376
More than 1,200 games journalists have left the media in the last two years | VGC
(www.videogameschronicle.com)
And nothing of value was lost...
this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2025
376 points (98.5% liked)
Games
43059 readers
1530 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Rules
1. Submissions have to be related to games
Video games, tabletop, or otherwise. Posts not related to games will be deleted.
This community is focused on games, of all kinds. Any news item or discussion should be related to gaming in some way.
2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil
No bigotry, hardline stance. Try not to get too heated when entering into a discussion or debate.
We are here to talk and discuss about one of our passions, not fight or be exposed to hate. Posts or responses that are hateful will be deleted to keep the atmosphere good. If repeatedly violated, not only will the comment be deleted but a ban will be handed out as well. We judge each case individually.
3. No excessive self-promotion
Try to keep it to 10% self-promotion / 90% other stuff in your post history.
This is to prevent people from posting for the sole purpose of promoting their own website or social media account.
4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
This community is mostly for discussion and news. Remember to search for the thing you're submitting before posting to see if it's already been posted.
We want to keep the quality of posts high. Therefore, memes, funny videos, low-effort posts and reposts are not allowed. We prohibit giveaways because we cannot be sure that the person holding the giveaway will actually do what they promise.
5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW
Make sure to mark your stuff or it may be removed.
No one wants to be spoiled. Therefore, always mark spoilers. Similarly mark NSFW, in case anyone is browsing in a public space or at work.
6. No linking to piracy
Don't share it here, there are other places to find it. Discussion of piracy is fine.
We don't want us moderators or the admins of lemmy.world to get in trouble for linking to piracy. Therefore, any link to piracy will be removed. Discussion of it is of course allowed.
Authorized Regular Threads
Related communities
PM a mod to add your own
Video games
Generic
- !gaming@Lemmy.world: Our sister community, focused on PC and console gaming. Meme are allowed.
- !photomode@feddit.uk: For all your screenshots needs, to share your love for games graphics.
- !vgmusic@lemmy.world: A community to share your love for video games music
Help and suggestions
By platform
By type
- !AutomationGames@lemmy.zip
- !Incremental_Games@incremental.social
- !LifeSimulation@lemmy.world
- !CityBuilders@sh.itjust.works
- !CozyGames@Lemmy.world
- !CRPG@lemmy.world
- !OtomeGames@ani.social
- !Shmups@lemmus.org
- !VisualNovels@ani.social
By games
- !Baldurs_Gate_3@lemmy.world
- !Cities_Skylines@lemmy.world
- !CassetteBeasts@Lemmy.world
- !Fallout@lemmy.world
- !FinalFantasyXIV@lemmy.world
- !Minecraft@Lemmy.world
- !NoMansSky@lemmy.world
- !Palia@Lemmy.world
- !Pokemon@lemm.ee
- !Skyrim@lemmy.world
- !StardewValley@lemm.ee
- !Subnautica2@Lemmy.world
- !WorkersAndResources@lemmy.world
Language specific
- !JeuxVideo@jlai.lu: French
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Um, that's how it always should have been. That's how journalism in general works, going back since pretty much the dawn of newspapers: readers pay for copy, and advertisements subsidize it.
Like the games industry, publications that cover video games have been rocked by a turbulent market since the highs of the COVID-19 pandemic. Media owners like IGN, Fandom, Gamer Network, and Valent have all cut jobs in the past year.
Is it turbulent though? This article goes over video game spending by year, and it has largely plateaued since 2019. There was a pretty big jump in 2020 due to the pandemic, but the market seems to have returned to a normalish trajectory and mobile revenue seems to be plateauing (I guess it's saturated?).
I think what happened is that people are shifting where they get their information from. Instead of relying on game journalists, who seem to be paid by game devs (hence why any big game rarely gets below 7/10), they rely on social media, who theoretically aren't paid by game devs (there's plenty of astroturfing though). The business model where they're not paid by game devs should always have been the case, since when people are deciding what games to buy, they clearly would prefer a less biased source.
IMO, games journalism should have multiple revenue streams, such as:
- fan revenue - either donations or subscriptions should always be primary
- curated game bundles, like Jingle Jam - run a charity event where a large portion is donated (be up-front, and have a slider so donators can decide how much goes where, even 0% to one or the other)
- merch
- game tournaments w/ prizes - would be especially cool to focus on indies
- maybe have paid questions from fans that gets answered in a podcast or a paid video to discuss topics of fans' choosing
They can get very far before needing to run ads. Produce quality journalism and have some additional revenue streams and it'll work out.
I don't consume much gaming journalism because it's largely BS that praises big AAAs and generally ignores indies unless they get viral. I want honest opinions about games, not some balance between sucking up to who pays the bills and mild criticism.
Games media worked under an ad-supported model for about 20 years though. As those in that business will tell you, the payouts from advertisers have fallen dramatically. The ones keeping themselves afloat now have pivoted to your first, third, and fifth bullet points, as well as ads on the free content that subscribers typically get to opt out of.
But weren't game reviews essentially ads paid by the publisher? Because that's what it looks like from the outside, since the reviews are increasingly poor quality that largely focus on positives and ignore negatives. Some games that completely flopped due to technical issues got glowing reviews by journalists, probably because they were paid handsomely for that review.
I think game journalists should avoid advertisements as much as possible because once they rely on it, the temptation to allow their content to be colored by whatever attracts advertisers is too much. They should be solely focused on attracting readers, which means they need to be reader supported.
It's a symbiotic relationship that advances goals for each, but no, they're not paid ads, and it's been debunked over and over again. Some game reviews higher than someone feels it should, and they conclude it only could have been paid off, but it wasn't. Here are a few things that do happen that influence review scores though:
- Publishers know which outlets review their games well, and they prioritize giving advance copies to those outlets and not others; this is why you'll see the average score drop by a few points after the game's official release.
- The person on staff who liked the last game in the series, or other games in the same genre, tends to keep reviewing them, because they enjoy the work more, and that review better serves the overall audience. This can explain why a genre-defying game like Death Stranding reviews in the low 80s, but then the sequel is reviewed by people who tended to appreciate the first game, and the sequel reviews higher.
- Publishers know which version of their game is best, and they'll send review copies of that version. That means they send the PC version of Cyberpunk 2077 when the console version is broken, and they send the console version when the PC optimization sucks.
- When a game is online-only, publishers like to host on-site, curated review sessions with optimal network conditions in a space where all the reviewers definitely have someone to play with. Review outlets have become skeptical of reviewing games this way, and you'll more often see "reviews in progress" of games where they want the servers to "settle" first. I was surprised to see MS Flight Simulator 2024 actually held to account over its broken online infrastructure, as you're correct that, historically, they're not held accountable, but that's because of this change that review outlets have made in how they cover games like this.
This makes a lot of sense.
It would be nice if multiple people reviewed each game, and then they discuss before publishing a review. That's one thing I really like about Digital Foundry, though they focus way more on technical details than overall gaming experience, but it's very fun to see what each reviewer has to say about a given title.
That's often a matter of resources. Staff sizes are only getting smaller at these outlets, and there are more games released each year than ever before; and they're trending toward being longer on top of that. Being able to get multiple people to review a single game is a luxury, one that Digital Foundry can afford when they just need to benchmark a typical scene in the game.
In America, they are legally required to disclose paid reviews. If the company pays for the review they legally must disclose it
If you receive free products or other perks with the expectation that you’ll promote or discuss the advertiser’s products in your blog, the FTC Act applies to you.
Is that actually enforced? If so, what's the explanation for reviewers giving suspiciously high reviews to AAA games?
Is that actually enforced?
Surprisingly so. There's a huge difference in online advertisements pre- and post-Fyre Festival.
If so, what’s the explanation for reviewers giving suspiciously high reviews to AAA games?
They liked the game more than you. I promise you it is that simple.
I'm not talking about my personal preference on rating, I'm talking about broad community reviews.
For example, Cyberpunk 2077 is a notorious example. It got generally favorable reviews from reviewers, and the public release was a completely broken pile of trash on console. Reviews didn't even get the console release, yet still gave it a positive review because the experience on PC was decent. How can we trust reviewers if they don't actually try the game? The terms of the review embargo alone should have pushed reviewers to give it net negative reviews since they're not able to actually try the game.
For strict review differences, look at Starfield, which got 85% by Metacritic, and Steam reviews are more like 55-60%, and it got hit hard by independent reviewers shortly after launch. That's a pretty big mismatch.
GTA V was pretty close to a perfect score, but actual reception was a bit lower (80% or so on Steam right now). That's not a huge difference, and it could be due to frustration about not having a sequel for over a decade, but it does seem that some studios get more favorable reviews/more of a pass than others.
That said, a lot of the time reviews are pretty close to the eventual community response. It just seems that reviewers overhype certain games. I haven't really seen much evidence where critics review a game much below where the community reception is, but I have seen cases where reviewer scores are quite a bit higher than the eventual community response.
Maybe there's nothing suspicious going on, it just sometimes feels that way.
Reviews will typically mention which version they were, but in general, there are very few differences between them these days, unlike back in the 6th gen or early 7th gen. Games like Cyberpunk are outliers.
Starfield is not a bad game. In a lot of ways, it's a very good one. My biggest complaints with it, personally, are all the ways that it should have been modernized but refused to, falling back on what worked over a decade before it came out without turning an eye toward its contemporaries and the improvements they've made to the same formula. I find Steam reviews to be a valuable data point among plenty of other data points, but user reviews being that much lower than the critic average doesn't mean the critic score is a problem.
For an example of a game where critics reviewed it less favorably than the user score, see Mad Max or Days Gone, which might be explained as games where the initial sales weren't strong, and people who found it later, often at a discounted price, were pleasantly surprised compared to its reputation. There's also the likes of SkillUp's review of Ghost of Yotei. That game has largely reviewed very well by other outlets, but he found his review to be out of sync with his audience. If you're a reviewer who plays dozens of games per year, your opinion of a formulaic open world game might be very different from someone who plays 3 games per year and hasn't gotten sick of it. Both are valid points of view.
As someone who's done this before, let me tell you it'd be much easier for Toby Fox to pay me to give Undertale a good review than it would for Ubisoft to pay me to give Rayman a good review.
Are you talking from a regulatory standpoint or from an "I like indies so I'd give it a pass" standpoint?
I'm talking about how easy it is to deal with a singular party than a developer/publisher duo and their rotating marketing and engagement departments.
Honestly surprised anyone who could claim to be a journalist was left in that advertising front of an industry
Their game reviews are worth shit all, so their only worth is reporting on the game industry itself. And that's a niche area that not many people are interested in.
While I am a strong supporter of independent games media (and am ride or die Remap):
“For quality games media, I continue to believe that the best form of stability is dedicated reader bases to remove reliance on funds, and a hybrid of direct reader funding and advertisements. If people want to keep reading quality content from full time professionals, they need to support it or lose it. That’s never been more critical than now.”
This doesn't scale. The outlets doing this can support MAYBE 3 people with the outliers being Kinda Funny who have never found a sponsorship they didn't like and Giant Bomb who are pretty much riding on the massive support wave after they got fired AND have THE biggest legacy name out there and... time will really tell if they can keep supporting the whole crew this time next year. Oh, and MinnMax where Ben has to constantly remind people that he is actually the only full time employee and all the cohorts are contractors with day jobs and that you can also see Janet at Remap or her twitch channel and Charles at Game Informer and Jacob talking about death in a video essay on Nebula and...
But the other aspect, which Remap (specifically Patrick Klepek and Rob Zacny) have pointed out is... when you are part of a big org you have, among other things, lawyers. You can't really do investigative journalism without those. With the power of (I think at the time it was) Kotaku? Jason Schreier is the "press sneak thief" and Bethesda just puts the outlet on a shitlist for review codes until the end of time. Without the power of Kotaku? Jason gets a letter in the mail and needs to find a lawyer who can protect him.
Outlets like 404 Media (and, to a much lesser extent, Aftermath) have more or less structured themselves entirely around this and I don't actually know how they are pulling it off.
But Independent Games Media is, by and large, just that: Games Media. Not Games Journalism. And the reason you want the latter can probably be summed up with the Nintendo pricing of the Switch 2. They very specifically did not mention it as part of their press event or in the copy they sent out. And many outlets (including Remap and MinnMax) pointed out why. It is not going to look good for them but by doing it that way they control the message. Because all the Hype is gonna be for the Direct. So they get all the benefits of all your favorite talking heads Talking Over a Mario Kart trailer but the actual pricing? That is MAYBE an updated news article or a tweet. Which becomes "it is what it is" when they go to buy rather than "Wait... IS a gameboy actually worth 500 bucks?" discourse that we see for brands like XBOX that couldn't market their way out of a paper bag at this point.
And we've seen similar with so many controversies over the years. People who are REALLY tuned in might have heard about The mordhau "Show us your kni**a" thread and rampant racism or the black myth wukon sexism. But the majority of outlets people actually go to for coverage/opinions are VERY aware that their legal department is Uncle Jack and don't want that smoke. So you mostly just get "we aren't going to cover it" rather than "Yo dog, this shit is fucked" that we would in the old days.
load more comments
(2 replies)
This is why I still pay the NYT for access. They may suck. But I am trying to keep some of the good ones employed.