I said B.
It's a useful site for consumer even if sites, developers, and publishers probably fucking hate it to no end. But it also probably introduces a lot of people to Giantbomb who may never have heard of it. It wouldn't be a good business decision to opt out of it.
But can't you imagine how knowing that some publishers base compensation and salaries off of metacritic scores would put some unwanted emotional stress on a reviewer's consciousness whenever giving a game a bad score? I'm not saying that this is on the minds of Giant Bomb editors, but I've certainly read a few articles on here that rationally portrayed this approach to wage-compensation with a bad light.
I imagine that you'd be ethically compromised to speaking your mind and writing an honest opinion about any game, but in some cases that would undeservedly contribute to someone making less money than maybe he or she expected/hoped to - which, in this world we live in, can be quite a tragic event. So I imagine that would, in some occasions, make doing the job you love so much a bit of a torn and mixed bag of feelings.
If I ran a popular video-game editorial website like Giant Bomb, I would probably opt out of metacritic (if that's even possible). Even if it sacrificed free advertising, it takes a downside of a pretty great job out of the picture.
That said, I do find metacritic useful and use it often. I'd rather publishers would stop using metacritic scores with such impactful an intent, but if that can't be had, I would totally understand an editorial website opting out of it.
Log in to comment