Great discussion on negative reviews and impartiality.

Scott, this Trent got off on the same tangent without reading what I wrote. It's not about money.

My example was only to indicate that people do things for many reasons. He was saying that ALL reviewers do it for love of games, and all I did was posit that there's probably a ton of reasons why people do it.

Ask Drake on "that site"...he said he initially got into it for free games. 2 other guys I know said the same thing. I got into it because I wanted to write about games (as you might remember when all three of us were talking about it) but I needed the review copies to be able to deliver enough content to make the site relevant.

I never said people don't do it for love of games. I said people do it for MANY reasons, and I showed him that there was a value proposition that people consider.

I can tell you without ANY doubt of being corrected that on the games I review that are 50$ games, I make 25$ an hour. You cannot refute that, nor can anyone. All I was saying is that there are MANY REASONS people do things, and access to free games MAY be one of them. I've gotten 67 review copies over ~120 reviews I've done, if my count is right, for example. Maybe off 2-3. I'm not all that horribly popular, Scott. A reasonable person has to admit that not having to buy 67 games over 4 years (or however long I've been at it) is a possible motivation for someone who might be interested in becoming a reviewer.

Anyhow, I've said my piece on my blog and front page article. Read it if you want, because it articulates my position.

I think you were basically saying the same thing though. Most people who get into it for free games end up quitting, because of what Trent was saying - it's not enough to justify the effort. I think you contributed to the tangent by making it more about the compensation than about a mix of factors. I do think that Trent is right in that most people who do it long term, once they've gotten a few review copies, aren't doing it for the review copies any more - it's too much of a time sink. If I remember correctly, that's basically what Drake was saying when he backed off his pace.

I don't think Trent was wrong, though. Most people who post a review on BGG just like the game. Most people who get started doing reviews more seriously, at their core, are doing it because they like games. Most people who quit do so because they are finding a disconnect between what they're doing and their love of games. And, sure, other considerations are there - but there isn't enough financial incentive for the overwhelming majority of folks who do this to make that their primary motivation. Which I think you'd agree with - which is why I think you two were ultimately talking past each other.

Respectfully, you read into it that which was not there. I was very clear in stating that "love of games" is one reason, but people rarely do things for a sole reason; people are complex creatures and we do things for a multitude of reasons. He was rebuffing the idea that free product would be a facet of the decision to get into doing serial reviews, and I disagreed, provided fact from my own experience, and then HE was the one who made that the focus of the conversation. I simply responded that it's naive and too simple an answer to say that "everyone does it solely for the love of games" because of the aforementioned idea that people don't do things in a vacuum.

I agree that there's not nearly enough money in it to justify continually doing it, but I never said that there was in the first place, unless you can make a living from the launch pad, as Tom has done; I think Tom's the only one that had the savvy to make it into a business though. But again, Trent was apparently only seeing what I was saying as "this is about people making a living" and I never said that or intended that. It's obviously preposterous.

Now about financial incentive - I would posit, and have, that it's not just about the money from review copies. There's other revenue streams, such as advertising. If I advertised on my site, and I had 4000 page views a week, I could charge a guy maybe 50$ a month to advertise on my site. That's free money, and it was not available as an option without having a large readership. You can't have a large readership without content, constantly spewed forth. Unless you have lots of money, it's not feasible to go and buy a constant supply of games, and therefore it's not about the 20$ or 50$ you save on not buying a game, it's about the 300-400$ a month you can gain from advertisers.

Again, not the ONLY motivation, but I personally know a guy who used this model to gain a nice side income. It might've happened organically, but without a supply of review copies and paid advertising, it would've been very hard to get going and to sustain.

It's not about people doing this for money. It's about people making money doing this as a result of doing it well, and the fact that there's incentive for some people, if they choose to entertain the model.

I'm really tired about talking about this, though. It is what it is. Agree, or disagree, it's fine by me. I wrote an article articulating my position and it's clear that you didn't read it (and I'm sure few did) because had you, you'd understand that I never said what you think I said.

If a lot of people misunderstand you, then perhaps it's not their reading comprehension, but the clarity of your writing?

You keep getting upset at the "preposterous" statements of others, then you accuse them of not reading your article without knowing? Why can't you discuss stuff without being rude?

FWIW, I thought Pete's argument was clear from what he wrote, both here and I BGG (I said as much there).

tomvasel wrote: If a lot of people misunderstand you, then perhaps it's not their reading comprehension, but the clarity of your writing?

People see what they want to see.

You keep getting upset at the "preposterous" statements of others, then you accuse them of not reading your article without knowing?

I'm not remotely upset. I cannot envision how you think I'm upset. It could be that because you picture me as this seething cauldron of hate and rage, you read what I write and hear the voice of a demon-velociraptor. This isn't the case, but I suspect that's what you read.

me wrote: Respectfully, you read into it that which was not there

Just to be clear: "Respectfully" is not a pejorative term. Were I angry, there'd have been a lot more "fuck", "cunt", "fuktard" or something of that nature. That's generally how you can tell when I'm upset, angry, or in a weird mood. Also, Scott is a friend. I would never treat him in any way unkind, and I never have. You might be surprised to see how well I treat people I like, respect, and my friends.

Why can't you discuss stuff without being rude?

What is it, exactly, that was rude about anything I've written (Aside from what I wrote directly to you)? You're an odd bird, mate.

Pete sees dead people too, so I mean in all fairness to him, that's a lot of baggage to carry around and still somehow be normal.