Speaking in a podcast, Metacritic founder and games editor Mark Doyle has confirmed that the aggregating site has recently had to remove a publication from its network due to it committing what was deemed corrupt editorial practices.
Doyle would not reveal the name of the publication in question, most probably because there is not sufficient evidence of corruption to make a public allegation.
When discussing the list of criteria which Metacritic uses to choose which publications may contribute to the Metacritic average, Doyle said “there are many reasons why I would drop somebody [from games review listings]. There’s corruption – people can be bought, absolutely.”
“[That means] are they going to give [a game] 4/5 and say it’s one of the best of the year, and then give another game 4/5 and say it’s really a letdown. I’ve got to see that they’re being responsible internally with that scoring. If they’re not – if they’re being irresponsible, or being contrarian or ridiculous, which happens all the time – I won’t pick them up.”
And it’s not just a matter of reviewers being bought out by publishers that’s a problem. More common it seems, is certain publications with run contrarian reviews to attract hits, and Doyle has numerous times had to contact such publications and say “Guys, you’re going down a bad path here. We’re going to rethink our partnership.”
Metacritic scores have become a barometer in the games industry for determing the quality of a game. Publishers such as EA and Take-Two have admitted that internal bonuses are often linked to Metacritic scores, as a low score can “really hurt your ability to sell the title” said Take-Two big cheese Strauss Zelnick in March.
Discuss corruption in games reviewing in the forums
Loading ...
