Adamfostas wrote:Journalists don't owe Kerberos anything; in order to get them to take the game seriously they'd need to put in some serious PR.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk 2
This is a true statement. The majority of game publishers spend an enormous amount of money per year to force the issue, and get their products various kinds of coverage. Games which are not backed by a hefty PR budget will always be either ignored or attacked whenever possible.
The Magus wrote:Journalists don't owe developers, they owe their field and their audience an actual semblance of integrity.
When the audience stops paying for content, they lose the ability to demand integrity. The salaries and expenses of all gaming news sites, blogs and broadcasts are paid by advertisers. And in the gaming industry at present, the advertisers are the publishers.
There is only so hard that anyone can bite the hand that feeds them.
The majority of the audience for gaming journalism does not notice or care who foots the bill for their reviews, previews and interviews. They only care that they get plenty of content, and they get it for free.
There are many problems with the current system. I think the most disturbing thing about modern gaming journalism, though, is that it depends entirely on the economic health of publishers, in an industry where publishers are increasingly troubled economically.
I find it hard to believe that so many journalists in this industry are so completely blind to the writing on the wall. Even very big third party developers for the PC are breaking free of the old system whenever they can. Even very big publishers are failing. How much longer can the current business model last?
Personally, I am very surprised that more journalists do not reach out to developers like Kerberos, who are breaking free of the old system. In the future, independent developers will increasingly be in charge of their own PR and advertising budgets. Doesn't really take a genius to do the math.