Gaming So I made a thread about nintendo paying reviewers.....

[Deleted-401606]

And it turns out this guy was fired from IGN for giving the switch a bad review. So while people on here swear up and down that nintendo would never do that,there is literally undeniable proof.

 

[Risingdawn]

Wow, yeah undeniable, totally. Apart from the fact IGN allowed it to be published first, so erm, not that I'm questioning you or anything, but you can link the lay-offs from the editor who actually let the review be published on the internet too yeah, because as we all know the person/s who submit the review don't actually publish the finished article, because we're not stupid are we, so we understand the process from free lance journalism to editorial process yeah.

 

[V0ltr0n]

"Laid off" " totally amicable"




Seems legit...

 

[ThisIsMyDogKyle]

if Nintendo had payed 50+ reviewers, we would've heard something about it.

 

[jpx86]

After reading the review and owning a Switch - maybe it was because his reviewing skills just aren't good.

 

[Risingdawn]

if Nintendo had payed 50+ reviewers, we would've heard something about it.

It's not like there's legal issues with paying for positive advertising without disclosure of said financial transactions or anything is there....

 

[DarkCoffe64]

It's not like there's legal issues with paying for positive advertising without disclosure of said financial transactions or anything is there....

 

[Saiyan Lusitano]

Aw, that sucks. If Nintendo did pay reviewers, they didn't need to because the game is amazing and even if reviewers at their full honesty were to give it a 7/10 that would still be a good score.

Zelda:BotW at first was a 10/10 for me but now it's more around 8.5/10.

 

[Deleted-401606]

Aw, that sucks. If Nintendo did pay reviewers, they didn't need to because the game is amazing and even if reviewers at their full honesty were to give it a 7/10 that would still be a good score.

Zelda:BotW at first was a 10/10 for me but now it's more around 8.5/10.

Well that review isnt for zelda its for the switch,but I agree with your rating of the game. I just beat the game and I really enjoyed it. Im probs gonna replay wind waker now lol.

 

[Kioku]

Not buying it. Just something to feed the hysteria.

Guy gets laid off and you WANT to connect it to the switch review.. But you don't know.

 

[NekoMichi]

His contract was with IGN, so the responsibility to terminate his employment lies with IGN, not Nintendo. Nintendo doesn't have the legal jurisdiction to tell other companies who to hire or fire. Besides, one of the Metacritic official reviewers recently gave Breath of the Wild a score low enough to bring down its entire average yet he hasn't been axed.

Not saying Nintendo's 100% innocent or anything, just that two events occurring in close proximity isn't always undeniable proof that they are correlated.

 

[WiiUBricker]

How can anyone rate a console in its launch with an out-of-10 rating?

 

[V0ltr0n]

Something i think is being overlooked is the fact that even though these reviewers may not be paid by companies to give good reviews, there's an unwritten agreement. If I was a manufacturer and gave you my product for free to review, and you consistently shit on my products, even if the products are shit, I would probably stop giving you free shit. That's just the way things are. Companies want to get review copies into the hands of ppl that will kiss their ass, or at least be less harsh in order to keep recieving more product. Am I looking to buy a switch? No. But if I was given one for free, I probably wouldn't shit on it in hopes that I would get free games and other products for free.

 

[WiiUBricker]

Something i think is being overlooked is the fact that even though these reviewers may not be paid by companies to give good reviews, there's an unwritten agreement. If I was a manufacturer and gave you my product for free to review, and you consistently shit on my products, even if the products are shit, I would probably stop giving you free shit. That's just the way things are. Companies want to get review copies into the hands of ppl that will kiss their ass, or at least be less harsh in order to keep recieving more product. Am I looking to buy a switch? No. But if I was given one for free, I probably wouldn't shit on it in hopes that I would get free games and other products for free.

No idea if it's the same with Nintendo, but there tech companies who only lend you their products for review.

 

[Risingdawn]

Something i think is being overlooked is the fact that even though these reviewers may not be paid by companies to give good reviews, there's an unwritten agreement. If I was a manufacturer and gave you my product for free to review, and you consistently shit on my products, even if the products are shit, I would probably stop giving you free shit. That's just the way things are. Companies want to get review copies into the hands of ppl that will kiss their ass, or at least be less harsh in order to keep recieving more product. Am I looking to buy a switch? No. But if I was given one for free, I probably wouldn't shit on it in hopes that I would get free games and other products for free.

It doesn't change the fact that the reviewer is not the person that publishes the review on the website though, he may submit his review to an editor but if IGN didn't want a review published they would simply ask another reviewer or edit out negatives and bung an extra couple of points on the final score.

OP is insisting that Nintendo paid IGN for a good score and when a reviewer gave it a sub score IGN then fired him, which couldn't happen due to an editorial process, let alone the financial and legal ramifications for both IGN and Nintendo.

Nintendo just want marketing, that's what IGN etc are essentially, the scores hardly matter as long as the ads are being thrust into your viewing angle at every given opportunity, as long as the previews, lets plays, extended plays, launch coverage etc etc are being published by IGN then games publishers are generally happy.

 

[V0ltr0n]

@WiiUBricker and @Risingdawn both make very good points. If an item is only lent to you, the pressure to give a good review is much less. If the review process was rigged, it really does come down to the editorial staff. Not that IGN reviews are all that credible anyway...

 

[Risingdawn]

@WiiUBricker and @Risingdawn both make very good points. If an item is only lent to you, the pressure to give a good review is much less. If the review process was rigged, it really does come down to the editorial staff. Not that IGN reviews are all that credible anyway...

Ha yeah you're not wrong, with either of your points. I'm sure there's a certain amount of back scratching going on too, OP though is well and truly into tin hat territory lol.

 

[xile6]

You do know this doesnt mean it was connected.
There is no proof that he was fire for giving the Switch a low rating. It could of been hie skills, they didnt need him any more, his time was up anything.

And alot of time Companies give people items to review vs loan it to them.
That doesnt mean they are entitled to give it a good review tho.

 

[Deleted-401606]

Ha yeah you're not wrong, with either of your points. I'm sure there's a certain amount of back scratching going on too, OP though is well and truly into tin hat territory lol.

First of all I am just reposting what I read elsewhere,Second of all there are unwritten agreements that take place between companies all the time. We call this a gentlemen's agreement. For example,you never explicitly agree not to date your friend's EX but it is a gentlemen's agreement not to do that.

 

[DinohScene]

>IGN.
>Actually believing big name reviewers.

You people are so dense...

The only good reviewer is yourself and no one else.