Eidos was an English based developer and publisher behind such games as Tomb Raider, Age of Conan, and Hitman. Since a buyout from Square Enix, the company is now know as Square Enix Europe.
It's the Tomb Raider lady, but in real life!!!!With what is now officially an annual tradition, Eidos has found itself caught in the middle of another ridiculous, review-related controversy. The title this time around is Tomb Raider: Underworld, and the tactic apparently being employed over in the UK is nothing new.
GameSpot's Guy Cocker managed to set this one off with a Twitter update that hit like a trash can crashing through the window of Sal's Pizzeria... provided that the trash can in question took two days to be seen or heard by anyone wanting to report on something controversial-sounding:
call from Eidos--if you're planning on reviewing Tomb Raider Underworld at less than an 8.0, we need you to hold your review till Monday.
After people finally saw this two-day old message this morning, things started moving quickly. The UK-based site videogaming247 put in some calls Barrington Harvey, the public relations firm responsible for handling Eidos' affairs in the UK. What they got in response was a surprising blast of honesty--not something people are used to seeing from PR firms, to be sure.
Said a Barrington Harvey rep on the phone this afternoon: “That’s right. We’re trying to manage the review scores at the request of Eidos.”
When asked why, the spokesperson said: “Just that we’re trying to get the Metacritic rating to be high, and the brand manager in the US that’s handling all of Tomb Raider has asked that we just manage the scores before the game is out, really, just to ensure that we don’t put people off buying the game, basically.”
If I were some sort of message massager, I'd find the guy that said all that and boot him into the street. Then again, he's not exactly saying anything that shocking... some publishers, for whatever reason, still seem to think that PR people are able to have some sort of actual impact on review scores. Personally, I think that's just so there's one more person to blame when review scores come in lower than expectations. Obviously, the game couldn't be at fault, right?
(While we're on the topic, MTV Knows Best's Stephen Totilo wrote a solid series of articles about game reviewing that covers similar cases, like the good ol' Red Steel "give this a 9 and you can run it early" message. You might want to give that series a read if you're interested in this sort of thing.)
For its part, the PR firm for Eidos' UK efforts issued a longer statement essentially contradicting the previous statement. Here's a bit from what VG247 received:
Barrington Harvey is not in the position of telling reviewers what they can and cannot say. We love Tomb Raider and believe it merits a score of at least 8/10, but if someone disagrees that’s entirely their prerogative. No problem at all. Seriously: no problem.
Our original NDA stated that in order to receive an advance copy of the game, reviewers agreed not to post reviews ahead of 5:00pm, Wednesday 19th November 2008. Nothing else. No further obligations whatsoever.
So... was the other guy lying? Or has the story changed now that it's become "a story?"
One last pretty funny bit on this topic before I leave you to draw your own conclusions. The UK version of GamesRadar is currently skinned up with a takeover ad that rebrands the site as "TombRadar." That's pretty clever, I'll admit, but this bit from a press release about the ad deal that surfaced on The Escapist is the actual funny part...
"Tomb Raider: Underworld is a great game, well worth the 9/10 scores it is picking up across gaming websites and magazines," said James Binns, publishing director at GamesRadar owner Future. "Getting the message out there on launch day is essential in the games market and this takeover gives Eidos unprecedented cut through."
The game is currently sitting around 77 on Metacritic with only one score sitting at or above the 90 line.
It's the Tomb Raider lady, but in real life!!!!With what is now officially an annual tradition, Eidos has found itself caught in the middle of another ridiculous, review-related controversy. The title this time around is Tomb Raider: Underworld, and the tactic apparently being employed over in the UK is nothing new.
GameSpot's Guy Cocker managed to set this one off with a Twitter update that hit like a trash can crashing through the window of Sal's Pizzeria... provided that the trash can in question took two days to be seen or heard by anyone wanting to report on something controversial-sounding:
call from Eidos--if you're planning on reviewing Tomb Raider Underworld at less than an 8.0, we need you to hold your review till Monday.
After people finally saw this two-day old message this morning, things started moving quickly. The UK-based site videogaming247 put in some calls Barrington Harvey, the public relations firm responsible for handling Eidos' affairs in the UK. What they got in response was a surprising blast of honesty--not something people are used to seeing from PR firms, to be sure.
Said a Barrington Harvey rep on the phone this afternoon: “That’s right. We’re trying to manage the review scores at the request of Eidos.”
When asked why, the spokesperson said: “Just that we’re trying to get the Metacritic rating to be high, and the brand manager in the US that’s handling all of Tomb Raider has asked that we just manage the scores before the game is out, really, just to ensure that we don’t put people off buying the game, basically.”
If I were some sort of message massager, I'd find the guy that said all that and boot him into the street. Then again, he's not exactly saying anything that shocking... some publishers, for whatever reason, still seem to think that PR people are able to have some sort of actual impact on review scores. Personally, I think that's just so there's one more person to blame when review scores come in lower than expectations. Obviously, the game couldn't be at fault, right?
(While we're on the topic, MTV Knows Best's Stephen Totilo wrote a solid series of articles about game reviewing that covers similar cases, like the good ol' Red Steel "give this a 9 and you can run it early" message. You might want to give that series a read if you're interested in this sort of thing.)
For its part, the PR firm for Eidos' UK efforts issued a longer statement essentially contradicting the previous statement. Here's a bit from what VG247 received:
Barrington Harvey is not in the position of telling reviewers what they can and cannot say. We love Tomb Raider and believe it merits a score of at least 8/10, but if someone disagrees that’s entirely their prerogative. No problem at all. Seriously: no problem.
Our original NDA stated that in order to receive an advance copy of the game, reviewers agreed not to post reviews ahead of 5:00pm, Wednesday 19th November 2008. Nothing else. No further obligations whatsoever.
So... was the other guy lying? Or has the story changed now that it's become "a story?"
One last pretty funny bit on this topic before I leave you to draw your own conclusions. The UK version of GamesRadar is currently skinned up with a takeover ad that rebrands the site as "TombRadar." That's pretty clever, I'll admit, but this bit from a press release about the ad deal that surfaced on The Escapist is the actual funny part...
"Tomb Raider: Underworld is a great game, well worth the 9/10 scores it is picking up across gaming websites and magazines," said James Binns, publishing director at GamesRadar owner Future. "Getting the message out there on launch day is essential in the games market and this takeover gives Eidos unprecedented cut through."
The game is currently sitting around 77 on Metacritic with only one score sitting at or above the 90 line.
Ahhh, too funny. If this were a perfect world, the honest PR guy would be cranking out stuff like this and the news world would be a hell of a lot more interesting.
Guy Cocker is awesome. This is kinda bullshit though, they're just trying to do damage control. I'm sure Eidos doesn't want to be surrounded in more controversy after the Kane and Lynch fiasco.
Man I want to like Edios as they've had some great past experiences, but they keep proving that they are not about games, but about money. Yes, all game developers want to make money, but many get into the business for "the love of the game" so to speak. They need to fire their top bean counter and focus more on producting quality, and not have to worry about any weaknesses in their product.
Ah, this brings back bad memories regarding the Kane and Lynch fuck up, shit like this sucks but atleast something good came out of the K&L thing, and thats GiantBomb.com
Eidos is so fucking stupid...
PS. I borrowed K&L from a friend and it sucked, Jeff was a little generous with that 6.0, it deserved a 4.0 imo
Another interesting read about the shadier side of games reviewing is the series of articles by Dan Hsu on his and Crispin Boyer's new blog http://sorethumbsblog.com/
The icon and title of this story made me laugh really hard. I think Eidos going to become a very hated company in the gaming industry if they keep pulling bullshit like this.
You'd think that: 1. Tomb Raider has such a loyal following that even if it was crap (as most Tomb Raider games, save recent years are) it'd still sell solidly enough that this kinda bullshit managing would be a moot point. 2. Developers would worry more about making a game that's good and that they're proud of over making a game that they hope is going to make a lot of money. I know this will never be the universal case, but look at games like Psychonauts, System Shock, and the orginal Prince of Persia: Sands of Time. Those games recieved excellent reviews, but didn't sell worth a goddamn. Then look at something like Dynasty Warriors, which sells solidly every year for making the same game... every year. Good Ratings =/= Good Sales
And also... Jeff covering an Eidos controversy story? Oh, the irony!
A sign of the times all of us are living through, this kind of shit is only going to get worse. These underhanded tactics used to sell games are pathetic, this compiled with the apparent intent on destroying the used games market is leaving a sour taste
It is still the case that some media company big wigs want the extra's and will agree to do this sort of thing for publishers and developers and they will always try it especially when they themselves realise the game is not quite that good or not as good as what the other games that are being released at the same time and they are there to make money.
What I am glad to see this year though is more and more of the gaming media and reviewers maturing into a powerful community where the majority are sticking together and telling developers they will give a rating of what they think the game deserves. I just want to see the big websites and magazines to follow the others.
I have been thinking of reviews for a while now and scores, I think you can scrap them full stop and still offer a fast method of reviewing. I myself only read a whole review if I am only half interested in a game or not. If I know I may get a game I look at the ratiing on giant bomb and the summary at the end.
I think the wrap up should be as an intro/leadin for a fast access opinion, or at least if you did it on giantbom for example a "summary" button at the top near the score you clicked to get a pop up to read that information that is at the bottom.
My vision of a score which I do not know if it would work or not would be to not have an overal score. You have a game which all are split into different elements, how does it look, how does it play, the story etc. So rate it accordingly. each element with a colour in a bar and a percentage of a total bar. If it is heavy on the graphics with little or no story then the bar will look be mainly all blue for graphics and a bit of green for story and some for gameplay. That with a summary opinion of the game should be enough to gage the game along with the full review if you want to read it. That way developers can not force a score on you if you want it early, your review system does not work like that so they cant say that to you, it would be interesting to see how they reacted to people using systems that offered feedback to gamers and the info they need but no overal score. You really just need to know if it good, bad, or ugly and worth your money or not and everyones opinion is different. I like the giant bombs approach to reviews and I love the guys that do them and I respect the giantbombs team more then others and trust their opinions.
Just for the hell of it, put a camera up in the PR guy's office, give it a metacritic of 2.0 and just watch. Bet he'd go apeshit if he already assumes 7.0 is too low
Man i feel the Eidos forums will be in for some more goatse abuse now, it was only a year ago roughly that they took them down after a major flooding regarding a certain game and the score given by a certain, yet somewhat awesome, reviewer....
We're trapped in a cicle! This will happen every year... in the coming months Guy Cocker will be fired from gamespot and thus will create his own videogames website... you heard it first here.
Fuck Eidos. And fuck 3DO, RIP, for trying this kind of crap on Portal Runner before. Its just disgusting to read that publishers try to influence review scores and even more fucked up that some reviewers will bow down to them.
"It days like these that I'm not estatic about being British...."
What does that have to do with being British? EA is a greedy clusterfuck of evil and it's based in the U.S., their nefarious deeds do not reflect poorly on me because I'm also an American.
man its the circle of life, a crappy publisher makes a crappy game and buys crappy reviews wow.....not that im saying tomb raider is crappy, but after this some ppl may be put of by the stupid move eidos took......has anyone besides me seen that gamespot has become super money centric,, that's fine but the amount of praise they had for NFS underground was crazy compared to the bad review ign gave it
Hey Jeff, how do you feel about Joystiq calling you "the world's most famous video games journalist?" LOL, I laughed pretty freakin hard when I read that.
echoing other people but again; Want good scores, make a good game! I also feel compelled to add an expletive in this comment because stuff like this is complete codswallop. POOP!
Haha...Eidos, you remind me of the American Auto Industry in that...if you can't make a good product, you deserve to fail. So, hopefully, you fail and you have to restrtucture to actually make good shit.
"Hey Jeff, how do you feel about Joystiq calling you "the world's most famous video games journalist?" LOL, I laughed pretty freakin hard when I read that."
What's funny about that? He's probably the most known video game journalist.
I don't really see what's so wrong about this. Eidos wants to make more money. Is that so wrong? Just let them go on with their business. It's not like your purchase depends on Metacritic scores, right?
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.
Log in to comment