Gamespot posts their Ghost Recon Review the SAME day GameSpy gets their copy of the game. What's up with that? Did Gamespot play AND review the game in a couple of hours OR did Ubisoft send some folks games earlier than others? AND after Ubisoft reads this will they cut me out of their product loop? Film at 11.

I think they sent out the game this week; we got ours today (we're East Coast), so folks in CA could have gotten theirs a day or so earlier.

Red Storm/Ubi Soft invited us (and I presume, others) down to North Carolina for a day of playing the final game some time ago. The idea was to play through it and do the review based on that visit I think. We declined.

That makes sense, Bob. I'm aware that print mags get theirs a bit earlier. They need to in order to compete. I just thought that it was strange to see one Internet site post the review the same day another site received the game.

I have no info about that; you might want to ask the Gamespot folks. I wouldn't assume foul play though; this business is full of weirdness.

>? Did Gamespot play AND review the game in a couple of hours OR did Ubisoft send some folks games earlier than others?

I had, what I thought was, a great deal of difficulty getting a timely copy of Pool of Radiance 2 from Ubisoft for GameSpot's review of that game. But given what I subsequently heard from the other people who reviewed the game, like the CGO guys here, it just seems like Ubisoft isn't particularly organized at distributing gold copies -- I suspect a lot of nagging can get results quicker than just waiting.

Stefan

Hi Stefen,

You're probably right (and so is Bob). My copy of Pool was WAAAaay late. I once asked a LinnPR rep if she thought PR reps slanted who got what when. She said "Nah, we're not that smart."

Best,
Mark

Actually, we don't generally get copies any earlier than online folks. I don't think many people on the PR side of the industry really understand (or spend much time thinking about) magazine lead times, which are pretty lengthy.

There's been a lot of controversy lately over Ubi Soft and Ghost Recon and online sites over various topics. I don't think I can go into much since they are not all related, but suffice it to say the general belief is that Ubi Soft is showing preferential treatment towards some publications. And I don't mean sneaking them the beta a few days ahead of time either.

--- Alan

Mark, I'd just like to point out that IGN scooped GameSpot on the Ghost Recon review by an entire week. We weren't the first to receive the game.

I got my GR copy sometime last week. If I was in some sort of deadline crunch mode, I'd have played and reviewed over the weekend. Seems reasonable for Gamespot to review GR as quickly as they did.

Raphael

Hi All,

Good points, but perhaps Greg and Rapheal missed mine. I don't doubt that the Gamespot review is thorough. In fact it has more detail than it needs. I'm just curious how one major site can get copy in time to review it before another major site receives theirs. Same would apply to IGN.

Ben, Erica Kohnke once told me they try to get print mags material first. As I told Bob, that seems fair. I only question what seems like favoritism within the same medium/level.

I understand Gamespot receiving material before hobby sites, but I believe major players, such as Avault, Gamespot, IGN, and GameSpy should all get product on the same day. Seems fair, doesn't it?

On the other hand, perhaps GameSpy just took awhile to dig down to their copy, or their FedEx people are slower. It isn't, however, the first time I'v seen this.

Hehe, I open the packages I get right away, like a greedy kid at Christmas. And I usually assign them that day, especially high profile ones like Ghost Recon.

Ubi Soft has not been the best company to get gold or box from (depending on the PR person handling the game). When we went to see the game recently, they said we should get a gold of the game the next day (my writer said he thought some folks got them that day -- not sure). It didn't arrive until 4 days after. Not sure if others have had that problem. The good news is that it seems to be getting better (I hope).

Hmmm. Maybe I'm thinking wrong, but as for PR folks playing favorites: why would you expect anything else? There's nothing crooked about a PR group deciding to send a product to some sites a week earlier than another. Remember, they are paid to get the best possible PR for a product. If that means that they give a site that they think will run a good review a week headstart (and thus, potentially, the good reviews a week's head start on others) then they're probably doing precisely what the company who hired them wants.

I'm not saying that they ARE doing this, but I wouldn't fault them if they did. There's a reason that a company hires a PR firm.

Jeff

Bingo. Even if PR firm X blatantly favored site Y and mag Z and gave them product in advance, etc., they'd be within their rights. Whether it's smart or not is another question. If you build up a rep as a publishers "site/mag of preference," you lose cred eventually.

Still, from the publishers POV, the possible negative fallout--people discount the positive reviews/coverage as fluff--is probably well outweighed by the publicity.

"Ben, Erica Kohnke once told me they try to get print mags material first. As I told Bob, that seems fair."

It is fair, and I'm sure they try. But the number of times it actually happens? Maybe one time in thirty. Half the time, stores get the games about the same time we do.

"Even if PR firm X blatantly favored site Y and mag Z and gave them product in advance, etc., they'd be within their rights."

True. They're not obligated to give us games at all. Sometimes I do end up just going to the store and buying a review copy. Doesn't make it any less annoying, though.