Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
GamePro Magazine Caught In Review Score Bribery Scandal
gwn.com — There is a huge buzz right now about the 50% review score GamePro gave to Supreme Commander. According to several reports, the magazine accepted a bribe from EA (whose competing RTS Command & Conquer 3 is due out shortly) to award Chris Taylor's epic-scale RTS the low, low score. Gamerankings & Metacritic have since pulled the review.
ninamyers- 1022 diggs
- digg it
- BrainDance, on 10/12/2007, -10/+25Talk about sad.
Seems like this has to be illegal in some way, some bizarre form of libel or maybe fraud (at least fraud against the subscribers who are led to believe the review was, well, real)
Should it turn out to be true I'll be thinking twice before ever buying their magazine again.- DBiz, on 10/12/2007, -6/+76I haven't purchased a Gamepro in years. The magazine is god awful and their review system (Last I looked) with the stupid faces seemed elementary and insulting to anyone over the age of 7.
Still, people should look at the meta score before judging a game, and this is one example why. - gldfshnpcklejar, on 10/12/2007, -13/+1I have no idea how good SSX blur is, but they did the same thing for them, comparatively look at all of the other scores.
http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/934381.asp
Although, this is an EA game. lol - pineapples10, on 10/12/2007, -15/+16There is absolutely nothing illegal about this. This isn't libel, as a specific person or entity isn't being defamed, and this isn't fraud, because Gamepro has no real legal obligation to publish completely factual reviews or 'the truth'. True, its allegiances are to it's readers, but it can discount its loyalty to its readership if a little money comes into the equation. This type of thing goes on a lot more often than people think (in my opinion anyway), you'd be crazy to think that money isnt trading hands between many publications and the respective companies whose products are reviewed in their publications.
- airwalkery2k, on 10/12/2007, -2/+50I've not purchased a GamePro in years. The last time I picked one up, it felt like I had just paid for a 120 page booklet of gaming ads. And what's funny now is that I was exactly correct.
- Lyph4, on 10/12/2007, -11/+9It's a review, so it's opinion. Nothing illegal about having a low opinion of something, even if you're paid to have it.
- attractivetb, on 10/12/2007, -10/+28I don't believe the story...
Let's be rational. Supreme Commander and Red Alert are games aimed at teens and adults. Gamepro is read by a younger demographic.
Why would EA bother to pay them off? Wouldn't it make more sense to try to bribe Gamespot, IGN or EGM?
Is there any legit evidence of a bribe? This reads like somebody made it up. - Taromsn, on 10/12/2007, -3/+37PROTIP: To defeat the Cyberdemon, shoot at it until it dies.
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/PROTIP - evilesttoast, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4I was just reading that article literally, 3 minutes ago in a GamePro I got from the library. I saw that 4.50/5 and immediately thought, what the hell?
- Asianwaste, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11There's a GamePro in Australia? How did this crappy mag get international branches?
GamePro's reviews have never been all too dependable. The whole 1-5 scale system with those icons is retarded and most of their reviews lack substance. I've never trusted EA either after the whole adware fiasco with BF2142.
As long as garbage piles with more garbage then I say let be no concern. - Phoenixus, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1I wouldn't doubt if Gamespot has already been bought out. The are EXTREMELY biased towards the 360. Read the reviews for evidence. Things that knock off points on a PS3 or Wii Game, are allowed a free pass on the 360.
- W00DR0W, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Not much of a story, just rumors upon rumors upon rumors. That's internet journalism for you.
- AReallyGoodName, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Most magazines have tons of advertising of games that are newly released. Given this, the editors of all those magazines will have a vested interest in not pissing off the publishers. The reviews are going to be biased whether conciously done or not.
So basically every gaming mag and review site out there is corrupt.
Imho everyone should obtain a 'copy' of supreme commander and judge the game for themselves. I don't see the point in reading corrupt reviews myself. - DCJoeDog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2is this the review in question?
http://www.gamepro.com.au/index.php/id;1088855173;fp;16;fpid;0 - jpfinch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12"We're happy to report that the person who started the bribe rumor on the Gamespot forums has now claimed it was a lie, so we've removed mention of the rumor from this story. "
Of course that doesn't matter now, it's already perceived as true to Digg users. - MikeWeller, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is gamepro Australia, not the gamepro we all think it is.
Buried as inaccurate. - benitojuarez, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4FTA: "Update: We're happy to report that the person who started the bribe rumor on the Gamespot forums has admitted it was a lie"
Marked as inaccurate. - Detritus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1AReallyGoodName: "Most magazines have tons of advertising of games that are newly released. Given this, the editors of all those magazines will have a vested interest in not pissing off the publishers. The reviews are going to be biased whether conciously done or not."
Bingo! It is for this reason that sites like Gamespot and IGN make for good preview fodder, but for reviews I find Xplay brutally refreshing and honest since their advertisers are not limited to game ads. - macmcrae, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It is completely obvious that this type of ***** has been going on since the invention of "critics" . Anybody who lets a self appointed expert decide what is good or bad is a moron and deserves to be crapped on in this manner. It is called thinking for your self. Try it sometime.
- CAvenger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's nice to know that you get 1000 diggs if you rip a rumor from the GAMESPOT forums.
My god, that's like getting insider information about politics from 4chan.
Matt Gallo, the article submitter, should lose his job.
- DBiz, on 10/12/2007, -6/+76I haven't purchased a Gamepro in years. The magazine is god awful and their review system (Last I looked) with the stupid faces seemed elementary and insulting to anyone over the age of 7.
- BlitzSieg, on 10/12/2007, -18/+33Absolutely shameful of EA to do something like this. They should be shut down.
- mortigon, on 10/12/2007, -10/+31Yea, but who's gonna shut them down.
MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY. - sideshowRAHEEM, on 10/12/2007, -8/+27The people at GamePro are the real assholes here, we all know EA has somewhat of a shady way of doing business so I'm not that surprised that they would attempt something like this. But GamePro how about a little journalistic integrity
- ajb2015, on 10/12/2007, -6/+36you honestly expected more of them? come on, it's EA, they have a history.
- mikew101, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15where is the proof?
Do you believe everything that you read?
- mortigon, on 10/12/2007, -10/+31Yea, but who's gonna shut them down.
- Axas, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11And Gamepro used to be my favorite magazine :( how sad they would do that At least it was the aUstralia division and not the US one.
- contradictator, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I used to buy em' monthly back in the days of the SNES... It used to be kinda funny, but yeah, it's gotten juvenille, and honestly, once I got the internet, Gamepro just seemed... obsolete.
- Nudar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+82Notice how the article does not provide a shred of evidence to back up the bribery scandal. It's pure speculation based on one poor review of Supreme Commander.
- CannedMango, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12The problem with blogs and the internet is that the time it would take to thoroughly review a story and give it the journalistic integrity it requires would cancel out the "PMFG!!! I got the story out first!!!" factor that motivates a lot of the web content out there.
- flr666, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16This story should be buried as lame/inaccurate. I lost track of how many times I read uncomfirmed and rumour in the linked piece.
- neeyo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Considering the god awful performance of SC on my A4000 GF7900GS rig, that review seems pretty accurate to me.
- BonsaiKitt3n, on 10/12/2007, -1/+43If you notice it says Gamepro Australia, completely different company than the Gamepro that everyone knows, there is also a gamepro spain - that too a different company.
It's too bad that this article's headline doesn't say gamepro australia. - saber134, on 10/12/2007, -1/+55I agree. GamePro Australia and Gamepro magazine are definitely NOT the same company. I just went to gamepro's site and found that they gave supreme commander a 4.5 out of 5. here's the link http://www.gamepro.com/computer/pc/27997/info.shtml . These guys made the headline ambiguous just to get more diggs.
- Vectorman2, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5I'd agree there. Still, it's a sad day when gaming companies have to bribe to get competing products to tank.
- cawino, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1wtf? this is lame - unfounded and completely inaccurate. i just took a crap and it was more interesting and relevant than this article. buried.
- spyrochaete, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1"These guys made the headline ambiguous just to get more diggs."
I believe a quote from The Simpsons, from the episode where they go to Brazil, is appropriate here:
"Would you like a Brazil nut?"
"We just call them nuts here."
- EochaidRiata, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3If this turns out to be true I hope GPG sues EA for ONE BILLION DOLLARS.
- Groovel76, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0JD Roth Smash!
- NiGHTSChao, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Does not surprise me at all.
I suspect a lot of others as well - kete00, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I always suspected similar activities from Entertainment Weekly. The movies and TV shows that they recommend watching are always the movies and TV shows that have full page ads.
- c0ldevil, on 10/12/2007, -0/+25The article isn't about Gamepro Magazine but Gamepro Australia. The title is misleading and inaccurate. Buried.
- spudnic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Common sense on digg? I think not. There should be a Bury as unfounded rumour' option
"I will digg sensationalist stories"
I want 1000 lines by Monday morning or no playtime for you.
- spudnic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Common sense on digg? I think not. There should be a Bury as unfounded rumour' option
- noreturn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I have a hard time taking this article seriously. Sure, the review may not have been accurate, but where exactly are these rumors of bribery coming from? Anyone can start a rumor about anything, and unless some real sources start popping up, this is pure speculation.
- bobboy007, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0SEE this Google want to buy gamail.cn http://www.kuziyuan.com/article/2/2007/200703062376.htm
- bil4l, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4EA will never go under with massive amount of ***** buying Madden year after year even though it was always inferior to what 2k was putting out. Madden is terrible.
- manicdvln, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3You want more shocking news? All review sites take bribes, it's called Advertisement dollars. EA brings a lot of money to review sites, so they usually are in favor to give them good ratings.
As for Tiberium Wars vs Supreme Commander, both look great, but we all know that within 6 months Tiberium Wars support will die away just like any other EA RTS and Supreme Commander will still be supported and played worldwide.- Snowcone, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Really. Last time I checked, I wasn't making tons of cash by running a review site. Furthermore, even if EA was supporting my site via advertising revenue, I wouldn't let it get in the way of the review's integrity.
- jdun, on 10/12/2007, -8/+8Supreme Commander is crap. It plays like crap and don’t even deserve a score of 50%. Its' UI is one of the worst in recent RTS memory. The UI feels like it was done by a company intern. You compare Supreme Commander to other RTS games like Company of Heroes and StarCraft and you will know why they gave it 50%. EA doesn’t need to bride GamePro to give Supreme Commander a low score. Supreme Commander is not a good RTS game.
- Goombellaofgoom, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Are you hoping EA will send you a check if you bash SC too?
- jdun, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5@goombellaofgoom
No *****. If you can't handle the truth then stick your head in the sand. I played this game since beta and when it went gold it still had the same problems as the first day in beta. It is crap. - BugMeNot2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4That's your opinion. In my opinion, Supreme Commander is one of the best RTS games ever.
- Vokas, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The UI is the best part of the game.
- AReallyGoodName, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2jdn is right for now.
Currently the game feels kludgey.
I have dual core athlon 4400+, 2gb ram, 2 7800GTs in Sli, but i run at 2560x1600. It seems the game can't handle that (admitedly high) resolution despite the system being resonably powerful. The main issue is the framerate varies wildly, from the max vsync will let it run at down to about 5fps in a second and then back again. Turning off vsync makes the problem even worse.
It seems the game has some intensive processing it does now and then that holds the entire game up. It makes it painful.
The gameplay itself is poor if you only play ai opponents. On the top difficulty levels the ai sends a combat unit at every single one of your early mines, some are bound to and do get through. In a game where mines are usually spread out it makes defence a pain in the arse as opposed to fun, the ai can do 1000 things at once, you can't. On lower difficulties the ai is almost toally passive, which is just pointless.
In multiplayer the gameplay is much better. Human opponents won't destroy your new expansions as soon as you place them unless they know they are there. But multiplayer has the disadvantage in that you really can't play the gigantic maps with millions of units that the game was designed for due to lag issues (and i'm on fast cable).
Really the game has one niche and that is as a multiplayer LAN game where everyone has a powerful PC. In that situation it is perfect, but that situation is rare.
I guess it's like the original, too far ahead of its time to be played as much as it deserves to be. - AReallyGoodName, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"The UI is the best part of the game."
Oh come on, the game has issues but it's not that bad.
(intentionally read the wrong way) :D - robz0r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2On the contrary to the Original commenter and to the guy 2 above me, this game is amazing, yes you can play 8 player maps, with 750 unit caps, but it really does bog down, the weakest computer out of my circle of friends an AMD 3800+ that player eventually becomes the "lagger" the rest of us rocking C2D's 6600's it doesn't effect much its stressful on the processor not the video. Beyond the specs, the game is amazing, defense actually matters, 3 SAM's + a shield generator can completely devastate 10bombers before they get more then 1 shot off, it takes 40~ minutes to create nukes and 10 minutes to create the counter for them, everything has a beautiful counter, and you must balance everything or get taken advantage of. I had 30 Barracks streaming out Tech 3 ground bots in one game and couldn't even touch my buddies defense with artillery shelling the heck out of my land units as they attempted to zerg his base.
The game is nicely balanced, with enough flavor for each race to change your strategy slightly, but not like a Warcraft or a Starcraft where map/faction combos become to strong, or a specific race has a dominance over a different race, I have played both of those games at a high level and they weren't fun in some situations. Pulling a high caliber opponent on a certain map with a certain race was almost decided before it started.
- ronaldst, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I remember when DOAXBV came out. Everybody but GameSpot gave it a high score. Everybody was on GameSpot's case. Even though I think Tina's the best (see digg avatar) and she's my favourite DOA girl, the game was pretty mediocre. I am afraid of even trying DOAX2. Itagaki is evil.
I don't think that bribes in the game journalist industry are a new occurence. - krakkinem, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1Well then. GamePro was one of the first game magazines I read regularly (starting like 15 years ago) and I was subscribed for about a total of 10 years during that time. A couple of years ago my interest dropped off and I stopped reading it, and now I know why that was - I smelled a stinking rat!
- po43292, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Were you in Taco Bell in NYC?
- andysrc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Did the writer of this give any evidence there was a bribe? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it came down to "Lots of people like the game, this one reviewer didn't. Must be a bribe!!!"
I read the GamePro Australia review, and it seemed to come down to performance issues. The game would have been great, but it performed like ass. Is that so hard to believe? If you're going to accuse someone of accepting money to give another company's game a bad review, at least back it up with something more than a crackpot theory.- jdun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3It’s more then a performance issues. When it went gold it still has tons of bugs. Balance is still crap. Unbalance and won’t see Supreme Commander in any completive tournaments. This game plays like crap and run like crap.
- BOOFMAN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I haven't had this problem with Supreme Commander.. I've had the game since it came out and am using Athlon 64 3400+ with Radeon X1600 512MB PCI-E graphics card and 1gb of RAM.
Running the game on medium graphics settings runs extremely well on my system. I've never had any slow down or frame rate issues.
I think the UI takes up way too much of the screen- not the worst I've seen but just way to much screen space is wasted on the UI. The game is really designed for a dual monitor setup.
- Snowcone, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Aside from some "rumors" on the internet, is there any solid proof of this story being remotely true?
- flr666, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The linked article doesn't offer a shred of evidence and even says it is only a rumour. Reading it is a total waste of time.
- fatdog789, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5I can see why SC got that score. It's just not that good. I played it over the week....and it's already gotten boring. Even online is ho-hum.
The graphics and sound are good, but the UI isn't quite up to the task of managing the number of units you get to work with; it still feels like something's missing even after the patch.
The pathfinding AI's pretty retarded, but that may just be to reduce the AI demands b/c of the unit caps.
Storyline: essentially non-existent.
The game's not unique enough to stand out; I can barely remember the special features of the game after a week of playing it.
EA didn't need to bribe the magazine for a low score, but probably put something in to drop the score by a few points.- nbanman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2HOW MUCH HAS EA PAID YOU???
/joke - Nowheredan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4You and I apparently played different games.
- nbanman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2HOW MUCH HAS EA PAID YOU???
- hawkspur, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I beta tested SupCom for a while and found it to be immersive, fun, and entertaining. It had everything I wished an RTS would have had back in the prime of C&C. Won't stop me from buying C&C3 though, both are excellent additions to the RTS genre.
As far as review bribery is concerned, I'm sure it goes on ALOT more that we realize, but no one fesses up. Gamepro just got caught. - vashgunfighter, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Um, doesn't the article say GamePro Australia did this? Shouldn't this be marked as inaccurate since the title is misleading?
- BonsaiKitt3n, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6From gwn's own forums, and if you notice the digger of the story dugg this twice with different titles, fishing for diggs? This digg is completely inaccurate. Buried.
GamePro/EA rumor hoax
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't believe you guys posted that story with no proof what so ever.
The whole thing is a hoax, an out right lie.
See PumpkinKing post page 2
http://forums.gaspowered.com/viewtopic.php?p=39797#39797
See beyondItall post number 2 the name under which the rumor was originally started
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/supremecommander/show_msgs.php?topic_id=m-1-34018242&pid=928861&msg_id=m-1-371642364#2- Kussie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I read through the review now and it is not stated as fact but as rumour. You can't lie without actually stating a false fact. All that was said is that there are rumours and people are alleging a bribe could have taken place.
Nowhere in the article did it say that they had. - jdun, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3If people played the game they will know why it was given a 50%. If I were the one that wrote it I would have gave it 30%. Supreme Commander is not a good RTS game when it is compared to others. It got too many issues that shouldn't be there in the first place.
- greenmountain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Update: We're happy to report that the person who started the bribe rumor on the Gamespot forums has now claimed it was a lie, so we've removed mention of the rumor from this story. Their rumor post has also now been removed at Gamespot, and mention of it on the Gas Powered Games forum has also gone.
http://pcgames.gwn.com/news/story.php/id/11566/GamePros_Supreme_Commander_Review_Score.html
- jdun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@greenmountain
I knew it was a lie. It just that so many people at Digg are morons. No one asked the question why it was given a 50%. Here is the reason: Supcom is crap for the majority of players that played the game. Crap is crap it doesn't matter how much fanboys you put on crap, it stills smell like crap.
SupCom is crap deal with it fanboys.
- Kussie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I read through the review now and it is not stated as fact but as rumour. You can't lie without actually stating a false fact. All that was said is that there are rumours and people are alleging a bribe could have taken place.
- TruHyp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Well being Australian I can say that Gamepro Australia did suck anyway, to get people to subscribe they had to offer bonuses which were more then the subscription cost. Thankfully the magazine has indeed been closed by the publishers due to dwindling readership. Besides print media for things like video games is really dead with the internet around.
- everlast88, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1i've been telling people this for years now
- b04155, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Slightly off topic, but magazines like PSM who claim to be impartial can't possibly be. Yes they give low scores every now and again, but honestly, a game magazine that only covers one console NEEDS that console to succeed. If the console fails there's no reason to buy the magazine so there is a sustaining need to add hype / pump up scores for certain titles.
- tinman79, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The fact that no evidence is presented seems like a way for GWN to get more people to read there own review with a sensationalist headline.
For myself, I've played both demos, and though I'd much rather enjoy a game by a non-EA company, I found just the demo of C&C 3 much more enjoyable than Supreme Commander, but then that is just my cup of tea I guess.- charmtrap, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"The fact that no evidence is presented seems like a way for GWN to get more people to read there own review with a sensationalist headline."
I think this hits the nail pretty much on the head. No links to anything except their own review. Way to build credibility guys.
- charmtrap, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"The fact that no evidence is presented seems like a way for GWN to get more people to read there own review with a sensationalist headline."
- Alex74447, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2http://www.gamepro.com.au/index.php/id;1088855173;fp;16;fpid;0
Review of Supreme Commander from AU - xelloss, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Supreme Commander is at least a 8, has its flaws but its an awesome game and Dual Monitor support rocks!
- archer75, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Having played the game I can say that the performance of it is bad. I do have a high end system and the frame rates were pretty bad. And this is right when it loads up and you only have a few units on the screen.
Though I do love the dual monitor support
C2D e6600
Radeon x1900xtx 512mb
2x1gb PC6400 Corsair
DFI Infinity 975x
Raptor 150gb- Nowheredan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Something's wrong with your machine, then, 'cause it runs well on mine, and I've got an AMD dual core. I'd suggest updating all your drivers, especially your video and sound card drivers.
- AReallyGoodName, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1]
Having said that the game runs poorly for me too on a high spec system (i already posted above). I think it's a bug because it runs smooth then slow alternatly every few seconds without much changing on-screen. Newest drivers for everything, no sign of issues in any other high end game.
- DeFex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The only thing new is that someone was caught.
same thing happens with music gear, probably other segments as well.- sgtgoomba, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Nobody was ***** caught. Read the article. I think I'm pretty much done with getting fed ***** by digg.com. Digg me down and goodbye.
- Nowheredan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I'd just like to say that in the three years I've worked as an editor for PC Gamer, I've never even been OFFERED a bribe. It's kind of insulting, really.
- charmtrap, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1This sounds pretty suspect. Where is the "huge buzz"? Oh, nowhere but gwn.com? Odd...
- dudeman88, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2GamePro always gives low scores to awesome games. Remember the low score they gave Killer7?
- DavidGX, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1EA never ceases to fail me. And gamepro can kiss my ass as well.
- cheznoir, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4This is complete BS made up by a pathetic site looking for attention.
- HordeOfDoom, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Just Three Things.
-Gamepro Aus game Supcom a 5/10 because their comp sucks. Sounds like a great way to review the game.
-EA fails in general, this is something I would expect from them
-lol, rumours. - supaspic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Hey, not to start a fight, but I wanted you guys to know even though Gamepro and Gamepro Aus are not the same mag. they are owned by the same publishing company. Does this mean Gamepro does it, too? Probably not, but just wanted to state that.
http://www.idg.com/www/idgproducts.nsf/typeform?readform&type=publication
The Aussie mag is titles "Australian Gamepro" and the one we know is lower under just "Gamepro - U.S." Now that that's said I hate paid journalism, it takes away from the hard work that real journalist's do when trying to investigate. Thanks. - Solideath, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2best way to review, buy it or play demo
- thethresh, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Actually, Gamepro, Gamepro AUS and GAMESTOP(!) are all in bed together (IDG Entertainment) and have been for the last 8 years. As a former Gamestop(!) manager I pressed my employees to sell subscriptions to Gamepro (getting bonuses that I passed along to my employees thank you) but the pressure was undeniable. District and above were constantly setting higher goals for subscriptions as they agreed to higher profit margins for the magazine with IDG. Consequently, IDG would give better reviews on games that Gamestop(!) needed to sell - it was a pretty clear racket. The trick for us as employees was to tell the customers what games really sucked and to let them use the subscription as a discount. Gamestop(!) was shamelessly in bed with IDG. Sue me if you think you can stop me from saying the truth, Gamestop, I still keep up with all those other employees and we're no longer in fear for our jobs jerkos.
- iwishilivedin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Doesn't matter, that was always by far the worst gaming magazine there was.
- thethresh, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0oops, link of proof, sorry - http://www.idgentertainment.com/mediakit/news_article.cfm?article_id=31397
so you guys know I am not just screaming crazy! :) - rooster17, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0GamePro and GamePro Australia are NOT related. Yes, they are owned by the same parent company, but GamePro (US) is a division of IDG Entertainment. The headline to this Digg is completely misleading.
- DrDRO, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This is BS. The story is about Gamepro in Australia but is Digg written like its about Gamepro in the USA. This story needs to be buried as innaccurate by all Digg users to keep the integrity of Digg site above board.
- EdgeNinjaX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I used to subscribe to Gamepro. Quit, signed up again, then quit again a few years ago because I found it bland and unoriginal. Not a great magazine.
- DrDRO, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The real Gamepro review http://www.gamepro.com/computer/pc/games/reviews/98448.shtml Bury this Digg.
- richiestang78, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Who cares about the Australian review score? I think review magazines are alittle pointless these days with the countless review websites with actual customer reviews.
- TheRealM3D, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1$10 and a +1 to all your comments says this ends up being a comic on Penny-Arcade.
And since this is the internet and I've got almost total anonymity, you can be totally sure I'll abide by the terms of the bet should I lose. Any takers?
oh, and if I win you have to declare me King of The Internets. - sgtgoomba, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Dug down because the dig link title is misleading. The title of the link says "caught" when actually the article mentions only the rumor of a bribe. There's no evidence or source for the rumor, so there isn't much credibility to it right now.
-
Show 51 - 63 of 63 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by