GamePro Australia did not take bribes from EA to give a game a 5.0

[Apossum]

bunk!

Update: We're happy to report that the person who started the bribe rumor on the Gamespot forums has admitted it was a lie, so we've removed mention of the rumor from this story. Their rumor post has also now been removed at Gamespot, and mention of it on the Gas Powered Games forum has also gone.

http://www.gwn.com/news/story.php/id/11566/GamePro_Review_Score_Bribery_Scandal.html

There is a huge buzz circulating on the Internet now about the controversial review of the popular real-time strategy game Supreme Commander written by GamePro's Australia division. Most reviews (as seen on ranking sites like GameRankings.com and MetaCritic.com) have been very positive about Supreme Commander, with reviews averaging around 80% - 90%.

GamePro Australia, however, gave Supreme Commander a score of 5 / 10 (50%), stating that the game was, "virtually unplayable" and that Supreme Commander represented the "saddest moment in the history of the [RTS] genre." The review was so controversial that GameRankings.com and MetaCritic.com have pulled the score from their respective sites. Now, while the review is accurate in that SC does have very high system requirements, we had no real issues with the shift key or the frame rate in general when playing on a relatively new system (Dual Core Intel, 1GB RAM, 7800GTX).

Gas Powered Games, developers of Supreme Commander, were understandably upset about the review, as it was one of the first Supreme Commander reviews to appear, and may have swayed some fans from purchasing the game.

Apparently, although this has not been confirmed as of yet, the controversy only became worse when rumors of a bribe began to surface. Electronic Arts, in competition with Gas Powered Games (EA's own RTS, Command & Conquer 3, ships near the end of March), supposedly offered a large sum of money to Game Pro Australia in exchange for the low review score of Supreme Commander.

There are now more rumors that GamePro Australia is being shut down, although this also is not yet confirmed.

If rumors of a bribe are indeed true, this represents an all-time low, not just for Electronic Arts and GamePro, but perhaps for the video game industry as a whole. Who knows if this has happened before.

[botticus]

Wow.

[furyk]

Wouldn't be the first time a game magazine was approached for a bribe, but it may be the first time a game company bribed a magazine to drop the score of a rival game.

[Grave_Addiction]

This does suck, but it's not like it doesn't happen in any other areas of journalism.

[SNKMat]

Fuck ea
Fuck ea

[Dead of Knight]

Wouldn't be the first time a game magazine was approached for a bribe, but it may be the first time a game company bribed a magazine to drop the score of a rival game.

So true. Famitsu gets bribed all the time for higher scores. That's really fucked up of EA to do that though. How about they spend their money on making better games so they don't have to fucking bribe magazines to give competing games lower scores?

[Apossum]

Wouldn't be the first time a game magazine was approached for a bribe, but it may be the first time a game company bribed a magazine to drop the score of a rival game.


everyone has their suspicions, but I think this would mark the first time anyone has been busted for payola in the game industry.

[hohez]

It sucks, but its not really surprising.

[Malik112099]

right along the same lines as car companies bribing people like Car and Driver for good automotive reviews.....this kind of stuff happens all the time

[hootie]

That's EA for ya.

[VanillaGorilla]

That's EA for ya.That's people who believe rumors from some site called GWN.com for ya...

[captainfrizo]

I'm actually more disappointed that the magazine accepted the bribe (assuming they did) than EA offering it.

[Dead of Knight]

I'm actually more disappointed that the magazine accepted the bribe (assuming they did) than EA offering it.
Both companies are scum, so I can't say I'm disappointed in one more than the other. GamePro has been the worst gaming magazine for years now, and no one REALLY likes EA as a company.

[Rei no Otaku]

I think it's even sadder that most of us, including me, aren't surprised by it.

[VanillaGorilla]

Be honest, has anyone here even BEEN to GWN.com before? Probably not. Oh, but when it's a negative RUMOR about EA, everyone automatically assumes it's fact, even though the only site that has posted this rumor, is one with absolutely zero credibility.

But hey, at least their site is getting hits now...

[CoffeeEdge]

You know, I really wouldn't have been suprised if EA had simply paid for a stellar review of C&C3, as that sort of shit isn't really rare to see in magazine reviews these days.

But that they paid for a BAD review of Supreme Commander, man, that's really fucked up. I haven't really heard about bribing for negative rules of competing games before.

I don't see why EA even feels that was necessary. Based on the demo, I think C&C3 is pretty awesome, so, yeah. Weird.

[jer7583]

Regardless of what EA did with the review...


fuck EA.

[ViolentLee]

I REALLY (all caps for a reason) doubt any of this. Unheard-of site with ZERO facts in the "story" -- just assumptions all over the place. "Rumors of a bribe" and "rumors GamePro Australia's being shut down" and insinuations that they're related. I urge CAGs to be a little more discreet than to jump on the belief bandwagon on this one -- regardless of what you think of EA or game pubs.

[botticus]

And luckily, it has been declared a lie:

Update: We're happy to report that the person who started the bribe rumor on the Gamespot forums (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/supremecommander/show_msgs.php?topic_id=m-1-34018242&pid=928861&msg_id=m-1-371642364#2) has admitted it was a lie, so we've removed mention of the rumor from this story. Their rumor post has also now been removed at Gamespot, and mention of it on the Gas Powered Games (http://www.gwn.com/news/story.php/id/11566/GamePros_Supreme_Commander_Review_Score.html#) forum (http://forums.gaspowered.com/viewtopic.php?p=39797#39797) has also gone.

[daroga]

Yeah, this sounds more like the NWN fiasco on 1UP than bribery anyway.

[snack]

Scandolous.

[Dead of Knight]

And luckily, it has been declared a lie:
I think the sad thing about all this is that it was so believable considering the nature of the two alleged perpetrators.

[Apossum]

Yep, it's fake. Updated the OP.

[VanillaGorilla]

That's people who believe rumors from some site called GWN.com for ya...I hate to say I told you so, but...

[Mr. Anderson]

I think the sad thing about all this is that it was so believable considering the nature of the two alleged perpetrators.

I think the sad thing is that you believed it blindly. :D

[Apossum]

I think the sad thing is that you believed it blindly. :D


and even when I had "still a rumor" in the OP.

I don't think I can blame anyone though...it wouldn't be far fetched at all. gaming publications and their advertisers are a bit too close imho.

[ViolentLee]

and even when I had "still a rumor" in the OP.

I don't think I can blame anyone though...it wouldn't be far fetched at all. gaming publications and their advertisers are a bit too close imho.
As someone who was an editor full-time for a gaming mag for four years, I gotta say the rumors of editors and advertisers is greatly exaggerated. Yes, publishers were pissed a time or two at low scores, but that never changed the way we did business. We were there to review games truthfully, not kiss anyone's butt. Advertisers will come and go, but lost credibility never returns.

[Apossum]

As someone who was an editor full-time for a gaming mag for four years, I gotta say the rumors of editors and advertisers is greatly exaggerated. Yes, publishers were pissed a time or two at low scores, but that never changed the way we did business. We were there to review games truthfully, not kiss anyone's butt. Advertisers will come and go, but lost credibility never returns.


That's cool, I'm mostly thinking of G.I. when I say I distrust some reviews. It's hard for the average guy with no insider sources to break the connection of Game Informer being owned by a store that sells games...though they have had times where they have rated games low and pissed off fans (Paper Mario) but there are other times when the review just doesn't seem genuine at all (God of War 1.)

I'm not saying I dwell on this, because I actually like the articles in GI a lot and think they have a pretty talented group of writers, but it's something I consider when I read a review that doesn't seem justified at all (sometimes I get that feeling with other sources as well.)

[ViolentLee]

That's cool, I'm mostly thinking of G.I. when I say I distrust some reviews. It's hard for the average guy with no insider sources to break the connection of Game Informer being owned by a store that sells games...though they have had times where they have rated games low and pissed off fans (Paper Mario) but there are other times when the review just doesn't seem genuine at all (God of War 1.)

I'm not saying I dwell on this, because I actually like the articles in GI a lot and think they have a pretty talented group of writers, but it's something I consider when I read a review that doesn't seem justified at all (sometimes I get that feeling with other sources as well.)

I understand your points, and they're well made. But consider this: Game Informer's ENTIRE staff (save for some ad guys) is in Minneapolis, MN. GameStop's coprporate offices are all the way across the country in Texas. When I worked there, they didn't mess with us one bit. We were doing our thing before GameStop bought us, and they've been doing their own thing afterwards. GameStop does the promotions and that's really about it. GI's publisher (again, in MN) is the only one in contact with them, and she rarely said anything about editorial content -- and when she did, it was her own opinion rather than some corporate line.

I disagree with their reviews at times -- Paper Mario 2's a great example, as is Elite Beat Agents -- but nobody's going to agree with you 100% of the time. That's just the editor's opinion, and has nothing to do with any corporate puppeteering. I admit I got some reviews wrong in my career. It's tough to be in a little review bubble 50 hours a week, plowing through one game at a time, and always get it right (I usually erred on scoring too high, though). So yeah, I wouldn't take any publication as the be-all, end-all. But I also wouldn't question their credibility because of something like who owns them. Rupert Murdoch owns IGN now, but I don't think that means they're writing ultra-conservative reviews all of a sudden.

GameStop wants GI to sell magazines. They don't care about review scores. Yes, games with better scores could conceivably sell better, but if someone walks into GameStop with $50 to buy a game and they see a bad score for Game A, they have Game B, C, or D to choose from instead. If you want a game, you'll find one you like.

[trq]

I hate to say I told you so, but...

Even worse: I hate to say it, but I agree completely. I think that people were willing to believe it so readily speaks less about the two companies (neither of whom I particularly enjoy the products of, I may add) than it does about how credulous gamers are.

[Rozz]

I understand your points, and they're well made. But consider this: Game Informer's ENTIRE staff (save for some ad guys) is in Minneapolis, MN. GameStop's coprporate offices are all the way across the country in Texas. When I worked there, they didn't mess with us one bit. We were doing our thing before GameStop bought us, and they've been doing their own thing afterwards. GameStop does the promotions and that's really about it. GI's publisher (again, in MN) is the only one in contact with them, and she rarely said anything about editorial content -- and when she did, it was her own opinion rather than some corporate line.

I disagree with their reviews at times -- Paper Mario 2's a great example, as is Elite Beat Agents -- but nobody's going to agree with you 100% of the time. That's just the editor's opinion, and has nothing to do with any corporate puppeteering. I admit I got some reviews wrong in my career. It's tough to be in a little review bubble 50 hours a week, plowing through one game at a time, and always get it right (I usually erred on scoring too high, though). So yeah, I wouldn't take any publication as the be-all, end-all. But I also wouldn't question their credibility because of something like who owns them. Rupert Murdoch owns IGN now, but I don't think that means they're writing ultra-conservative reviews all of a sudden.

GameStop wants GI to sell magazines. They don't care about review scores. Yes, games with better scores could conceivably sell better, but if someone walks into GameStop with $50 to buy a game and they see a bad score for Game A, they have Game B, C, or D to choose from instead. If you want a game, you'll find one you like.

Well, here's why they gave Paper Mario a low score:

"Lisa and I both knew that our Paper Mario scores were going to cause controversy. Yes, we know that many people out there will love it. We also know that it is a well-made game. However, it also will not appeal to many people - I would safely say that more people will dislike it than like it. Why? Like we said in the review, it's a very kiddie game - its target audience is clearly young gamers - I would say 10 and under. For that reason, we had to score it low. Remember, we aren't scoring games strictly on our personal opinions, we're also scoring them based on how much we think the gaming public will like them."