a real different in your success."
Publications currently featured on Metacritic include Future Publishing's range of titles - such as CVG, PC Gamer, Edge, GamesRadar, OPM, OXM, ONM, PSM3, Xbox World 360 and GamesMaster - as well as IGN, GameSpot, EuroGamer, GiantBomb, Destructoid, Joystiq, VideoGamer and more.
Metacritic was launched in January 2001 by Doyle, along with his sister Julie Doyle Roberts and Jason Dietz. CNET acquired the site in 2005.
Comments
36 comments so far...
ensabahnur on 13 Jul '11 said:
Good, quite frankly i think there should be a review panel for these magazines. Obviously reviews are only opinion but if one publication/website seems to be going overboard with very high scores on games that just don't seem to deserve it maybe by using a poll of other reviews they can highlight this to warn readers.
How many games have been sold on poor reviews or just downright lies due to being bought off by a publishing house?
And obviously it will always raise the question of how COD games keep getting high scores.
Balladeer on 13 Jul '11 said:
The question is, has CVG been blacklisted?
StonecoldMC on 13 Jul '11 said:
What Metacritic are doing is a brilliant thing, however it can can be abused by those that are unscrupulous.
We all probably have visited sites that seem to give out scores of 9's and 10's like they were going out of fashion.
Ideally the more reviews the merrier, I just hope that the guys at Metacritic are able to police it effectively.
ricflair on 13 Jul '11 said:
Don't metacritic give more weight to some publications/sites compared to others? That's not entirely transparant either.
slick loose on 13 Jul '11 said:
They would have to review games first...BA-ZING!
/Much love for CVG
TheLastDodo on 13 Jul '11 said:
I think anyone that gave Homefront at least 8.6 is running the risk.
sonic_uk on 13 Jul '11 said:
Might explain a lot of the questionable reviews on some truly excellent games that got crap scores and crap games that got good scores. I just go by my own experience/opinion and apart from finding out what the game is about and the things you have to do in it I pay very little attention to reviews.
Jensonjet on 13 Jul '11 said:
You'd have to be an idiot to believe the process of reviewing and rating games is completely honest and above board. It's not difficult to imagine that publishers and the media discuss the advertising budget and the review in the same breath.
The Metacritic rating is utterly worthless in my opinion. I'm no more likely to take notice of a reviewers opinion than I am any other total stranger. I can't believe Metacritic exists in the first place, or that anyone actually cares about it's service. It's opinion, and when reviewers are far from impartial, paid to produce the work and are so close to the industry it's no surprise the process is corrupt.
I'm sure every gamer has experienced a game who's quality and experience differs massively from what was expected after reading a review. You only have to go back to a bad review for a game you love, or a good review for one you were massively disappointed with to see how pathetic the process is.
It's because some gamers do consider it worthwhile that the industry has more incentive to corrupt it and make it less honest. How can the people behind Metacritic decide when a reviewer is genuinely impressed or not with a game? Reviewers aren't dumb people. And smart people can easily convince others that their opinion is genuine. And in the end it's just opinion and taste.
The only use for reviews is to gain a little more information about a game you're interested in.
BrunoB on 13 Jul '11 said:
And CVG is the only website reporting this news (so far). GG games' industry and game journalists...
WHERESMYMONKEY on 13 Jul '11 said:
I'd say that the timing of some reviews is a definate cause for concern. Embargos placed on reviews i think are very underhand as although it doesn't stop a site giving a game an honest review it can help crap titles get more sales just through a lack of knowledge to the comsumer untill its too late.
I can see how thier is pressures on sites to give certain games better scores or sex up reivews a little in order to gain more advertising space with companies, which sites need to survive. its a tricky business being a games critic.
KMakawa on 13 Jul '11 said:
Ohhh boy, that was unexpected hit!
shellster2 on 13 Jul '11 said:
people get so hung up on metacritic, especially the rabid fanboys that i pay no attention to it whatsoever. I'll read a review on here and in my Edge mag, then make up my own mind whether to buy. NFI
duende667 on 13 Jul '11 said:
Hang on,where's metacritics evidence? How can a third party like metacritic prove this is going on between a developer and a reviewer/publication? I doubt either admitted it and metacritic can never (or don't have to) reveal the name of anybody involved lest they be sued for libel. Unless they can prove it,metacritic are just the guy at the bar trying to impress some hot chick by saying "yeah i can bring down the banhammer whenever i wan't baby,i've got some serious pull around here. wanna f**k?"
diblob on 13 Jul '11 said:
They should ban PC Gamer for giving Dragon Age 2 a 94....
CryogenicDead on 13 Jul '11 said:
I'd ban any games publication which gave Dragona Age 2 over a 49.
RetroJB on 13 Jul '11 said:
I don't care for some arbitrary number stuck on the end of a review, however it's painfully obvious that some journos and publications are 'bribed'. Just look at GameSpot and their recent Duke Nukem Forever review. At the time of writing GameSpot was the only major site to praise the game while sporting advertising for it across the entire site. Then there is Jeff Gerstmann and his questionable sacking from the site and 'that' review.
Having said that, you need to take a good long look at yourself if you're using places like Metacritic as a finalization for your game buying.
almanac2015 on 13 Jul '11 said:
Nothing wrong with using Metacritic to help you decide what is a good game.
gmcb007 on 13 Jul '11 said:
Metacritic is extremly good for helping the customer understand how the game has fared. A lot better than making up your mind soley based on one review.
scottabc on 13 Jul '11 said:
There was an interesting note in the article that CNET owns Metacritic. CNET also owns Gamespot which had one of the best known corruption scandals in recent years when pressure was put on a reviewer (Jeff Gerstmann, I believe) to give a good review to the first Kane and Lynch.
Jensonjet on 13 Jul '11 said:
I agree. I wouldn't buy a leg of lamb unless it had a Meatcritic of 80%. I have been known to buy bacon with a score as low 60% though.
ianson on 13 Jul '11 said:
I love how everyone mentions this as fact when it is entirely unsubstantiated. Might me true, might not. But, everyone refers to it as gospel. End of the day Metacritic lets you source several opinions very quickly and see an average of the score. Anyone who buys solely on someone else's opinion needs to be careful but, I often use Metacritic to source reviews from smaller sources with different opinions. Darksiders for example: 83 Metacritic mostly positive. A read of the mediocre reviews lead me to believe that I would really enjoy it since they complained about stuff that I knew I would enjoy. Some of those reviews are from sites I don't frequent and am unlikely to frequent but, having the reviews at my finger tips is very helpful and insightful.
nee50n on 13 Jul '11 said:
What EA said is perfectly true (it is an important site for publishers) - and despite vigilance from metacritic - there business model is pretty obvious. They are selling marketing space for publishers. They must be seen to be doing the right thing, but they don't have too much of an incentive to be too vigilante, in the same way games magazines would be biting the hand that feeds them if they were over critical in their reviews.
In a similar way - to use Noam Chomsky's propaganda model in the Manufacturing of Consent - newspapers do not sell news to readers, but readers to advertisers. The recent strife at News International is interesting, because there biggest threat was the patronage of advertisers. The fact is, people would have still continued buying the NotW (unfotunately), but that means jack all if advertisers think it will sully their image by having advertising space in these publications. The thing that continues to threaten news corp is its image among advertisers.
RetroJB on 13 Jul '11 said:
It was all a bit of a coincidence was it not? Also, Gerstmann was forbade to discuss the reasons for his dismissal when GameSpot were queried about it.
Something stunk about the whole scenario, that's for sure.
gmcb007 on 13 Jul '11 said:
Damm! I though nobody would notice! I gotta stop typing too fast!
AJDarkstar on 13 Jul '11 said:
I like NGamer and GamesMaster, and they are typically very reliable, but I would call into question the integrity and reliability of one Matthew Castle, whose scores are quite often ridiculously high or low, and his reviews often omit many key points. His reviews are entertaining, sure, but not as informative as I'd like. That's the only one I know of personally who I would choose to exclude.
Rise_ofthe_Mike on 13 Jul '11 said:
Yeah, well you could easily get rid of a few more...Edge for instance. That site has a massive hatred for PS3 exclusives and gives them the lowest possible score they can almost every time. There are a ton of sites like that, biased towards PS3 or 360. I'm not talking about PS magazine or xbox magazine either..and honestly in the case of PSmag...they've given exclusives lower scores sometimes as well. I'm talking mutliplatform sites that give the 360 or PS3 games low scores because they don't like their console. It's not cool and brings down the total average.
Look at Demon's Soul's...it was at a 9ish when it was given a low score by one guy...and he brought the total down into the 8's.
KippDynamite on 13 Jul '11 said:
When I bought a TV I scoured the internet for about a month in order to hear many people's opinions about the good and bad about various TVs. Why is it so bad that I do the same for games? I don't want to spend a heap of money on crap I don't want. Blindly following Metacritics numbers is foolish in my opinion, but the site does make it more convenient than going to 50 gaming websites individually and listening to a dozen podcasts just to get an overall perspective of a game.
What IS silly to me about Metacritic is simply how some people regard it and/or use it. I was reading a comment on here the other day where someone was trying to make the case that certain games were the best of their generation based solely on their metacritic score. (I think Peace Walker is an astounding game, despite David Meikelham's reveiw bringing it's metacritic score way down.) Is saddens me that game developers lose their jobs based off of what a few dozen people think.
RetroJB on 13 Jul '11 said:
Given that 90% of todays so called 'professional' reviewers highly rate some truly average rubbish and slate some cracking stuff on a day-to-day basis I disagree.
Rental is your friend.
liveswired on 13 Jul '11 said:
I think it's pretty easy to guess which magazines/websites are in on the whole corruption thing.
DoucheVader on 13 Jul '11 said:
The 1 out of 5 review scale is perfect, everything else contains bias. MC should be converting to the 1 out of 5 scale.
Barca Azul on 13 Jul '11 said:
Edge?
People over rating CoD?
snowdog on 14 Jul '11 said:
Great. So does that mean that GameSpot and 1Up reviews will finally be null and void..?
budge on 14 Jul '11 said:
PSM3 is your friend. Their reviews are usually spot on.
FollowerOfWyrd on 14 Jul '11 said:
I take all reviews with a pinch of salt, especialy from those who have publisher relations to maintain. I often wonder about the integrity of metacritic's policy enforcement itself tho - with share prices being affected by its ratings there is plenty of leverage for corruption.
The_KFD_Case on 14 Jul '11 said:
"However, it is the news that the CNET-owned site has exposed corruption amongst the games media that will most shock the industry..."
Shocked? Not really; I've come to expect that such behaviour is considered "part of doing business" - deplorably. Outraged? You bet. Hence why less and less games reviewing media are given much credibility in my book.
kilatomato on 18 Jul '11 said:
Not really surprised. Myself and people I know have been convinced that buying reviews to contribute towards a metacritic has been going on for ages, so I suppose the only thing that shocks me is that a history wasnt uncovered, as opposed to a single occurance.
I mean its already been mentioned, but the video game journalist industry looks at the least incompetant, if not outright corrupt when there is such a disconnect between journalists reviews and ACTUAL reviews for someting like Dragon Age 2. (Despite the tendancy for bias and being over the top, I always trust someone more if theyve paid their OWN MONEY to review something, as opposed to being paid to review something).
I mean, hardcore/hopeless fanboys and girls dismissed it as some kind of trolling raid when it happened, but as far as I know the metacritic user ratings havent moved much for DA2, and yet the so called "critic" reviews remain at a hugely positive average.
That just stinks. Stinks of the kind of crap this story is about if you ask me.