SOE paying $1,000 to journalists

[Delsyn1]

http://vgmwatch.com/?p=1107

According to this, SOE is paying $1,000 to select journalists to come to Vegas and offer their opinions on their upcoming line-up. This smells REALLY bad to me. Has anyone here heard about it or been invitied? I'd like to flatter myself that IGN/GameSpy would get a call, which would mean me, since I'm the person that covers most of their titles.

[stusser]

Wait, they actually pay cash? I could accepting a free trip and lodging, maybe a strip club visit. But cash is where you've got to draw the line.

[TheWombat]

Heh. What if you accepted the cash, and in your story said up front, look, they gave me a grand, so take my story for what it's worth, ka-CHING!!! :)

Yeah, I guess not.

[Kadath]

Sony if you are reading this, I will go for free and I run a 150 active player, 6 year old EQ1 guild. =)

Actually, Sony and the Blu Ray group just gave me a free Blu Ray deck 2 weeks ago, so that probably just triple worsens my chances =)

[unbongwah]

Isn't this essentially the same as paying the journos to act as consultants? I.e., fly out, shoot the breeze, tell Sony what you think?

Now, if you think active game journos shouldn't act as paid industry consultants, that's one thing. But this isn't about Sony paying for coverage of an event. The whole thing is NDAed, so it's not like you could write an article about it if you wanted to.

[stusser]

It's a pretty fine line. I have a lot of friends and family who are physicians, and the drug companies will pay them to take trips to various conventions where they're forced to sit in meetings talking about their drugs for an hour or two in the morning, in the hopes that the docs will prescribe their meds in gratitude. This is basically the same deal.

Thing is, I don't think that's ethical either.

[Mark Asher]

It only becomes unethical if you let the money/free trip/etc. influence your review.

That said, it may be in the best interests of the publication to avoid any and all hint of impropriety in the eyes of the readers.

[Ben Sones]

Yeah, it's all under NDA, so they aren't paying for coverage. It's a consulting job, basically--nothing sleazy about it, though journalists may consider it to be a conflict of interest to do paid consultation on games that they may later have to cover. Of course, they could always recuse themselves from later covering the specific games in question, if they wanted to do the consulting gig.

[Adam B]

Of course, they could always recuse themselves from later covering the specific games in question, if they wanted to do the consulting gig.

That would seem to be the reasonable option.

Also, anyone who wants to pay me a grand to fly somewhere and run my mouth, please feel free to contact me =P

[Dean]

That smells.

Any journalist who does this should never review any Sony product ever again, because any review for any Sony product would be colored by this.

In the post E3 podcasts there were a number of times when journalists said, "I told them about that problem, so they're going to fix it." Puh-leese. The demo person said, "Yes, that's a great point, Mr. Journalist. I will pass that on and we will definitely fix that."

You'd think the jaded press would be able to see through that sort of thing, but they all said it (and I'm looking at you 1up and EGM) with a totally straight face.

It just goes to show that underneath it all, they're still frustrated game designer wannabes.

[Midnight Son]

It only becomes unethical if you let the money/free trip/etc. influence your review.

That said, it may be in the best interests of the publication to avoid any and all hint of impropriety in the eyes of the readers.

Exactly. Any reputable publication/website should turn this down.

[unbongwah]

I have a lot of friends and family who are physicians, and the drug companies will pay them to take trips to various conventions where they're forced to sit in meetings talking about their drugs for an hour or two in the morning, in the hopes that the docs will prescribe their meds in gratitude. This is basically the same deal.
Not quite - or at least not the way it's pitched. At those sorts of trade shows, manufacturers are either pitching to potential customers (e.g., medical equipment to hospital staff) or middlemen (e.g., physicians who then prescribe the drug in question). This Sony thing is described more like a paid focus group: "Give us feedback in exchange for money."

I don't doubt Sony will try to sway any journalists who attend into having a favorable impression of their products, but it's not quite the same thing as courting them to try to get them to shill for you. Of course, we'll then have to rely on the journos' integrity not to be unduly swayed and/or recuse themselves from future coverage of Sony products they may have discussed at this shindig.

[stusser]

The doctor trips are pretty much the same thing. "Tell us what you think about our drug." Lots of docs go, and they all say they don't let it affect their practice, but it's still fishy.

[Aszurom]

It's a "consultation fee", and I'm disreputable enough. (holds out hand)

[Rorschach]

Why journalists? What are their qualifications over say hardcore gamers to provide feedback on games other than they directly contribute to the gaming media and potentially provide reviews that drive sales? Or did I just answer my own question? :)

[Aszurom]

Cuz they're professionals!

Plus you can't put "tweaked out by a bunch of kids, to assure quality" on a box.

[Igor Muravyev]

The way Sony sees it:

Journalists can write hyped up stories that are delivered to hundreds of thousands of readers. Hardcore gamers can write hyped up stories that are delivered to dozens of forum readers.

[Jason Cross]

Yeah, it's all under NDA, so they aren't paying for coverage. It's a consulting job, basically--nothing sleazy about it, though journalists may consider it to be a conflict of interest to do paid consultation on games that they may later have to cover. Of course, they could always recuse themselves from later covering the specific games in question, if they wanted to do the consulting gig.

Yeah, since you're not providing coverage, it's literally a consulting job. Or that's what it sounds like.

If any journalist were to take this "side consulting job," they had better recuse themselves of any sort of preview or review of any product remotely related to it. What's more, if they're part of a particular editorial entity (on staff at Gamespot/Gamespy/whatever rather than freelance), then that publication probably should begin their previews and reviews of the related titles with "Our staff member so-and-so provided consulting for this company back in August of 2007. He in no way was involved with this preview/review." And of course, doing that kind of consulting work may be in violation of the employees contract.

[Brad Grenz]

See, it's thousand dollar hand outs like this that makes me think we need to form that QT3 Consulting Collective I was talking about. Do we really want to let the chuckle-heads at IGN influence the direction of games in development? Nevah!

Everyone start cold calling your local dev houses offering our most popular package, the Groupthink Special. We take a back end percentage and they pay travel expenses.

[Other Brendan]

"you and five other lucky journalists..."

So is this like a contest you have to enter and hope you're given the opportunity to sell out?

[Tom McNamara]

I wouldn't do it. Because the offer is to get paid in your capacity as a journalist. Journalists don't consult on something they might end up covering. Even if you don't ever write about the item yourself, you're still on the staff and influencing content, and you are paid to offer your complete spectrum of expertise to your audience.

If I was offered a sufficient sum, I would do it. But that sum would have to be sufficient enough to change careers to consulting, and to leave behind journalism.

Call me an idealist.

[TheWombat]

Eh, when I worked as a games journalist I would have agreed that it was not something I'd do, probably, or at least it was something that could have a bad effect on objectivity, etc.

But now I don't give a rat's ass. Why? Because I don't take game journalism seriously, period. No offense to the wonderful writers and editors here, all of whom from what I can see are honest and often entertaining, but I don't expect hard-hitting investigative reporting about computer games from anyone, in any publication. I don't care whether the journalists in question are given blow, hookers, and hot-rod Lincolns by game publishers. I've been playing games for so long that I pretty much know what I like without the magazines or websites spoon-feeding me stuff, and the Intarweb has so much info on it that basic knowledge stuff is not hard to come by. I haven't been influenced by any hands-on, exclusive, we-got-to-play-it reporting in forever.

Ok, I take part of that back. Hardware coverage I do listen to more, because there's a lot there that is pure numbers and I can make some informed decisions about stuff. If hardware journalists were getting paid to go to Nvidia or something maybe I'd be worried. But games? I hate everyone's opinion's equally already, so payola ain't gonna affect that.

[Mark Crump]

This doesn't make any sense, so I'm calling shenanigans without seeing a headered e-mail from SOE.

SOE usually flies out folks from the communities for a Community Summit @ the Fan Faires and they're probably a better pick for something like this than five journalists.

SOE/Sony have done some weird things (Sony moreso) but I don't need them needing to buy off journalists.

Now, the PS3 division, maybe.

[Delsyn1]

Yeah, since you're not providing coverage, it's literally a consulting job. Or that's what it sounds like.

If any journalist were to take this "side consulting job," they had better recuse themselves of any sort of preview or review of any product remotely related to it. What's more, if they're part of a particular editorial entity (on staff at Gamespot/Gamespy/whatever rather than freelance), then that publication probably should begin their previews and reviews of the related titles with "Our staff member so-and-so provided consulting for this company back in August of 2007. He in no way was involved with this preview/review." And of course, doing that kind of consulting work may be in violation of the employees contract.

I would agree with you on that and (absent any ethical considerations and the incredible appearence of impropriety, which are enough reason to avoid this) as a staff member at GameSpy I would essentially be crippling my ability to do my job if there was an entire PC gaming company I couldn't cover because I had done work for them.

That consideration doesn't apply to freelancers, though, but if we found out one of ours had done this, they should never write about this company for us again. If we found out one had done it and lied to us about it, I'd be terrified of what our managing editor's reaction would be.

[Jonathan Blow]

It only becomes unethical if you let the money/free trip/etc. influence your review.

It only becomes unethical to let Veco remodel your house if you let that gift influence your legislation.

[Mark Crump]

That consideration doesn't apply to freelancers, though, but if we found out one of ours had done this, they should never write about this company for us again. If we found out one had done it and lied to us about it, I'd be terrified of what our managing editor's reaction would be.

Given how much shit Chick got for writing the manual for a game, and reviewing another RTS game, I'd love to see the reactions to any journalist that takes this type of gig.

[stusser]

Who cares about the reactions, really? What matters is whether you and your editors feel it's ethical.

I wouldn't castrate anyone for going as long as they disclosed their attendance and didn't later review a SOE game covered in the gig. But if it were me, I wouldn't go.

[Jose Liz]

How do we know this is real? Sony Online crossed the line with the cash... they could have gotten people with the free airfare and lodging.

[Ben Sones]

Why journalists? What are their qualifications over say hardcore gamers to provide feedback on games other than they directly contribute to the gaming media and potentially provide reviews that drive sales? Or did I just answer my own question? :)

Because journalists are professional game critics. If you want someone that is not a developer to provide a reasoned critique of a game in production, they seem an ideal choice. If I were making a game, I'd be way more interested in hearing, say, Tom Chick's thoughts on it than those of some random fanboy.

[Taranis]

I don't understand the issue here? Our U.S. Senators do these sort of transactions all the time, it must be ethical.

[Unicorn McGriddle]

I'll take $1,000 to not say that the PS3 is bringing failure to Sony on a Mr. Hands scale.

Hurry up with my $1,000, Sony, because all I have to do to make that post is quote the phrase from this one.

[Rorschach]

Because journalists are professional game critics. If you want someone that is not a developer to provide a reasoned critique of a game in production, they seem an ideal choice. If I were making a game, I'd be way more interested in hearing, say, Tom Chick's thoughts on it than those of some random fanboy.

What about games that are critically lauded but commercial failures? Will reviewers tell the company what they would consider is a good game or what would sell more copies 'cause the two are not always the same.

[Erik]

I did this a few times when I was a freelancer. The games were all very close to release and, for whatever reason, the marketing departments felt there was some value in getting an 11th hour outside opinion. The reviews were for internal use only and, at least by my contract, couldn't be used for any advertising, box pull quotes, etc. The companies definitely weren't paying for an artificially positive review. I mean, what would be the point? In fact, the review was valuable to them only insofar as it reliably predicted what the general consensus was going to be once the game was out in the wild. I didn't bother informing all of my various editors when one of these jobs popped up, but I would have recused myself (and did in one case) from actually reviewing the same game for a real magazine.

This Sony thing may be something different, but, just from talking to freelancers, the thing I did isn't especially uncommon.

[Hetzer]

So games journalists could (theoretically) be bought for a measly 1000 $? Now i understand why some piece of sh.. gets that good reviews...

[ElGuapo]

What's this games journalist job you guys are talking about? Do the guys who review cars for Car and Driver call themselves journalists? What's the difference between a journalist and a writer?

[Luke M]

"Journalist" sounds more important than "writer". And games are serious business.

[Mark Crump]

It looks like it was real, but has been canceled.

[Mark Asher]

It only becomes unethical to let Veco remodel your house if you let that gift influence your legislation.

You confusing a free gift with a consulting job. People get paid to consult all the time.

SOE is probably trying to get a feel for how a game is likely to be reviewed. I wouldn't be surprised if they are paying these journalists to write a review of their game for SOE's internal use. SOE will look at the reviews and try to figure out ways to polish the game to bump up the likely scores a bit. If a lot of reviewers complain about the interface, for example, they might make a few changes.

I don't think SOE is trying to buy good reviews, and certainly any reviewers who take this fee shouldn't later review the game.

[RickH]

How do we know this is real? Sony Online crossed the line with the cash... they could have gotten people with the free airfare and lodging.

Shit, I thought this was an old thread when I saw you there. Welcome to unbanville.

[Ben Sones]

What about games that are critically lauded but commercial failures? Will reviewers tell the company what they would consider is a good game or what would sell more copies 'cause the two are not always the same.

I didn't say that journalists were perfect. But they do generally have more experience evaluating games than the average joe off the street, since they do it for a living. I don't think it's particularly odd that a publisher or developer would hire them to consult.

[Giles]

Wait, I thought MyNameIsWill was JoseLiz? Now I'm confused.

[Mordrak]

I didn't say that journalists were perfect. But they do generally have more experience evaluating games than the average joe off the street, since they do it for a living. I don't think it's particularly odd that a publisher or developer would hire them to consult.
Heck, just look at the amount of sway some people's opinions have here. Getting a reviewer in to give a first impression isn't a bad idea, just for publicity's sake. What if Dyack had shown the Too Human E3 demo first to someone under NDA before committing it to the show? You may not think reviews hold any sway, but publishers still consider previews important. Jaffe actually made similar comments about God of War 2. I think that was the one where the video showed the hero ripping the eye off a cyclops. He said they went back several times to get the animation right just for the showing, even if the fight didn't end up in the game the same way.

[Alan Dunkin]

No it's not particularly odd, you can pay a reviewer to review your product for internal use, which is something a lot of game companies can do (not reviewers specifically but external game consultancy agencies).

Reviewers are also perfect, because the decent ones are very familiar with the issues, how to talk to your audience, and so forth.

As for ethics, there would be a bit of a problem, especially if it was in your field of expertise. At the very least you would have to recluse yourself of any material regarding that particular product, and you may be forced to include the publisher (or at least publish a disclaimer with each article). Most journalists who consult in that full field usually are no longer journalists but consult full-time, something of which is probably still very niche in this industry. I know we've hired an agency before.

--- Alan

[Draikin]

I wonder how much GAF servers cost them.

[Gunmetal]

No wonder you got banned.

[Mike Hussey]

You cannot, by hook or twist,
Bribe the British journalist.
But seeing what the man will do
Unribed, there's no occasion to.

[Supersport]

http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showthread.php?t=27717&highlight=fallout

Any gaming journalist that does this is pretty much done with reviewing any product that is published by SOE.

But based upon other situations as shown in the link above, SOE might as well pay actual cash now rather than free junkets.

[cliffski]

This stuns me, that they are being so blatant. I gave up trusting game reviews when Force Commander was given game of the month by a certain magazine. I've never recovered from that. I always wait to see a game demo now. If there isn't a demo, I assume the game is shit, and hoping to ride of the coat-tails of hype , marketing and reviews of dubious independence.
ShipSim2008 didn't need any of that, they just made a good game. its amazing how easy it is to succeed if you just make good products.

As an indie dev, its especially grim, because it's just one more way the guys with big checkbooks ensure their games get a better score than anything made by a small dev team with no money.
Fuck sony.

[Mark Crump]

This stuns me, that they are being so blatant. I gave up trusting game reviews when Force Commander was given game of the month by a certain magazine. I've never recovered from that. I always wait to see a game demo now. If there isn't a demo, I assume the game is shit, and hoping to ride of the coat-tails of hype , marketing and reviews of dubious independence.
ShipSim2008 didn't need any of that, they just made a good game. its amazing how easy it is to succeed if you just make good products.

As an indie dev, its especially grim, because it's just one more way the guys with big checkbooks ensure their games get a better score than anything made by a small dev team with no money.
Fuck sony.

My understanding is the "reviews" were never intended for public consumption. SOE was going to hire known reviewers to "review" an SOE game so SOE marketing could get an idea for how the game's going to review. As mentioned if five of five people say the interface sucks, they can either fix it, or set their own expectations for what they are going to get nailed on. It's not shady. It's shady if the reviewer then goes out and reviews the game for a media outlet and never discloses the relationship with SOE.

The reviewer who does this at the least needs to be upfront with his editor about the relionship when asked to review a competing product. It's up to the editor to determine if there is confict of interest.

If I were to do it, I'd likely recuse myself from any MMO reviews. Given that almost everything I review is an MMO, I wouldn't do it unless I'm getting out of the review biz.

[Brian Rucker]

Come on. Sure, you can "recuse" yourself from reviewing a particular product you've consulted on but to my eyes this plays into a whole feel of journalists, who are supposed to be looking out for consumers, getting too cozy with industry. I mean you're building personal relationships with the people in these companies that's based on an employer/employee dynamic however temporary and other journalists are doing the same thing. It sets a certain norm as a mindset. Just doing business. Hey, I'll recuse myself this week and, Joe, you can recuse yourself next week. Golf trips to Scotland for Sid Meier Golf 2 anyone?

Given the grave concerns with serious journalists getting too cozy with sources out there in the real world, my getting worried about publishers obliquely corrupting gaming journalism might seem trivial. But it is still troubling. Some might suggest that corruption has already happened but I've heard compelling arguments against that from folks here.

Stories like this make me wonder, however.

[Mark Crump]

I don't think there's a lot of corruption, at least on the print media side. I'm not sure about the lower-tier web sites though.

That said, once you've done this you've taken down the "freelance game reviewer" shingle and hung up the "freelance consultant" shingle. If someone makes that choice, that's fine.

I think it's only unethical if the writer does it and doesn't let his editors know about potential conflict of interests.

[Matt Perkins]

It's a conflict of interest. You can't be payed by a company and then later expected to objective about their stuff. Sure, you could be, but it's silly to pretend all people will be.

[Alan Dunkin]

You're a journalist, it's your job to have a relationship of some kind in the industry to begin with, whether it's just on a first name basis with the PR people or you know the devs personally. The relationship works both ways for all sides involved; they think they'll get to tell their story and you get to write your story. Knocking on a journalist for having relationships ("getting cozy") in this industry (or any other) is being unrealistic.

Of course this whole issue brings up the various motivations of the "journalists" and/or "reviewer" in question and what their work objectives in this industry. If you're a part-time freelance reviewer that can get you an "in" at Sony, especially if you don't make a lot, you might jump at the chance. If you have aspirations of being a journalist, took some classes and have a few ounces of professionalism, you probably wouldn't take it, unless you thought you could transition that into a new job. If you wrote strategy guides, you'd hop on the chance in a heartbeat.

However, yeah, I don't think as a serious journalist you could or should get away with taking a $1000 consulting job with Sony and then be asked to review one of their products.

--- Alan

[unbongwah]

It only becomes unethical to let Veco remodel your house if you let that gift influence your legislation.
Amusing quip, but not the same thing: what Veco did was outright bribery, it didn't matter what Stevens may or may not have done in return; what Sony is doing is hiring journalists to be paid consultants (though they do make it sound more like a contest than a gig, which is a bad move on their part, IMHO). It's only hinky if said journalists aren't honest about what they've done and don't recuse themselves from future coverage of games discussed, IMHO. E.g., Tom wrote the manual for GalCiv 2; he's been honest about his work; and he hasn't reviewed the game (apart from stating his personal opinions here).

And apparently Qt3 must be full of idle rich, to think turning down a $1,000 gig is no big deal for a gaming journalist. Though personally I think it's a penny-wise pound-foolish decision for any ethical journalist, because it means you have to recuse yourself from any and all future coverage of any games discussed at the event; for a freelancer, especially, this would be costly.
What's the difference between a journalist and a writer?
One of the definitions of "journalism (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/journalism)" is "writing designed for publication in a newspaper or magazine." So by that definition, if you wrote something for a periodical, you're a journalist. News reporting is a subset of this general definition of journalism; and a lot of people who talk about "journalism" are really only talking about news reporting. It all gets quite confusing when you overload a word with multiple meanings like that...

[Thierry Nguyen]

The $1,000 tended to go to freelancers; magazine editors tended to come by and talk with SOE about the lineup and do the mock reviews and such, but when it came to the subject of money, policies at places like Future and Ziff required the editors to flat-out refuse the monetary compensation.

[PR_Flak]

this isn't that uncommon. in this form, yes, but mock reviews are all the rage, they are done by journalists and they are paid for it. some of them go on to review the game "officially" later. this is a blind process -- so the publisher supposedly never knows who is reviewing -- and conceivably it is arranged and paid for by a third party facilitator...

The structure talked about here -- with sony inviting and paying directly -- seems weird . how could any journalist that took this offer cover ANYthing sony publishes at any time in the future without considering the $1,000 sony paid them in the past? technically, they couldn't.

But the honest truth is, this probably wouldn't affect the major reviewers in our industry all that much. the big time guys value their own opinions too much to be swayed by this, don't you? you never held back telling me where to shove some of the crap games i've promoted in the past... :)

[Kadath]

I saw a report at Joystiq or something that they now claim Sony has called this off.

[cliffski]

I think it's only unethical if the writer does it and doesn't let his editors know about potential conflict of interests.

I don't care what the editor knows. *I* buy the magazine. I care what *I* know. If it says at the start of the review that it was written in Barbados in a 5 star hotel paid for by the publisher, then fine. But I've never seen that in any review I read.

[Mark Crump]

I don't care what the editor knows. *I* buy the magazine. I care what *I* know. If it says at the start of the review that it was written in Barbados in a 5 star hotel paid for by the publisher, then fine. But I've never seen that in any review I read.

Are you reading anything people are saying about this? In these cases, assuming the SOE event is the same thing, the publisher is commissioning the review for their own, internal use. The review is not intended to be published in a magazine, web site, blog, or bathroom stall. It is soley to give the publisher an idea on what they might get nailed on review-wise.

[BlakeD]

http://www.f13.net/index.php?itemid=583#more

Well at least he doesn't read this forum, but makes sweeping generalizations anyway. Hurrah!

[Mordrak]

http://www.f13.net/index.php?itemid=583#more

Well at least he doesn't read this forum, but makes sweeping generalizations anyway. Hurrah!
I love the plee for money. Pay me because I'm so fucking awesome. In one hour you'll know how to make your game teh hawtness. Weee! Pay me more and it will be moar teh hawtness.

[Unicorn McGriddle]

What a huckster. Give me money for my expert knowledge of my hobby. None of you know how to do anything right, only I do. I think his site's missing something very important: a giant blinking banner demanding donations.

Edit: Are we self-absorbed, though? In most cases, probably not self-absorbed enough to write a naked I'm the Napoleon of Games Design jeremiad.

[Rimbo]

http://vgmwatch.com/?p=1107

According to this, SOE is paying $1,000 to select journalists to come to Vegas and offer their opinions on their upcoming line-up. This smells REALLY bad to me. Has anyone here heard about it or been invitied? I'd like to flatter myself that IGN/GameSpy would get a call, which would mean me, since I'm the person that covers most of their titles.

WILL PIMP SONY FOR FOOD

Edit: I would like to add that I am serious with this offer. I will pimp Sony, or give them my opinion, for $1k plus paid expenses.

[Mox]

Can't say our QA chaps have been shy of telling us when things are bad.

[Desslock]

Westwood used to hire game writers to conduct "internal reviews" on products that were close to release. They offered me that gig for both Nox and Earth & Beyond, but I refused it both times.

It obviously creates conflict of interest concerns -- you are a paid contractor for that company, so it creates a reasonable apprehension that you will be biased towards those products or those of their competitors.

Like Bob Mayer said earlier in this thread - issues of bias may not be viewed as important by a lot of gamers, who are more than capable of making their own informed purchasing decisions just from available information other than reviews. But I think they're important -- unless you're just going to view game writing as contributions from "enthusiasts", you've got to at least avoid obvious conflicts of interest if you want to retain legitimacy as a provider of objective assessments of quality.

[Mordrak]

I didn't make it through the whole article the first time, but this is even dumber than I am...


Hell, since this is a first time offer, pay me $5,000, I'll come out for a week, play the game for 40 hours and sit down with you and MAYBE make a power point presentation, if it's necessary.

Wow. How generous! Only 5 grand for a potential power point presentation....


Now, here's the important bit – if any self-righteous motherfucker starts a company like this, I will sue you into goddamn oblivion for prior art or whatever the goddamn term is for stealing an idea. And I'm fairly sure, since everyone raised a bunch of stink about it, that SOE would support me 100%. And yes, I understand that the concept isn't new, but as far as I know, there isn't a company that does this yet. Well, not exactly this, and definitely not one that arose out of gaming journalism.
Yes, because he invented consulting.

[Jaysun]

http://www.f13.net/index.php?itemid=583#more

Well at least he doesn't read this forum, but makes sweeping generalizations anyway. Hurrah!

Never has the William Shatner song 'Has Been' been more appropriate regarding this F13 guy. I like how he whines about he can't post here and then slams the forum as self-absorbed swine and "gentlemen professionals". Smart guy.

[stusser]

F13 is a very different board than Q23, less mature and a hell of a lot more bitter. Many of the more thoughtful posters and almost all of the developers left during the messy LtM/SnD/WtO/F13/corp divorce, which splintered and destroyed one of the best communities on the net. These days they spend a great deal of time retelling in-jokes and bitching. But they do know MMOs better than most.

As far as the rant goes, yeah, he just wants his free trip and money. It's a funny read, at any rate.

[forgeforsaken]

Man I thought everyone got approved in the recent mass approval.