Bohemia paying for sponsored content at PC gamer

[almanzo 144]

http://www.pcgamer.com/a-deep-dive-into-the-new-arma-3-apex-release/

So, Bohemia appairantly have payed for coverage over at PC gamer, and while I can understand your approach please do not do this Bohemia. The mere fact that it has been common place for developers and the games media to collaborate on such a level doesn't make it ok and I would have hoped that you wouldn't fall for the temptation. You shouldn't have to pay someone to cover your game, and the outlets shouldn't ask for payment to write about you either. It breaks the allready weak trust that consumers have for the games media, and trying to make money by abusing the little trust they got left isn't the way to go. Please do not contribute towards this horrible development. Have faith enough in your product that it will stand on it's own against real scrutiny, it really shows very little trust in your own product if you have to pay people to write positive stuff about it.

I'm very dissappointed both in you and in PC gamer this time. This is simply a complete lack of integrity on both of your parts in my book.

[chrisb 196]

Really its just an advert. Its too short to be taken for a review and it clearly states at the bottom that it is 'sponsored by BI'.

So if that is confusing to any purchasers, then they need to get someone to do their shopping for them. Plus don't let them near QVC.... ;)

[Macser 776]

As much as I take the media in general with a pinch of salt, the video looks like what it says it is. A peek at something new. They paid to get some exposure in the same way any business would pay for advertising space within the magazine. 

 

One line does bother me slightly though. "be sure to download the game on Steam today".

 

Without an honest review? And given the paid nature of it, would it be biased? 

[almanzo 144]

I agree that it isn't the worst example, but content marketing is the mark of how media companies now are selling out in order to survive. Usually, integrity was the main currency that media company had in order to gain an audience. Now they are commercializing our trust, and I strongly believe that editorial and commercial content should be kept seperate, and with a clear distinction between them. 

[Mirek 166]

They paid for a little advertisement in media that focuses on related topic. How on earth is that wrong?

[Rich_R 1087]

Its a form of advertising, plain and simple. The article has sponsored written all over it. I would be upset if it had one of the staff giving a positive review and then we found out BI paid for it, that's where you would question any 'lack of integrity'.Unfortunately that accusation has plagued gaming reporting for years, but is clearly not the case here.

 

As for 'commercializing our trust', I help manage a commercial website and between internet users having ad blockers and the low rates of advertising, websites that offer news and entertainment without subscription are constantly having to be creative to literally keep the lights on. Again, this was clearly marked as sponsored and it had the air of a full page ad, similar to those seen in off the shelf magazines.

 

I personally find it hard to have issues with PC Gamer for hosting it, and think the original post is a little over-dramatic.

 

The issues I would have with many commercial sites is supposed news sites passing opinion off as fact by omitting facts or simply sloppy reporting, but that is a whole other topic :huh:

[thr0tt 12]

Lol really, close this thread.

[Richie 330]

The fact that it clearly shows twice that is was sponsored makes it fine in my book, they're advertising a new product to generate income, just like all other companies do.

As others have said, If it was paid but disguised as an impartial review then you could moan but it's not, so where is the problem ?

 

What if BI didn't advertise, players don't know of the release, leading to empty servers and people bitching the community is dropping, BI can spend their budget where they like for me, using PC gamer with their large audience makes perfect sense.

[HeroesandvillainsOS 1504]

It's a travesty that none of the major outlets (aside from PC Gamer, which I guess only did so because they were paid) have mentioned the release. I bitched and moaned over on Kotaku during E3 to see if maybe they'd at least write a blurb (which they eventually did). Polygon posted a blurb then too and I registered there just to thank them.

But today? Crickets.

All expansions for games with this many sales gets mentioned at these places. Arma apparently doesn't interest any of these writers anymore I'd guess. I don't blame BIS for putting adverts out there at this point because they should be proud of what they accomplished last night, and gamers will appreciate it.

But they need to know it exists first!

Shame on the gaming media for ignoring Apex...

[almanzo 144]

Its a form of advertising, plain and simple. The article has sponsored written all over it. I would be upset if it had one of the staff giving a positive review and then we found out BI paid for it, that's where you would question any 'lack of integrity'.Unfortunately that accusation has plagued gaming reporting for years, but is clearly not the case here.

 

As for 'commercializing our trust', I help manage a commercial website and between internet users having ad blockers and the low rates of advertising, websites that offer news and entertainment without subscription are constantly having to be creative to literally keep the lights on. Again, this was clearly marked as sponsored and it had the air of a full page ad, similar to those seen in off the shelf magazines.

 

I personally find it hard to have issues with PC Gamer for hosting it, and think the original post is a little over-dramatic.

 

The issues I would have with many commercial sites is supposed news sites passing opinion off as fact by omitting facts or simply sloppy reporting, but that is a whole other topic :huh:

There is a huge difference between a commercial and payed editorial content. Journalists should not be used to make commercials, they should be used to write content. Regular commercials are fine, editorials are not no matter how well they are marked. I agree that a paid review would be worse, and while I share your concern for the dwindling revenue stream of news and media sites but I strongly fear the development this is part of. Editorial independence is crucial for any journalistic institution, and journalists should work on writing journalism, not commercials. It's not their job. My issue is in that it's editorial, not that it exists. 

I respect that you disagree, but I still think it's worth talking about it. Even before editorial marketing was a thing, the lines between developers and journalists have been blurry. It's kind of hard to take a review seriously when it's surrounded by commercials for the same game the review is about. In a perfect world, all publications would be subscription based without commercials at all.

[Macser 776]

The company should be advertising to get the game sold. No arguments there. In fact they should probably be pushing it a bit more. Especially the modding aspect. But an ad should be an ad. And an article in a "magazine" that frequently reviews Pc games should remain impartial. How else can their opinions be considered unbiased? 

 

The only thing that changes the slant of the piece is the author, a representative of the magazine, getting directly involved in the sell.  "be sure to download the game on Steam today."

 

Which isn't really necessary. If PC gamer want to talk up the game, great. But it might mean a bit more if it's of their own volition. BI can pay for ads. PC gamer can do a glowing review. No need to mix them.

[germanske_norge 43]

It's a travesty that none of the major outlets (aside from PC Gamer, which I guess only did so because they were paid) have mentioned the release. I bitched and moaned over on Kotaku during E3 to see if maybe they'd at least write a blurb (which they eventually did). Polygon posted a blurb then too and I registered there just to thank them.

But today? Crickets.

All expansions for games with this many sales gets mentioned at these places. Arma apparently doesn't interest any of these writers anymore I'd guess. I don't blame BIS for putting adverts out there at this point because they should be proud of what they accomplished last night, and gamers will appreciate it.

But they need to know it exists first!

Shame on the gaming media for ignoring Apex...

Arma has hardly ever been in the spotlight when it wasn't DayZ related, so this isn't much of a surprise to anyone. 

[ineptaphid 6413]

Arma has hardly ever been in the spotlight when it wasn't DayZ related, so this isn't much of a surprise to anyone. 

It's not a surprise-but that doesn't mean it should stay that way. Arma3 has sold several million copies and throughout the last couple of weeks has been on the top ten selling games on Steam-3 years after release.

 

Gaming sites give coverage to things that interest a lot fewer people and write so many pointless fluff and gossip stories, that they should find time to write something-anything, about a large well known game getting its first major expansion pack.

[nodunit 397]

Nothing wrong with paying someone to showcase your product, the issue is when you pay someone else to sponsor your content but put strict rules that they can only say positive things about it, or they aren't transparent about it.

[rasa_be 17]

It's says "sponsored" right at the top of the page. The author of these articles is the first thing you usually read...