Can Perks Influence the Review of a Game?

If you knew that the writer of a game review you just read was treated to some good times by the company during the review process, would you trust them? This is a subject that Ars Technica has been infatuated with the past couple of months, especially with regards to how Activision has treated reviewers of Call of Duty: Black Ops. Not surprisingly, that game has received some great ratings – deserved or not, that’s for you to decide.

Ars Technica is starkly against a reviewer being treated to an all-expense paid trip and other perks from game publishers, and it’s not difficult to understand why. If someone handed you a high-cost gift – an exciting one – and then asked for your opinion on their product, could you be honest about it? It’s not so much that you’re even knowing you’re being dishonest, but that the gift put you in such a good mood, your expectations were affected.

This is a tough subject, and not one everyone is going to agree on. Disclosed or not, I don’t personally care what a reviewer was treated to prior to reviewing a game – and no, I’ve never been treated to something as extravagant as what this article lays out. It’s not uncommon for us to be sponsored to events or trade shows, and most of the time it’s because we wouldn’t go otherwise.

If I were presented a great gift, product or trip, I am confident that my opinions wouldn’t be swayed, and there have been numerous occasions in the past where a company has given me a paid trip and I’d rail their product when it finally came out because it wasn’t that good. But, I don’t expect any of our readers to believe me as much as I believe myself… it just doesn’t work like that.

If I were given a chance to go review a game prior to its release, I have little doubt I’d also take the trip offered if that was the only way to do so. At the end of the day, it’s not about what I want, but what’s best for our site. If an early review guarantees us to receive better traffic, then I’d be hard-pressed to say no. I stand by every bit of content I and my staff ever publish, and the way I see it, if such perks ever did influence our reviews, it’s not something that would go unnoticed.

Another problem arises, though. Call of Duty: Black Ops received great ratings, but one thing none of the reviews touched on was the horrible online performance (something I haven’t experienced yet, personally). The reason is because when all of these reviewers were together reviewing the game, there were simply no latency issues to speak of. It’d be like playing a game on your LAN. The fact that many game reviews failed to mention these issues raises the major concern that other angles need to be considered before ultimately publishing a review.

All of this said, while I don’t ever believe perks could affect our content, I’m not ignorant of the fact that the potential is there. I’m just of the belief that if we ever published a piece of content that was influenced, we’d be caught, called out, and burned at the stake. As we should be.

And let’s be very clear: these events are designed to wow and impress the reviewer. It’s not a matter of fighting piracy, because the game had already been leaked. It’s not a matter of just controlling the setting, because that can be done without putting a reviewer up in a country club for three nights. Publishers like Activision spend the money in order to squeeze out the best reviews possible, and to send an implicit message: take care of us, and we’ll continue to take care of you.