Non-disclosure agreements, major press ethical dilemma

There was recently an article on one of the biggest Norwegian game review, concerning what they would classify as unreasonable agreements that is required to review a game before the embargo date. In the case of Bayonetta 2, they were required not to write about the story after a certein chapter, about certain characters, weapons etc. They were also not allowed to use their own screenshot.

The article can be read in English from this link: http://www.gamer.no/artikler/kommentar-non-disclosure-agreements/164969

"Non-Disclosure Agreements have become a major press ethical dilemma for Gamer.no."

"Reviewing games used to be a straight-forward process in the early years of Gamer.no's existence. We would recieve a copy of the game, play through it, and write our opinion. No one told us when we could start playing, when we could have an opinion, and least of all; what we could have an opinion on."

"Both Square Enix and Nintendo were given the opportunity to give reasons for why they employ such restrictive agreements. Square Enix declined to comment, and we never heard back from Nintendo's European office. However, Nintendo's PR and distribution partner in Norway, Bergsala, wrote the following in an email to Gamer.no:

«The purpose of the Non-Disclosure Agreements is clearly stated in the agreements. They are there to:

Maintain the embargo. This is obviously the most important part. Unfortunately there are cases of journalists breaking the embargo, so the agreements are absolutely necessary.

Make sure the review copies are used for reviews, not for walkthroughs, guides, and spoilers before the game is launched on the European market.

Curiosity: The agreement originated as a result of several journalists breaking embargoes for many years"

We pretty much knew about the contents of the Bayo 2 NDA by what Dan said pre-release (that they couldn't talk about certain items, the Nintendo-related ones in particular, and not go into detail about what happens in the game after a certain point). I think NDAs are okay as long as the reviewer can actually write his opinion of the game. Not being able to talk about the story after a certain chapter is borderline, but I guess it depends on the game (that this is a restriction on Bayo 2 is pretty hilarious given that the franchise has no story at all). This has been happening since forever though, I think the MGS2 NDA is the most infamous one (to not say anything about the big twist which happens so early in the game).

Not being able to use your own screenshots is pretty normal, I think. I remember Brad and Jeff talking about that restriction on a Bombcast.

Well, they shouldn't sign an NDA that they don't agree with.

It is a major ethical dilemma but the press doesn't care about that. They want to be able to report on a game as early as they can because that is the kind of coverage they have always given and that consumers have grown accustomed to. They'll sign anything.

NDAs having these kind of restrictions are nothing new to the gaming press, but more and more outlets are talking about them since there are more gaming websites than ever now days.

I don't have a problem with them. It seems like Nintendo's NDAs are pretty weird, but I think some of that comes from wanting players to experience the game for themselves instead of a review just talking about everything. NDAs shouldn't affect review scores, just the content. Just because a reviewer can't talk about what happens after a certain point doesn't mean his score is going to change.

NDAs become unethical when there is pressure to give a game a good score. But saying "please don't talk about this part of the game" is okay to me.

I don't think signing an NDA is an ethical issue in itself. If there are problems with the game that the reviewer thinks are important to talk about, but they are restricted by the agreement, then they should hold their review until the embargo expires. If it doesn't affect the review, then it doesn't matter. It's all case by case, reviewer by reviewer.

It would be a good move in my view for sites to call attention to the fact that a pre-release review's content is a affected by an NDA; All it would take is a simple disclosure note from the editor. I'm sure there are plenty of people reading reviews who aren't aware.

In such an environment, I find a review that comes out five days late but describes everything the reviewer wants to discuss to be far more worthwhile as a customer than a review that comes out the day before and a games publisher approves of. I understand a lot of people have that launch day pressure and they don't want to wait for reviews, and this incentivizes reviewers to do whatever they need to do to have the review ready either on launch or before. But when you only talk to your audience about the things a publisher allows you to talk about, who are you actually working for, and how is that not something people could have got directly from the publisher?

I'd like games media to talk about this kind of stuff. And not in the "our lives are so hard, we don't have any choice, we need to cover it, we have to build friendly relationships" way, but in terms of what they want to provide to readers. The only time I hear media actually discuss how publishers lean on them without being vague or misleading is when it's five years after the fact and they don't even remember what the specific game was. I understand the games media do not want to offend publishers, but collaborating with the establishment is not what I usually go to critics for.

This might seem really harsh and hostile to reviewers, but I actually want them to understand that I will wait for the review. I care more about your integrity when I read your review than I care about what day it is today. A trustworthy review on a Friday is worth more than dreck on a Monday.

Also, for what it's worth, everything I've ever heard about the Scandanavian games journalism scene is that it's hella actually corrupt. I feel as if everything I've heard about the entire region is reviewers being plied with swag and free booze.

edit: reading that site, I got a pop-up in Norwegian that through context I was able to surmise was asking me to turn off adblock in order to support them. I did, because I'd rather be asked to lower my internet defenses case-by-case than told what a terrible person I am for having them at all.

I would think a reasonable workaround would be to not sign the NDA, buy your own copy of the game on release, and write whatever the hell you want.

Of course, you have to weigh your own risk vs. reward on that (such as not having a review up as early as competitors; potential damage in the business relationship with the game's publisher). Plus, you need to weigh the fact that none of the other site's have enough of a problem with it to do the same, and will beat you to the punch; albeit with a review potentially hampered by the stipulations of the NDA.

Here's a stupid question. If reviewers stopped signing NDA's and started buying games themselves what would happen to review scores?

I'd like to think that it wouldn't have an effect but it probably would.

I'm not necessarily opposed to the concept of a larger discussion of how NDAs affect the review process, but this "poor pity us" act from reviewers wears really thin, really quickly. All articles like that say is that media outlets want to have it both ways; they want to be able to sign the NDA to keep publishers happy and get their day 1 reviews out, but at the same time they want to complain about it to try and prove their ethical bonafides to their readers.

If you're a reviewer and you have that big an issue with the NDA then, and I know this is a revolutionary idea here, don't sign the damn thing. Problem solved. Put up a post explaining to your readers that you won't be reviewing the game day one because you feel the NDA would compromise the review process, accept whatever reduction in traffic that entails, and move on.

Alternatively, if you really feel like the publisher has you over a barrel and you need to take part or you won't get enough traffic, then sign the NDA, swallow your complaints, and play by their rules. I'm pretty sure the publisher isn't going to change the NDA just because "Random Tiny Outlet A" has a problem with it, and I'm likewise sure a good 90% of your audience doesn't give a shit either way.

These outlets are acting like a student who turns in two half-done assignments and then expects full credit because 50+50=100. Sorry, but in reality, all that means is you failed both assignments. What gets demonstrated with articles like this is that these sites have no integrity whatsoever - on either side of the fence. They write an article railing against industry practices, which while maybe not strictly violating the NDA, is something I don't think is exactly showing the best of faith to the publishers. However, they're perfectly willing to still sign the NDAs to stay in publishers' good books, so they aren't exactly watching out for their readers either.

Lol, if journalists have a problem with signing NDA's they should stop getting their games early/for free from the publishers and buy them on release-date.

@lawgamer: For what it's worth, Gamer.no states they will no longer sign NDAs in their article. Quoting;

Gamer.no will not accept these types of Non-Disclosure Agreements. The downside to taking such a stance is that we can't compete against Norwegian and international media outlets that do accept these terms. Publishing reviews before a game hits the shelves will sometimes be challenging, making it difficult for us to warn people not to purchase turkeys such as Aliens: Colonial Marines.

However, maintaining good press ethics and principles is important to us, and these fall by the wayside when we comply with such limiting agreements. Our staff wants the freedom to mean what we want, about whatever we want. Making up our own opinions on what is sensible to include in a review is important to us. That goes equally for what not to include.

We therefore always encourage publishers, developers, and distributors to stop using these agreements as they are not in the best interest of the consumer.

The reason they probably don't want people posting their own screenshots is so they can't show glitches, spoilers, etc.

Its all a shame because it just makes everything look bad. Nintendo is notorious for this which is weird considering how good their games always are. If you have confidence in your product, you shouldn't have to have these crazy agreements. It just seems like they are trying to mislead players.

Yeah this ain't cool or news really.

Unfortunately I don't see what most sites can do about it, I don't know the actual numbers but I bet reviews are most desired right at time of release or right before. So waiting well after release to put a review up probably isn't an option for most gaming sites.

Pretty easy these days for companies to just bypass gaming media altogether to get their product in front of customers, so the leverage isn't there anymore for gaming sites.

Very tough problem and one of the legit problems in gaming media.

Its a business both ways: The reviewer want hits for her/his website, company because that is how he earns his living without panhandling the streets of New York, San Francisco, Detroit, London, Budapest or Vancouver. The publishers want to make sure the reviews are based on the game and come out at a flow they can at least anticipate to coincides with deals for early access etc.

Its a business on both sides, business is not a dirty word, it just a truth of how things get done in the world. The reviewers profit from their reviewing and writing/video skills bring customers/hits to sell to their advertisers. The publisher profits from selling a game.

I can even see Nintendo perspective on this, they are not financially in trouble, but they look rudderless now. Big-N needed to control the message on this game, or at least I can see where they think they do most especially now. And I can see if from the websites perspective, their hands are tied about what they can talk about and they really need that review to generate hits...it is a 'big deal' game that will move some traffic. Its all well and good to make a stand about not signing NDAs, but the reality is you need hits and you don't get them by being the last site to put up a review.

This is not Consumer Reports, reviewers have to earn a living and some of that will be getting advertisers and getting as many eyes as possible to look at those advertisers. There are probably factors I'm missing, but I think solutions (or even just better mitigation of making things fair & transparent) are not simple.

In a perfect world, sure. But that's not how these giant corporations work. I write for a small gaming blog and we get review codes sometimes. With smaller indie games there are usually no restrictions on what you can show. For larger games, we'll have an embargo and maybe some restrictions, but normally they are pretty cool with what you can show.

I remember getting a preview build of Saints Row IV to try out. I couldn't record any video, and if I wanted to do a video preview I had to use B-roll footage they sent along. If you want to continue to have access to games early, then you have to agree to NDAs. That's the nature of the industry.

Early access is given at the discretion of publishers. They will want to control what is said about their games and how it is said. Reviewers want early access because it's vital for most outlets to have full reviews ready to go on day one as that is when they will get the most attention. It's also a nice ego boost for some, I suppose. Giant Bomb sometimes seems like it is above needing the day one traffic and hype but it really isn't and staff members routinely sign NDAs because of the selfish desire to play games as soon as possible and the more pragmatic need to have related content as soon as they can. Just forget about reviews and ethics, they are immaterial. Just have fun with games. There is little to take seriously here and there's nothing wrong with that.

NDAs exist in every industry to ensure a mass of coverage at a pre-determined time. This is usually centered around when the product is on shelves so that consumers can see the review and immediately go get the product. Movies are routinely screened for press months before they release to the public, but we only ever hear vague impressions about the film prior to its actual release date. The same with music (my former industry).

@spraynardtatum: This happened over and Videogamer (they're a British site if you're not familiar) recently. Bethesda wouldn't send them a review copy of The Evil Within so they bought their own copy (before release date) and reviewed it anyway. They gave it a higher score than most people so at least in that case the reviewer was able to review the game as a game and without any external BS going on.

The issue stems from being "a piece of software" where NDA are regularly used to show pre-release product. If one was given a "beta" version of some software, that company doesn't want that them to go to a competitor and go "Your competition is getting ready to release this feature" where they may not even be trying to be devious but want a better deal. NDAs do make sense in these cases and situations.

But as noted, this doesn't make sense for review software let alone video games but (the royal) we lack anything else to use to enforce holding back info till the proper time. But as others have noted, this seems to be moot a lot of the time where the trends seem to be moving towards less relying on reviews and more relying on "personalities doing a let's play". And I'm actually okay with that. If a review comes out a week later, that review seems just as valid and may have more insight than a "day 0" review.

I can understand embargos. Someone spends millions of dollars on some elaborate PR scheme and you don't want reviewers to let the air out of the thing.

But "you can review this early, but you can't mention this, this, and that thing" is just fucking weird. At that point, just say "no review until the game is on shelves" and be done with it.

Nintendo is especially weird with video, but that's not surprising since they just don't seem to understand the internet at all.

I think this is only a real dilemma in the 'only mention XYZ in early reviews' case -- and that comes down on the review outlet's shoulders, because to get around it they just have to wait until release day. It's pretty scummy if they post an early review and don't mention problems that the publisher has forbidden, especially if it's stuff like performance where the publishers swear it'll get a day one patch. I'm pretty sure outlets are aware of this, though.

Especially now that day one patches are pretty run-of-the-mill, this is sort of an unsolvable problem if you want to have early reviews. The only solution is to hold the review for a couple days while the dust settles, but that means the only outlets that have reviews up early are the ones willing to kowtow to publisher demand and those sites get rewarded for doing so with extra clicks. It gets into a grey area pretty quickly.

If the story sucks, you can say it sucks. How does not discussing plot past a point get in the way of reviewing it? Just don't say "this specific character is annoying". Also, embargos are take it or leave it. I don't think a game that is super good should have an embargo, it usually seems like a way to delay hurting sales until the last minute.

Reviewers need to realize that they aren't required to take a review copy and sign the NDA in their blood. But also raising up this issue just makes them look like that want to out the companies to force them to quit having NDAs so they can be the first to get a review up. There's a reason sites like GB, IGN, Gamespot, and Kotaku all still sign NDAs usually. It's because they don't have to be day one. Whereas a little outlet with less notoriety will likely cry wolf because they have to get a review out 5 days before everyone else to compete.

When are NDA's signed usually? Is it when they get the review copy, do they have to sign them at E3, or whenever they're shown any new footage? I know that Jeff usually has games he can't talk about whenever E3 is coming up.

How often are game critics signing these?

And I'd much rather read a review that came out a week or a month later.

I'm guessing that these agreements have become more stringent because a substantial amount of what constitutes a review now includes long stretches of Internet video of the game, especially now "YouTubers" are taking over a larger share of the product review market. Without seeing the exact text of the NDA in question it's difficult to know for sure whether that Norwegian site's claims that signing such an agreement would somehow prevent them reviewing a game properly are well-founded or not. A film critic doesn't have to spoil details of the final reel of a movie to be able to effectively criticise it as whole: they can still say that the end of the movie doesn't work or is disappointing without revealing any specifics. Game reviews can be written in the same way without revealing anything about what later levels include. Also, despite their seemingly being a restriction on talking about the Nintendo character-themed outfits in Bayonetta 2, Dan was still able to acknowledge their existence in his review and comment on whether he thought they were any good or not.

As a person that signs NDA's alllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll the time. It's business being business. Work around it, your loyal customers won't judge you, if they do you don't want them anyway.

You can fund the coverage or you can read thinly-veiled marketing with everything that entails. There's no third option.