Did Game Informer get paid by EA for their review?

  • 93 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by bunnyboiler (399 posts) -

 The back cover with their review score was shown 2 months before the games release date. The same time as the 360 and PC beta was starting......
 
 

#2 Posted by canucks23 (1087 posts) -

Or mabye... they gave GI an early copy for review. The game went gold around the time the demo on 360 started.

#3 Posted by Skald (4367 posts) -

By the time they rolled out the demo, the game would've been complete, and possibly waiting for certification.

#4 Posted by Skytylz (4033 posts) -

I doubt it...

#5 Posted by luce (4045 posts) -

*sigh*  :(

#6 Posted by Cirdain (3089 posts) -
@luce said:
" *sigh*  :( "
#7 Posted by NintenDood (366 posts) -

Why do you want to start this..? >_>

#8 Posted by Cornman89 (1579 posts) -
@luce said:
" *sigh*  :( "
#9 Posted by Binman88 (3687 posts) -

Most likely not.
 
Glad we cleared that up.

#10 Posted by bunnyboiler (399 posts) -
@canucks23 said:
" Or mabye... they gave GI an early copy for review. The game went gold around the time the demo on 360 started. "
It can't be an objective review if its two months before the game is released.
#11 Posted by EpicSteve (6487 posts) -

Magazines typically get reviewable builds of a game very early. Although they're not always "finished" codes according to Dan Amrich. This is the reason why magazines have a lot of early reviews and get box quotes.

#12 Posted by Donos (1195 posts) -
@bunnyboiler said:
" @canucks23 said:
" Or mabye... they gave GI an early copy for review. The game went gold around the time the demo on 360 started. "
It can't be an objective review if its two months before the game is released. "
Um.... why not?
#13 Edited by Death_Unicorn (2838 posts) -
@bunnyboiler: If a game goes gold that means its sent off to production. This also means they can't change it anymore.
If EA sent them an early copy then they are playing the same game we will be playing when it comes out.
#14 Posted by benitobb (291 posts) -
@bunnyboiler said:
" @canucks23 said:
" Or mabye... they gave GI an early copy for review. The game went gold around the time the demo on 360 started. "
It can't be an objective review if its two months before the game is released. "


Magazines get review copies months ahead of time all the time, so I don't get why you would use this as an example to question their integrity.  Not to mention that no game reviews are objective.
#15 Posted by Cube (4366 posts) -

God damnit, go away. WHO CARES.
 
Go play MW2 or something.

#16 Posted by Drebin_893 (2917 posts) -

No.

#17 Edited by bunnyboiler (399 posts) -
@Donos said:

" @bunnyboiler said:

" @canucks23 said:

" Or mabye... they gave GI an early copy for review. The game went gold around the time the demo on 360 started. "

It can't be an objective review if its two months before the game is released. "
Um.... why not? "
 For a multiplayer focused game, a lot of things can change in development?
#18 Posted by bunnyboiler (399 posts) -
@Death_Unicorn said:

" @bunnyboiler: If a game goes gold that means its sent off to production. This also means they can't change it anymore. If EA sent them an early copy then they are playing the same game we will be playing when it comes out. "

   If they can't change it anymore, whats the beta for. Isn't that just a demo then?    
#19 Posted by JeevesPleez (332 posts) -
@bunnyboiler: For their multiplayer servers, more than likely.
#20 Posted by Pathogenocide (76 posts) -

They could be playing online with other game magazines and other game info companies. I mean hell even Giant Bomb gets stuff before any of us do, are you saying they get paid off to put out good reviews?

#21 Posted by CharlesAlanRatliff (5425 posts) -
@bunnyboiler said:
" @canucks23 said:
" Or mabye... they gave GI an early copy for review. The game went gold around the time the demo on 360 started. "
It can't be an objective review if its two months before the game is released. "
No such thing.
#22 Posted by canucks23 (1087 posts) -
@bunnyboiler said:
" @Donos said:
" @bunnyboiler said:

" @canucks23 said:

" Or mabye... they gave GI an early copy for review. The game went gold around the time the demo on 360 started. "

It can't be an objective review if its two months before the game is released. "
Um.... why not? "
 For a multiplayer focused game, a lot of things can change in development? And who are all the people Game Informer were playing online with?  "
Nothing's going to change when the game's FINISHED. By finished i mean the version they played, is the game that people are going to be buying when it's released. And they played with devs/ea people and other people reviewing the game.
#23 Posted by skyline7284 (506 posts) -
@bunnyboiler:  Normally they play with other Journalists or people in the Ea offices.  Look at Forza 3, the press got the game MONTHS in advance.
#24 Edited by bunnyboiler (399 posts) -
@Pathogenocide said:

" They could be playing online with other game magazines and other game info companies. I mean hell even Giant Bomb gets stuff before any of us do, are you saying they get paid off to put out good reviews? "

Then how come none of the other game sites have released previews on the 'gold build'.
#25 Posted by Pinkshley1 (453 posts) -

I trust Game Informer more than any other review source I know. I would suspect they simply got an early copy.

#26 Posted by august (3846 posts) -
@bunnyboiler: It's pretty simple. If print magazines didn't get advance copies, they wouldn't be able to get a review on the shelves until multiple moths after release. And that doesn't help anybody.
#27 Posted by skyline7284 (506 posts) -
@bunnyboiler said:
" @Pathogenocide said:

" They could be playing online with other game magazines and other game info companies. I mean hell even Giant Bomb gets stuff before any of us do, are you saying they get paid off to put out good reviews? "

Then how come none of the other game sites have released previews on the 'gold build'. "
Because they have Embargo's.....  The only reason that review is on Metacritic and such is probably because the back of the box was leaked and had the score on it.
#28 Edited by bunnyboiler (399 posts) -
@canucks23 said:

" @bunnyboiler said:

" @Donos said:

" @bunnyboiler said:

" @canucks23 said:

" Or mabye... they gave GI an early copy for review. The game went gold around the time the demo on 360 started. "

It can't be an objective review if its two months before the game is released. "
Um.... why not? "
 For a multiplayer focused game, a lot of things can change in development? And who are all the people Game Informer were playing online with?  "
Nothing's going to change when the game's FINISHED. By finished i mean the version they played, is the game that people are going to be buying when it's released. And they played with devs/ea people and other people reviewing the game. "
So whats the point of releasing the 'beta' if the game has already gone gold (RTM).
 
 
#29 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -
@skyline7284: 
 
The issue of gameinformer in question is out already.
 
@OP
 
They just reviewed a gold or near gold build. The finished game minus the day 1 free DLC. So it only gets better from here on out.
#30 Posted by Geno (6477 posts) -

Two months does seem a bit early, even for an early review copy. 

#31 Posted by yani (413 posts) -
@bunnyboiler said:
   If they can't change it anymore, whats the beta for. Isn't that just a demo then?     "
  Don't forget that they can use patches to tweak settings and fix bugs.
#32 Edited by CharlesAlanRatliff (5425 posts) -
@bunnyboiler: Because they needed large-scale data to make sure they get rid of bugs and to balance everything as best they can. Online multiplayer changes over time, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be reviewed. Some things will be different from when they played, but that is true with any game with an online focus. There is often a day one patch for games like this to fix any issues they may have discovered. It is a constant process. Just because the game has gone "gold" doesn't mean they can't change anything anymore. 
#33 Posted by Seppli (10251 posts) -
@bunnyboiler said:
" @canucks23 said:

" @bunnyboiler said:

" @Donos said:

" @bunnyboiler said:

" @canucks23 said:

" Or mabye... they gave GI an early copy for review. The game went gold around the time the demo on 360 started. "

It can't be an objective review if its two months before the game is released. "
Um.... why not? "
 For a multiplayer focused game, a lot of things can change in development? And who are all the people Game Informer were playing online with?  "
Nothing's going to change when the game's FINISHED. By finished i mean the version they played, is the game that people are going to be buying when it's released. And they played with devs/ea people and other people reviewing the game. "
So whats the point of releasing the 'beta' if the game has already gone gold (RTM).
 
  "
 
Erm - ever heard of patches? That's what the PC Beta is for. Optimizing the client and servers to the PC landscape. DICE wants the game to be in good shape on release day, the beta gives them a headstart to work out the kinks. Also - the PS3 and 360 have a DEMO, not a beta. The PS3 beta happend from mid-September 09 to late-December 09. The game has been polished and retweaked a lot since then.
#34 Posted by pause422 (6188 posts) -

Um, no.

#35 Posted by bunnyboiler (399 posts) -
@Geno said:
" Two months does seem a bit early, even for an early review copy.  "
Thats the thing I find the most suspect.  A review a month before a game is released seems likely, but 2 months?
#36 Posted by Jayross (2365 posts) -

Magazines have vastly different distribution methods than internet sites, which can just throw up anything at any moment.
 
Magazines have to format their articles about a month in advance in time for meeting all of the standards the publishing company has set, and in time for printing, and distribution via mail and magazine shops.
 
But sure, if you want to think EA paid Game informer, go ahead, then Infinity Ward must have paid Game Informer 8% more than EA did.

#37 Posted by CharlesAlanRatliff (5425 posts) -
@bunnyboiler: All of the facts have been presented to you. If you choose to ignore them, that is your problem.
#38 Posted by yani (413 posts) -
@bunnyboiler said:
" @Geno said:
" Two months does seem a bit early, even for an early review copy.  "
Thats the thing I find the most suspect.  A review a month before a game is released seems likely, but 2 months? "
The single player was probably Gold ages ago so the only difference between what they reviewed and what we'll get is the multiplayer; which will have had a few balance changes and bug fixes.
I don't see any problems with an early review.
#39 Posted by MajorMediocre (30 posts) -
@bunnyboiler said:
" @Death_Unicorn said:

" @bunnyboiler: If a game goes gold that means its sent off to production. This also means they can't change it anymore. If EA sent them an early copy then they are playing the same game we will be playing when it comes out. "

   If they can't change it anymore, whats the beta for. Isn't that just a demo then?     "
ever heard of patches?
#40 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -
@bunnyboiler said:

" @Geno said:

" Two months does seem a bit early, even for an early review copy.  "

Thats the thing I find the most suspect.  A review a month before a game is released seems likely, but 2 months? "
 
 
Your ignorance is more suspect than anything about the early reviews. How often do countless people have to state the same facts 'til you drop your little crusade? Write in to the Bombcast and ask Jeff 'Gerstmanngate' Gerstmann and the gang about the enigmatic moneyhat man. 
 
The very most I can imagine going on every now and then is expensive hookers, expensive booze and expensive food in an expensive hotel. And probably some snorting of coke too. All courtesy of some preview/review event. But every sane man does that anyways, it's life as usual - so it doesn't count!
 
 
When in Rome...
#41 Posted by bunnyboiler (399 posts) -
@Seppli said:
" @bunnyboiler said:

" @Geno said:

" Two months does seem a bit early, even for an early review copy.  "

Thats the thing I find the most suspect.  A review a month before a game is released seems likely, but 2 months? "
  Your ignorance is more suspect than anything about the early reviews. How often do countless people have to state the same facts 'til you drop your little crusade? Write in to the Bombcast and ask Jeff 'Gerstmangate' Gerstman and the gang about the enigmatic moneyhat man. The very most I can imagine going on every now and then is expensive hookers, expensive booze and expensive food in an expensive hotel. And probably some snorting of coke too. All courtesy of some preview/review event. But every man does that anyways, it's life as usual - so it doesn't count! "
Are you saying a game review has never been influenced by money or some other benefit?
#42 Posted by Brunchies (2484 posts) -

I think they got an early copy.

#43 Posted by august (3846 posts) -

He's got a point though, guys. After all, no one else gave MW2 a high score. Only one explanation!

#44 Posted by Seppli (10251 posts) -
@bunnyboiler:
 
It's more likely people give a great game a bad review for the attention they'll get, rather than a bad game buying good press courtesy of the enigmatic moneyhat man.
 
btw. I'm fairly certain BF:BC 2 will earn a 90+% metascore, which should shut you up for good.
#45 Posted by W0lfbl1tzers (1789 posts) -

I trust any publication that PK works at.

#46 Posted by AndrewB (7621 posts) -

Yes. It's a conspiracy. Everyone in the industry is in on it.

#47 Edited by bunnyboiler (399 posts) -
@Seppli said:

" @bunnyboiler:  It's more likely people give a great game a bad review for the attention they'll get, rather than a bad game buying good press courtesy of the enigmatic moneyhat man.  btw. I'm fairly certain BF:BC 2 will earn a 90+% metascore, which should shut you up for good. "

Not when the Game Informer review came out 2 months before all the other reviews. Its been sitting on Metacritic alone for a while now:

  http://apps.metacritic.com/games/platforms/xbox360/battlefieldbadcompany2 
#48 Posted by Skald (4367 posts) -
@bunnyboiler: Maybe Bad Company 2 is just a good game, and there are no shady goings-on whatsoever. Why do you have to turn a game review into the Da Vinci Code?
#49 Posted by Seppli (10251 posts) -
@bunnyboiler: 
 

 They served fucking minislider burgers at the Modern Warfare 2 review event - that's a fucking +1 right there! How dare they?
#50 Posted by Quacktastic (1066 posts) -

Game publisher hands out early review copy to a magazine.
Game publisher says, 'if your review is at least X you can publish your review before anyone else.'
Magazine says that, 'the score will, in fact, be X.'
Game publisher puts review on box.
Magazine gets earliest review.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.