From the Pulpit: Are Embargoes Really Necessary?
Do embargoes protect the press or make for lazy journalism?
9/19/2008 6:41 PM | 9 Comments | Page 1 of 4
One of the first things that aspiring journalists learn about in school is the embargo, the concept of not posting information until your source tells you it is OK. Embargoes in the real world have a definite place: national security, public health and welfare, public safety, and financial information that could affect stock prices.
But in the gaming industry, are embargoes really necessary? What is the overarching public concern? In my time in the games industry, I have run into a few different embargo types:
1) A review cannot be posted until a specific date. Most of the time it is because that date is the day the game is released, but in some cases that date is because another site has an exclusive review.
2) A preview cannot be posted until a specific date. These tend to focus around events, such as E3 or the Tokyo Game Show, when writers get a sneak peek at what is being shown ahead of time and stories are embargoed until the start of the show or some other specified date.
3) A new game cannot be revealed until a specific date. This is sometimes tied to number 2, but can also be tied to an earnings call or a meeting with shareholders.
Let's dissect the process of the first two types of embargoes a bit more, beginning with reviews. When gold masters or boxed copies of a game arrive at an outlet for review, the embargo (if one is in place) is set for the date of release. Reviews timed for when the game hits shelves make sense, since that is when a review is most valuable: It informs the reader if the game is worth buying. If the gold master or boxed copies arrive early, the only concerns for the outlet are making sure that it has enough time to properly review the game before the release date, and ensuring that the information it provides to the readers is accurate.
But there is often an untold aspect involved in setting an embargo date: Some embargoes are in place for no other reason than to give another site an exclusive on that review. Let's call bullshit on this process right now. Did that site do any extra work to get the exclusive coverage -- and I mean, real legwork or investigative work, not just putting together the best "deal" for the publisher? No. The only work involved
may have been making the review sound effusive enough to justify the high score that allows the site to keep the exclusive, thanks to certain restrictions occasionally requested by a publisher's marketing department. Embargoes designed to protect the publisher from a bad score, or a competitor's deal with a publisher, fly in the face of why embargoes were originally created, to protect the public interest -- not the publisher interest.
Yes, in the past, pre-Crispy, I was in the business of negotiating for exclusive reviews. First review always means the best traffic, right? The numbers bear that out. I came to realize exclusives were not worth the risk for games with extensive multiplayer components, because they couldn't properly be tested pre-release. How do you review a multiplayer game when you can't test it in real-world conditions against people who aren't developers and on servers not belonging to the developers or publishers?
