-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
E3 PC Gaming Show 2019 is being sponsored by Epic (See EGS Guidelines)
- Thread starter Ge0force
- Start date
Third-party observers didn't deal with the GFWL years. Which, by the way, GFW Radio and Games for Windows: The Official Magazine were brutally and incessantly critical of.
I can't say whether games media is being directly paid by Epic. (Fwiw, I don't think that's the case).
What I can say is that the way most media outlets unanimously started pushing the narrative of "White Knight Epic is finally here to save us from the evil clutches of Steam by delivering COMPETITION (TM) via exclusive games" was strange and off-putting. Whenever individual staff would engage in comments with Epic detractors, I tend to see the same rhetoric of "it's just another launcher" and all detractors are dismissed as "vocal minority of Steam fanboys" .
Given that this was preceded by a whole bunch of stories about how bloated and lazy Valve was (to which valve generally didn't respond), I can totally see how said staff who already had an ax to grind against Valve would find Epic's narrative to be be more...agreeable?
Add to this Epic's rhetoric of "focusing on developers and content creators" (and many members of the media ARE also content creators), and I can very much see how Epic could cultivate a positive bias without any direct financial contributions.
What I can say is that the way most media outlets unanimously started pushing the narrative of "White Knight Epic is finally here to save us from the evil clutches of Steam by delivering COMPETITION (TM) via exclusive games" was strange and off-putting. Whenever individual staff would engage in comments with Epic detractors, I tend to see the same rhetoric of "it's just another launcher" and all detractors are dismissed as "vocal minority of Steam fanboys" .
Given that this was preceded by a whole bunch of stories about how bloated and lazy Valve was (to which valve generally didn't respond), I can totally see how said staff who already had an ax to grind against Valve would find Epic's narrative to be be more...agreeable?
Add to this Epic's rhetoric of "focusing on developers and content creators" (and many members of the media ARE also content creators), and I can very much see how Epic could cultivate a positive bias without any direct financial contributions.
I really want to know if anybody looked at the logo literally saying "PC Gamer" and "Sponsored by Epic" and thought "Yeah, this is fine"
I don't believe PC Gamer was paid by Epic for any coverage but by god is this is a shit look. I'm already somewhat iffy on a journalistic outlet hosting a show where they depend on big games being shown but this is absolutely taking the piss.
I don't believe PC Gamer was paid by Epic for any coverage but by god is this is a shit look. I'm already somewhat iffy on a journalistic outlet hosting a show where they depend on big games being shown but this is absolutely taking the piss.
...a year after EGS?
Also is PC gamer now officially in bed with epic?
All these 'Stop being mean to PC Gamer!' and accusing people of wearing tinfoil hats are really dumb because there's actual evidence of PC Gamer releasing articles trying to paint the EGS on a positive light, with arguments that have been debunked over and over again.
I want to say that this is a rational and logical point of view that, yes, makes sense. I would absolutely agree with you that media outlets can be influenced by not wanting to lose out on future contracts with an important sponsor. We've seen similar things in that past around media reporting such as Bethesda not sending review copies or responding to Kotaku after their negative coverage or even historically when Jeff Gerstmann was fired from Gamespot. Advertisements are the lifeblood of many journalism websites, and negative coverage has been know to lead to threats of pulling ads, restricted access, etc.
I think that what your previous post indicated that there was some form of cash payment or money being exchanged under the table when you said they were "bought by Epic," which is where my concern stemmed from because that would be a conspiracy theory. I do think it is rational to think that they may have not gone after Epic Games Store negatively out of financial concerns, but, like you said, I don't think there was any sort of implicit or explicit deal between PC Gamer and Epic. Thanks for clearing up your perspective on your original post; I don't have any qualms with your point of view here.
As much as EGS is not very good it's not nearly as in rough of a shape as GFWL was (and didn't try to introduce Xbox Live fees).
Not to poop on the poor code of ethics, but how do you explain Fox News in that context? I am not saying PC Gamer reached that level of sleaziness (no one can), but if there is no way to enforce a code, it's meaningless. Who is going to punish the PC Gamer journalists if they broke the code? And even if there is punishment, if the association with EGs is profitable compared to a neutral instance, why would they care?
Yeah, console wars-like bullshit is fun.
.... if you're twelve.
How is this circling of the wagons from people who never give a shit about PC threads until Epic shows up acceptable?
You're transparent as fuck.
I have to admit that my original post was more inflammatory than it could have been.
I just find it very important to be allowed to entertain the notion that a significant (i.e., as we see here, a headline sponsorship), recurring source of revenue can have an impact on the editorial voice of media outlets -- even if it's indirectly.
Just think I should post this here as a friendly reminder regarding a certain conversation in this thread.
https://www.resetera.com/threads/10-years-since-jeff-gerstmann-was-fired-from-gamespot.8496/
It's not exactly Conspiracy Theory to say that media outlets are going to have a different editorial direction on certain topics when the subject of an article is their biggest sponsor.
https://www.resetera.com/threads/10-years-since-jeff-gerstmann-was-fired-from-gamespot.8496/
It's not exactly Conspiracy Theory to say that media outlets are going to have a different editorial direction on certain topics when the subject of an article is their biggest sponsor.
No AMD sponsoring the event? I want my Ryzen demos and details...
Day 9 coming back :) The show has been a dumpster neglected by most publishers, only tolerable because Day 9 was capable of boosting the cringe levels to entertaining. Also, where is **** is Sega, I want my Total Warhammer 3 or Company of Heroes 3 announcements. The line-up, so far, is meh :(
Day 9 coming back :) The show has been a dumpster neglected by most publishers, only tolerable because Day 9 was capable of boosting the cringe levels to entertaining. Also, where is **** is Sega, I want my Total Warhammer 3 or Company of Heroes 3 announcements. The line-up, so far, is meh :(
I do think that many publications are biased towards AAA titles and that's why we see a generally positive range of scores for most games produced. But I don't feel like this is a new problem and of course, the Jeff Gertsman Kane and Lynch event comes to mind as a real-world example.
It's why I trust Steam Reviews/YouTube reviews over any of the old major publications I used to check out for new games.
Just think I should post this here as a friendly reminder regarding a certain conversation in this thread.
https://www.resetera.com/threads/10-years-since-jeff-gerstmann-was-fired-from-gamespot.8496/
It's not exactly Conspiracy Theory to say that media outlets are going to have a different editorial direction on certain topics when the subject of an article is their biggest sponsor.
Ironically and disappointingly, Jeff's recent comments on the Bombcast whenever EGS news comes up have not amounted to much more than the "it's just another launcher, what's the big deal" line.
Just think I should post this here as a friendly reminder regarding a certain conversation in this thread.
https://www.resetera.com/threads/10-years-since-jeff-gerstmann-was-fired-from-gamespot.8496/
It's not exactly Conspiracy Theory to say that media outlets are going to have a different editorial direction on certain topics when the subject of an article is their biggest sponsor.
And yet PCgamer has given pretty bad (or at most mediocre) reviews to pretty much every EGS game except for Metro Exodus (and I guess Anno, if that counts).
You'd think the checks would cover review scores above a 70 at least.
Heck I'm pretty sure they gave Operencia it's lowest score (and that game's pretty good).
I think it is fine to say or suggest that media can be indirectly influenced by these sorts of things. It doesn't always mean that it is true (although it likely often is based on history), but it is the responsibility of an educated reader to be aware of and concerned about the possibility of bias and to factor that into the content they consume.
Just think I should post this here as a friendly reminder regarding a certain conversation in this thread.
https://www.resetera.com/threads/10-years-since-jeff-gerstmann-was-fired-from-gamespot.8496/
It's not exactly Conspiracy Theory to say that media outlets are going to have a different editorial direction on certain topics when the subject of an article is their biggest sponsor.
In all fairness, while Jeff has described other times he came close to losing his job over editorial decisions, this specific event was more a direct fault of new and untrained management who weren't used to the push/pull of editorial/advertising.
It seems you've been real set off by something relatively small. Yes, live reaction threads during E3 are fun.Yeah, console wars-like bullshit is fun.
.... if you're twelve.
How is this circling of the wagons from people who never give a shit about PC threads until Epic shows up acceptable?
You're transparent as fuck.
Relax my guy
Vile and disgusting. What a bad taste EGS is leaving in my mouth with this. Buying up sponsorships, moneyhatting games and forcing me into a corner isn't going to make me like Epic any more lol. Its obvious they are trying REALLY hard. But in this case money doesn't talk and neither it can make me watch this show, already the PC gamer show was difficult to watch but now with this they made it much easier for me to skip it. I'll just read the announcements after the show finishes.
Last edited:
It's true. No one did anything to promote PC gaiming until the all mighty saviour of PC gaiming Epic showed up. Not Blizzard, not EA, not Microsoft, not Nividia, not AMD, and certainly not Valve. 🙄
The problem with PC Gamer isn't that it's taking advertisements by Epic. I've worked on print and digital gaming media for several years, our main source of income besides direct sales of the magazines were advertisements. That's understandable and fine, as long as the publication still adheres to the principles that you linked to.
The problem with PC Gamer is that for many months its coverage of the Epic Games Store issue has been ridiculously and shockingly one-sided. That's the thing that makes all these Epic sponsorships heavily problematic. I refuse to accept that in the last eight months or so that the EGS controversy has been developing, PC Gamer didn't see fit to make sure that both sides of the argument are equally represented. It's simply a very bad look to accept payment for sponsored articles and advertisements by Epic and decide to cover an issue about them in a blatantly one-sided way. It breaks all sorts of journalistic rules and codes when a publication decides to present only one side of a debate.
Agree but he seems to put some have put thought into it. Unlike Ben who for some reason just reads a Billionaire's twitter account and buys every word and parrots it back.
User Banned (1 Week): Inflammatory point of comparison
Remember when AMD sponsored this show and PC Gamer definitely took an editorial slant in favour AMD and promoted them above both Intel and Nvidia in all their coverage? Or maybe it's just a sponsorship like last year?
I'm sorry. But what exactly do you think sponsorships are if not for sale? Like there are legit things to worry about Epic buying, but this is literally what sponsoring is.
Should Washington Post be forced to publish holocaust denying articles in order to show "both sides" of that """debate"""?
If you believe that gaming journalists and publications can not be swayed by potential financial interests of sponsors based on some non legally binding code of conduct, I have a few presidencies to sell you.
I mean one of the bases of good journalism is disclosing potential conflicts of interest in an unambiguous and clear manner, something that I believe one would be hard pressed to say that PC gamer did.
Also we see this cause and effect in far far far more serious journalistic fields than gaming, and we see it also in professions with far stricter codes of conducts, and in ones where the consequences are far far more serious, we see Drs give patients addictive pain killers like candy because of pharmaceutical companies incentives, which is I would argue a clear violation of the hippocratic oath, something that has far more serious consequences both practically and legally, we also see this in politics, and regulatory institutions and so on.
Money affecting how people perceive and respond to things is a story as old as money, very much including the field of Journalism where such effect can be easily seen everywhere.
Mass genocide under nazi regime and video game marketplace
Are you not the same person who used the call of duty boycott photo non ironically? Why should anyone care what you have any qualms with
Indeed. Even if Epic aren't putting direct pressure, or even indirect pressure, the way PC Gamer has acted is eyebrow-raising at best. There's clearly wiggle room to suggest a potential conflict of interest here, yet PCG have mutely refused to even acknowledge one.
The fact is:
- EGS is a charged issue in the PC gaming community. You know it is because the trolls can smell blood.
- The coverage of Epic Store on PC Gamer from a news perspective has been incredibly one-sided, to the point where people feel like they aren't even being listened to.
- Epic are sponsoring an event that PC Gamer has independently run for years, with the promise of exclusives for their store being revealed.
- PC Gamer staff have been very dismissive of readers pointing out glaring flaws in their logic, or even factual errors.
Put all of these together and it's a bad look. A very bad look. PCG would be wise to address it honestly and frankly, tell their side of the story and clear the air to remove any doubts of editorial bias. Thusfar they haven't, which only makes it all look worse.
Are you seriously equating criticism of EGS with holocaust denial? They're two obviously different situations that aren't even remotely analogous in any way, shape or form.
Regarding Sega, I would speculate that they'll be at Kinda Funny's showcase. They announced Judgement's English title and dub at the last showcase, and I get the impression they're on very good terms.
Exactly! Bout time PC Gaming gets a show at E3 to help promote PC Gaming. Because that's never happened before. Never ever. And it certainly wasn't sponsored by another PC related company that would benefit from promoting PC Gaming.
So yeah. Spot on, this post.
WOW
Are you seriously conflating consumer concerns of a billionaire company into the PC market with...
WOW
... It's intentionally extreme in order to point out the flawed logic in that argument.
I'm not say that they are on the same level, that's not how analogies work.
Lawful good marketing. If Epic did more like this and less of the other stuff, the backlash would be lessened.
The way this thread has gone from page one shows us the exact opposite is true. EGS could meet feature parity with Steam tomorrow and the same 10 posters would still rain their performative disinterest on every thread with 'EGS' or 'Epic' in the title.
Just to clarify: There's all sorts of examples of where it makes sense to cover only one side of a debate when the other side is not grounded on facts. While I don't think that is the case of the Epic Game Store, it is the case for many topics in the world where it makes no sense to cover both sides of the "debate." There is no journalism ethics being broken when that happens. You don't, for example, see WaPo or NTY giving equal time to anti-vax movement as they do vaccines because there isn't really a "debate" there, only one side there is grounded in science and fact and it isn't the anti-vax movement.
What to point out the posts that give you this impression? Because this feels like a pretty horseshit statement.