Arstechnica Reviews the PS3

[dobwal]

When you engage in atypical behavior, there is always going to be questions. Re-reviewing a product or a game is not a common practice, so hence the suspicion.

Who cares about the motivation behind the re-review as Ars is the not anywhere near the definitive site in terms of motivating platform sales or promoting console gaming in general.

 

[Nesh]

Anyone knows how much the 360 got from Ars Technica?

 

[Arwin]

Anyone knows how much the 360 got from Ars Technica?

I think I read in this very thread that it was a 9/10.

 

[Nesh]

No harm done then

They are just as good

 

[NERO]

I see no problem with re-evaluating the PS3's software as the updates have - I heard - changed it for the better. The problem is calling it a review, or re-review. I believe that is what some have issue with. If they just called it PS3 XMB revision 2.whatever evaluation no one would care.

 

[dobwal]

I see no problem with re-evaluating the PS3's software as the updates have - I heard - changed it for the better. The problem is calling it a review, or re-review. I believe that is what some have issue with. If they just called it PS3 XMB revision 2.whatever evaluation no one would care.

Re-evaluating the updated PS3 isn't inherently bad in and of itself. Its the process of what products that gets re-reviewed that can be problematic. When you re-view one product but not its competitors with no guidelines or standards that constitute when a product should get re-reviewed, its not going to be taken well because by nature it looks like a biased decision.

 

[dobwal]

From original review...

"In fact, I think we'll see great things from the second generation of games from the PS3. Combine that with a few software upgrades, better HD scaling, and a major overhaul of the online system and you can go ahead and add two points to the current score, three if Sony really delivers with the udpates. The hardware is solid, and the games are only going to get better, but the software implementation leaves a lot to be desired; the score reflects the PlayStation 3 as it exists now."

I guess Ars went back and did it for us.

 

[standing ovation]

For this argument to be valid in the current context, do you have any rough pointers as to how much revenue Ars gets from Sony? AFAICS they get nothing much. And if so, why were they happy to rate it 6/10 at launch? Has there been a sudden injection of capital from Sony, coinciding with a rereview

When your business depends on products doled out by advertisers, what you are being paid to do is to market their products. And if your customers are not getting what they are paying for things can get ugly.

Sony had bet the farm on PlayStation 3 technology only to have a vendor help readers to a less than stellar first impression. Companies like Konami are willing to play the extortion card for lesser offenses. And so is Sony for that matter.

Like EGM, Ars may have clung to a journalist's code of ethics despite adversity. But given the business models at work, the size of its antagonist and its sphere of influence, they would have gotten with the program ... eventually.

But as fate would have it, a tipping point may have accelerated the process. On May 19 of this year, Condè Nast Publications (WIRED magazine, The New Yorker, and GQ among others) bought Ars Technica.

"It is with much pride and pleasure that I announce that Ars Technica has been acquired by Condé Nast. Ars Technica will now grow with the tools and resources of Condé Nast's WIRED Digital unit. WIRED Digital oversees the business operations of not only WIRED.com, but also Reddit, WebMonkey, HotWired, and other technology destinations. Ars Technica will remain an independent publication, with the same editorial leadership in place. I will remain the Editor-in-Chief, and Jon, Eric, and the rest of the editorial team is staying on board, too." – Ars Technica​

As with most buyouts, the purchaser acquires complete control of the target company and re-capitalizes it with the aid of structured financing techniques. Ars' resources (and agenda) are dictated by Condè Nast Publications. But Condè Nast and Sony have had a working relationship long before Ars entered the picture.

Sony could "encourage" Ars to have a change of heart (which would work ... eventually). But their boss can make them do it.

 

[patsu]

Companies like Konami are willing to play the extortion card for lesser offenses.

The reviewers and product vendors are always fighting for "more fair" reviews. Konami and for that matter, TakeTwo, spent millions in making their babies, they are not about to let any shoddy review spoil their fruits of labor. We will continue to see this struggle if the gaming media doesn't improve in general. In your Konami example, Edge wrote about 90 minute cutscenes in their review, which do not exist in the game according to Konami Production and another reviewer. I don't think the product vendors are always wrong. It's case by case, but their means are clumsy to say the least.

I'd rather the reviewers take their time to play and write their reviews, than rushing them out and make mistakes.

And so is Sony for that matter.

This is a different situation altogether. Kotaku stumbled onto Sony's secret announcements. The latter simply wanted to protect their marketing dollars and corporate edge. This is why Apple sued AppleInsider earlier on.

I don't see how both are related to ArsTechnica's review though. As dobwal pointed out, the review is a follow up to what they promised at first.