Barnes on Games presents Theel, Mann and Campbell on Games- Review Corner Showcase

Publishers recoiling from a negative review and subsequently--out of spite--cutting off reviewers from receiving free copies/access codes = standard industry practice in the video games arena. You would think top-of-the-food-chain companies like Nintendo/Ubisoft/EA/etc. would have thicker skins than that, but nope. Makes sense that it would happen in hobby games too.

About the idea that Tom is untouchable, it's not that he's untouchable as much as he is their go-to sales agency and you don't shit where you eat. He has more people than anyone else in the world watching his videos and videos-by-proxy through his network. One bad review here and there is going to hurt that one product, but not the brand. If Tom vowed to not review X company's products on his network, that company would be FUCKED. Doubly so if he AND Lance did the same thing.

If Tom got blacklisted by a company, we wouldn't know about it anyhow. First, Tom is not one to throw stones. It's not in his nature, and further, it's bad business. If he got banned from receiving review copies, I don't know that he'd be quick to out the publisher. He knows that there are no such thing as permanent disagreements, and that eventually, he may be able to reconcile. That's just my 2c and a character judgement. I think if he got blacklisted, he'd find a way to make it work out.

But, to the greater point, this more proof of that the threat of free shit being taken away is a powerful motivator. It's not about greed, it's about power, influence, and the ability to be "inside". People have influence when they write reviews. They get a cult following. They get invited to parties and stuff at GenCon. This is not something that many people would be able to walk away from for the small price of their integrity. Integrity isn't what it used to be, and there's no Game Reviewer Bar Association that vets us. So, we can literally lie and cheat readers all day long and the only thing stopping us is our own integrity. Worst of all, people can write reviews all day long, even critical ones, by simply reading the rules, thinking about other games that seemed similar, and then punting their way through it. And nobody would ever know, because at the end of the day, they can say, "ITS MY OPINION" and that is that.

Maybe I'm too cynical. All I know is that I know plenty of salesmen that lie on call reports, lie to customers, and lie to themselves for money and influence. And they do it for a living, and are held to the standards of their company's ethical code, not to mention the US Uniform Commercial Code. Bloggers aren't, so I see them as much easier to influence by payola, especially since ego is such a big part of why people write.

charlest wrote: The only publisher that I've worked with that has explicitly stated "Go ahead and write negative reviews and it won't affect your status" is Z-Man.

Asmodee has never stated the above, but my relationship didn't seem to be affected by severe criticism of Mythotopia's end game, which they distribute and sent to me.

I've never had it affect me either. It's a giant myth constantly perpetuated on the internet. I've negatively or luke-warmly reviewed games from (I think) every publisher, and it's never affected getting review copies or not.

Honestly, anyone who thinks or states that... doesn't know what they are talking about.

Except Michael Barnes and Matt Drake, who were. And me, who was lambasted and ridiculed directly on BGG by the publisher and the designer, who never received so much as a nasty note from the BGG Admins. So, it does happen, but I think we're talking apples-and-oranges, Joel. I'm not talking about megareviewers like you, Lance, and Tom. I'm talking about the small fries. I'm talking about up and comers, guys that for whatever reason decided to take on the thankless job of espousing opinions on the internet.

You stated that you don't like to do negative reviews, for a variety of totally valid reasons, and I understand that. That's a different subject anyhow - that's the big one I discussed in my aforementioned article. It's the domino effect of many people not wanting to "waste time" or "hurt relationships", or whatever reason, doing negative reviews, which ends up with the net effect of having 50 positive reviews and very few negative reviews in the first 120 days of a product's launch. I think that's a far more profound problem when it comes to forming a public consensus on a game than integrity issues or things of that nature. That's why I pushed the issue so hard for so long - people need to see a balanced overall view, and without negative reviews, or even critical reviews (as Michael would put it) we're relegated to seeing the same game demo done by different people ad infinitum. That's kind of why I dislike video reviews as a source of constructive buying decision information, really. It's the format's fault, not the people's. Written articles just seem to be able to explain the WHY better than the HOW, but I've watched dozens of your videos, in particular, because you have a very specific talent that is lacking in many videos: you are great at teaching rules. So, I've watched a shitload of your videos before game nights to be able to SEE the game in action while reading the rules, so it gels in my head.

Back to the "payola" thing, I don't know if you remember this or not, but way back in the day, like maybe 3 years ago (LOL) there was a guy named Larry soemthing-or-other from the now-defunct INd20 Group. They put out a video review of Pixel Lincoln that was 100% infomercial. I was publicly shit on for bringing it to the attention of the BGG crowd. I was in the middle of a ban (for calling a guy a racist, which he is, or at least was), and so it was like being shot while standing still. Couldn't respond. Even my FRIEND, who was using Larry to jump-start his own thing, shit on me (although he later apologized and admitted that they were paid a lot of money to do the KS preview).

boardgamegeek.com/blogpost/11654/ind20-g...e-your-view-deckbuil

They never disclosed payment, which was the crux of the problem. This is one of the rare times that I found that integrity issues caused people to buy something because of chicanery. Other than that, there's one other video that really got under my skin, but I'm not going there.

I don't buy that Barnes and Drake were dropped solely because of negative reviews. What I find more plausible is that FFG no longer wanted to have a relationship with or contribute to their brand. Kind of like how F:AT has established a very Anti-KS brand and now all we have is a place holder that says "Advertise Here".

Joel is exactly right. Most people do not understand how review copies work in the first place. I have never been approached by a publisher or designer offering a dumptruck full of money nor have I ever encountered a situation where I was made to feel that negative reviews would result in being "cut off".

With one very, very notable exception, and that was a relationship that was kind of mutually terminated. I was taken off the press list at FFG after I wrote a negative article about Descent at the personal behest of leadership there, who also got upset when I made negative comments about the Battles of Westeros announcement. I got kind of a "second chance", and was offered the first review copy of BoW. Which I gave a lukewarm at best review to at Gameshark.com. I've not received a single FFG product for review since that chain of events. I was very definitely made to feel like positive press was expected if I were to continue to stay on the press list, so it was a situation that I was glad to be quit of.

But by and large, publishers do not actively care about reviewers that give negative reviews provided that they are professional and not some kind of obnoxious "slam" piece or not actually about the game. I have received "sorry you didn't care for it, thanks for taking a look" emails but for most part at the bigger places like Z-Man or Asmodee, you never hear anything back and they move right along because your review is not going to make THAT much of an impact and they understand the scope of it.

Where it does get a little hairier is when smaller publishers/designers want to lock horns with you after a negative or less-than-favorable review. It's REALLY unprofessional, but there have been a couple of times when a designer or publisher wants to engage me in a debate about the review. I don't mind answering questions, I don't mind having a conversation about it, but I DO mind when I'm having to get into four, five emails effectively defending my position with a designer who is sure that I'm doing something wrong or just can't see how great the game is. The most notable time this has occurred was with Sirlin. I gave the game a crazy good review because I loved it, but I dinged the quality of the cards. Because the first edition had cheap, junky cards. He didn't like that, and he wanted to argue with me about it. I guess he wanted me to retract that part, but I didn't and just cut it off.

The reality, even in video games, is that you RARELY see actual impropriety. I know of ONE situation that I actually can not disclose the full details of, but it involved a video game review (not one of mine) where a publisher relationship was in the mix and a B+ rating was changed to an A+...and the original review was replaced by one provided by the publisher and written by a freelance writer who was not on the staff. What happens more often in video games is that they wine and dine reviewers, set up controlled testing environments, offer exclusives and do all these kinds of things to sway opinion in their favor. It's almost never an issue of "we will pay you X amount of dollars or give you Y review games if you write a positive review". It's more subtle and insidious than that...but it's also MUCH rarer than people think.

And it's VERY rare, if not non-existent, in tabletop games.

Yeah, seconding what Barnes said, actually FFG is the only publisher I've known to cut off reviewers for poor to middling reviews. If it were widespread, well, I'd be condemning more companies for it.

I received a few disappointed emails from designers over the years on games I either didn't like or gave "meh" reviews to, but it rarely escalated. I was once in the playtest group for David Sirlin, but what Barnes said is correct--you can totally slob the knob of his games (and it's generally easy to do, they're good games), but if you have even the slightest ding, the slightest criticism about the game or something he's done to promote it (like three editions in that many years or less), then he will absolutely try to take you to task. At one point he was asking me privately to "silence" or chastise users on our boards who were critical of him or of any of his games. I basically told him to take a hike, that's not how we did things, and haven't been in contact since.

VonTush wrote: I don't buy that Barnes and Drake were dropped solely because of negative reviews. What I find more plausible is that FFG no longer wanted to have a relationship with or contribute to their brand. Kind of like how F:AT has established a very Anti-KS brand and now all we have is a place holder that says "Advertise Here".

The notion we're "anti-KS" is silly. Over the past few months I've kickstarted both Tiny Epic Galaxies and Mare Nostrum.

We do take umbrage with shady Kickstarter practices or established companies using Kickstarter as a pre-order system where they take users' money up front to make the game. I personally believe once you're at a certain scale, you're beyond the "spirit of Kickstarter."

Anyway, I digress.

Considering events like the Up Front debacle and the Eric Chevalier fiasco--literally the first and only time the Federal Trade Commission has ever taken legal action against a crowdfunding campaign--I'd think an anti-KS stance would be something of a badge of honor. But, unlike the world of video games, where shitty business practices are held to the fire on a daily basis, there is literally no one in board game journalism who writes from the perspective of consumer advocacy.

And it's VERY rare, if not non-existent, in tabletop games.

The only reason it is rare is because Nerds are using board games simply as a medium to to achieve nerd fame and boost self esteem. I know this to be true because look at all the rampant game rules errors, in Dice Tower Videos, Rahdo's videos, and Wheaton's videos. These guys don't care about games really, their interest is promoting themselves. If their focus was on games they wouldn't release a video that had game rules errors in it. When they look back and edit these videos their focus is on their cute zingers and one liners, not the game!

You are quite wrong saying it is non-existent

I'm pissed that Tiny Epic Galaxies passed and I didn't know about it until the last day, the day my bills came due. So, I missed that one. REALLY wanted it. Looks FANTASTIC. I was willing to give them a second go after really not liking TEKingdoms, but I just missed out. Figure I'll get it after the fact, as usual

I think that SOME PEOPLE here have a very anti-KS vibe (one reason Duke decided to walk away, which sucks, because I really liked him), and I have a great deal of skepticism about a lot of the games that get published due to them, but now it's really become a P$$,$$$ preorder system for major designers (read: Launius) with a lot of credibility, so I think things are changing for the better there.

Kickstarter sucks. Hopefully our readers are able to discern that my opinions do not reflect those of the membership, other staff or the site as a whole. Lots of folks here participate in all kinds of crowdfunding boondoggles. And I review games that were produced through Kickstarter.

Steve, what you are talking about is really quite different than what I mean. I'm talking about publishers/developers currying favor with reviewers, "buying" positive press with exclusives, early access, favorable status and so forth. Not quite "payola", but more like that. What you're talking about is something that is going on at the reviewer level, which definitely does exist and does go on.

Something that I think a lot of people don't realize is that it's actually very rare, at least for me, to have a publisher or designer approach me and ask to do a review or offer a review copy. It happens every so often, and I do get the occasional Kickstarter representative asking me to do a "preview" (which is a flat no, unconditionally). But I've not ever really been pursued as a reviewer. Most of the review copies I get come from simply emailing the press contact at a publisher or the designer directly and just stating some credentials and that I'd like to give the game a look, here's what I can offer you (1000-1500 words, you can use any part of the review to promote the game as you see fit, no promise of a 'good' review) and this is when I'd like to publish. I don't have boxes and boxes of publisher-sent games at my door every day like I'm sure happens with the Dice Tower folks. I have to directly ask for everything, which is why my reviews tend to be positive- because I've "vetted" whatever it is to make sure it's something I'm interested in and feel like is worth covering.

I wish it were more glamorous, but it's just not. Including my involvement with Miniature Market. Very straightforward, very on-the-level. I provide them a service, they pay me for said service and expectations on both sides of the arrangement are met.

Michael Barnes wrote: Kickstarter sucks. Hopefully our readers are able to discern that my opinions do not reflect those of the membership, other staff or the site as a whole. Lots of folks here participate in all kinds of crowdfunding boondoggles. And I review games that were produced through Kickstarter.

KS Project creators looking at this site as an advertising possibility would see a very negative bias and animosity towards the platform and thus take their marketing money elsewhere.

That marketing money could have been used to recruit the highlighted talent, the point of controversy of this thread, here to provide content for F:AT.

Stupid derailment of this thread averted.

Just sayin'...

I just read the front page article only to discover that while I was away sick, I missed the kind of Friday Freakout I have on occasion in the past initiated myself!Thankfully I see Thirstyman was more than up to the task. He may not be the most diplomatic F:ATtie, but this site needs people like him and Pete Ruth who aren't afraid to call bullshit when they see it.

Personally I'm prepared to cut Barnes some slack because he's a huge contributor, but Thirsty raised some valid points and it's good for everyone to have this kind of discussion. It's what makes this place great.

But it was the comments on Kickstarter that got me to post in this thread. I think Kickstarter sucks too. I've used the model, but I think it's ruining the board game industry. That said, I haven't used it much. I've only backed Omen: A Reign of War, Omega Edition and most recently, Misftall.

I think Kickstarter is giving us a lot of beautifully crafted, gorgeous looking, half-baked games. These are games like Fallen or Chaosmos which look great and don't reveal their flaws until a few plays in at which point you discover fatal flaws that make you put the game permanently on the shelf. For me, it was the Final Battles in Fallen which invalidate the entire rest of the game because your drawn battles are totally random and have nothing to do with the preceding adventures. So my very buffed up Magic User who had dominated the game wound up pulling final Strength challenges and lost badly. And it happens a lot because there's a compete disconnect between the two halves of the game. A gamer came up with a small fix (it needs more) than should have at least been part of the original rules.

Galactic Strikeforce another Kickstarted dog from the makers of Sentinels of the Universe whose gameplay is also fundamentally flawed and I could go on. (Hell even Sentinels itself doesn't scale (only really good with four) and its Heroes, Bosses and Environments have to be so carefully selected to work together gamers have developed charts. (Funnily enough I still like the game despite its flaws).

My point is there's more games than ever, but many are not fully developed because the Kickstarter model is more focused on stretch goals than finished product. There's no incentive for "finishing" the game. There's more effort and thought put into shipping it instead. It's going to become increasingly rare to find deep, well-play-tested gems like War of the Ring, Earth Reborn, Dominant Species or Twilight Struggle. Instead we're getting nice-looking, incomplete or pretty-with-no-brains games like Chaosmos or convoluted messes like Myth.

Now legitimate publishers are jumping on the Kickstarter bandwagon. These guys used to gamble their own money on a game product. Now they're using ours. The more Kickstarter heats up as a vehicle for games, the worse this is going to get. And as long as we continue to accept ridiculously inflated prices in exchange for half-baked games, that's what we're going to get ... until of course we quit buying games altogether which is where I sometimes wonder this could all be headed.

What's all this bru-haha about? Bunch of funking sellouts.

Heh, just kidding, I don't read reviews anyway. Barnes, you need to sell some games soon. I hear they are releasing a new version of Fury of Dracula. Want to sell the classic version?

Bring on Friday Freak out!

P.S. I didn't forget to send you Razzia, just been too lazy to hit the post office. Should be on it's way this weekend.