Eidos UK blocks Tomb Raider: Underworld scores below 8/10

by Richard Mitchell { Nov 21st 2008 at 12:00PM }

Is this really the road Eidos wants to travel? According to a Twitter post by Gamespot UK writer Guy Cocker, Eidos UK's PR firm, Barrington Harvey, has sent out a message asking all outlets to withhold any reviews of Tomb Raider: Underworld with scores below 8/10 until Monday. When contacted by videogaming247, a Barrington Harvey representative stated that the company is, at the request of Eidos, "trying to get the Metacritic rating to be high" and that the US brand manager for the game wants the company to "manage the scores before the game is out." All of this, of course, comes in the wake of the firing of Jeff Gerstmann from Gamespot less than a year ago, alledgedly because of a low score given to another Eidos title, Kane & Lynch.

One of Barrington Harvey's directors, Simon Byron, has since responded to the story, saying, "Barrington Harvey is not in the position of telling reviewers what they can and cannot say." Byron added, "As an ex-journalist myself, I firmly believe in editorial integrity and the right to express an individual opinion. As an agency, we never - ever - make demands of the press in terms of awarding scores; at the end of the day, they are free to score as they wish." It's worth noting that while Byron's statement makes it clear that Barrington Harvey cannot demand that outlets withhold review scores, it never addresses whether or not the company asked them to do so.

[Via Joystiq]

Source - UK Tomb Raider: Underworld reviews under 8/10 silenced until Monday
Source - Eidos UK PR firm: We are "not in the position of telling reviewers what they can and cannot say"

Tags: crystal-dynamics, eidos, tomb-raider, tomb-raider-underworld

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Kamal @ Nov 21st 2008 12:24PM

Gertsmanngate all over again! I wonder who is gonna get fired because of eidos this time?

Numion @ Nov 21st 2008 12:34PM

Hmm .. I foresee legions of angry nerds bombing metacritics public score

toureiro @ Nov 21st 2008 12:38PM

hmmm I was wondering were all the reviews were....guess that says enough about the game.

A shame really. but Im still going to get it...better yet. I'll Rent It. Take that eidos! ;P

prence @ Nov 21st 2008 3:26PM

Or buy used! SCREW EM ALL I SAY!

Perno @ Nov 21st 2008 12:40PM

US Brand Manager: Hey can you keep the metacritic score artificially high by asking the reviewers to keep any scores below 8 confidential prior to Monday?

Barrington Harvey representative: Ha! Yeah that would be nice, wouldn't it?

**Silent/blank stare from Brand Manager**

Barrington Harvey representative: Ok let me look into that...

Mike @ Nov 21st 2008 12:57PM

I run a gaming blog - I'm not here to plug. If you care, the link is in my profile. I only mention it 'cause it's relevant to the rest of what I am about to say.

This, right here, is why I'm perfectly content to keep my site off the radar as far as major publishers are concerned. I'd rather go through standard channels to get games, and review them than deal with this sort of pressure from publishers and PR firms. It's ridiculous - if a PR firm ever approached me with a request like this, I simply wouldn't review the game in question - one of my review rules is "you don't review a game if you're predisposed to loathing it" and that sort of marketing tactic would certainly give me a lower opinion of the game in question. I guess what I'm saying is that as far as my own site is concerned, I'd rather we put out reviews a few days after launch, and remain untainted in any way by the marketing machine, then put our reviews out a few days early, and have either marketing suck ups, or PR restrictions influence the opinions expressed in a review in any way

enfermot @ Nov 21st 2008 1:19PM

I guess to stay competitive and keep earning ad dollars, a site would want to offer reviews of ALL games in time to benefit readers who couldn't wait to buy the game. That said I really feel for anyone who runs a game review site. I think some banding together is in order, so reactive pressure can be put back on shifty developers like Eidos.

I knew this was a slippery slope back when Gamespot caved to Eidos the first (?) time.

I personally lost all respect for their reviews after that. How much crap like that goes on that the average reader never finds out about?

What do you think would happen if Universal Pictures was pressuring Ebert & Roeper to give good reviews? A congressional investigation, probably.

Mike @ Nov 21st 2008 1:35PM

You're 100% correct on why this stuff flies at all. It all comes back to the almighty dollar. What it seems the journalistic community hasn't realized is that the publishers need the gaming press just as much (if not more) than the gaming press needs the publishers. What good is a hype campaign if no one is listening?

From the perspective of the editor of a gaming site, frankly, it sucks that we can't get our reviews out before a game launches. We don't get as much traffic (by a long shot) to the review as a bigger site's review that went up a few days early.

Our reviews generally go up two days to a week after a game launches, but they go up honest. I remember hearing that the sites promising a perfect score were the only ones allowed to release GTA4 reviews before launch day, and that seems kinda off to me. No game is perfect, not even GTA. Soooooo either the sites giving it a perfect (and early) score have lower standards than me (quite possible - I'm picky) or they gave it a perfect score in spite of it's flaws. I'm not trying to call anyone in particular out by saying that - there's no concrete evidence that anyone gave a dishonest review - the game was great, and every review, perfect score or not, reflected that. Maybe they felt that, despite it's flaws the game was as perfect as a game gets. The point I'm making here is that the relationship between publishers and journalists has become waaaay too complicated in recent years, and it kinda sucks for the little guy trying to break into video game journalism.

halcyonTwilight @ Nov 21st 2008 1:19PM

I guess being totally anal to reviews is a lot easier than making a good game, amirite?

On the flip side, I feel sorry for being the PR rep to that game. How could you put any positive spin on a crappy game?

Serio @ Nov 21st 2008 1:34PM

It's cheaper too. Other game companies just bribe the reviewers for a higher score, Eidos simply refuse them. At least Eidos is an honest company!

JerkfacedFed @ Nov 21st 2008 1:38PM

You do have the right to say what you want, but you dont have to release them before the game is even out.

Releasing negative reviews and horribly demeaning comparisons (oh this is just like call of duty 4 but not better so dont buy it) no matter how good the game actually is, hurts game sales heavily, and its not fair to these developers who put in just as much hard work and effort as anyone else but just dont have the funding and manpower as other teams.

Just be professional, editors and think about what you would feel like if these guys tore into you before you even got a chance to sell your game.

Mike @ Nov 21st 2008 2:39PM

So you're saying journalists should give sympathy points to a game? No. If you're a game critic, it's literally in your job title that you should be CRITICAL of a game regardless of the size or the budget of the team that built it.

For example, Spiderman: Web of Shadows sucked. It was broken, and I reviewed it as such. Treyarch is the dev. They also made CoD:W@W, which was great. I gave it a very favorable review. A review should have nothing to do with the developer, and everything to do with the game they made. Since the launch of the Community Games on the XBLM, I've seen some really awesome games come out of one and two man dev teams. It's not about your development bandwidth, it's about what you do with it.

prence @ Nov 21st 2008 3:32PM

Aww, should we buy them ice cream cones and rub their belly while we tell them how proud we are of them for doing their job?

Grow up, if they're willing to take the good publicity that comes with reviews released prior to the game, then they should be willing to take the bad publicity too. It's a two way street.

Mazrael @ Nov 21st 2008 2:08PM

From what I played of the demo, Kane & Lynch was rubbish.. isn't a demo supposed to win you over? even if it isn't 100% final version?
I've got TR:U anyway, even if it's demo wasn't inspiring.. I found the combat a tad broken (or just not as fluid) compared to what it was in Anniversary or Legend..

prence @ Nov 21st 2008 3:30PM

Heh I'm curious to see what Gamespot gives this game.

Sony @ Nov 21st 2008 5:12PM

I feel them...but either way the bad review will come out eventually and so will the all powerful "word of mouth." I know these developers spend tons of money making these games but we spend $60 a pop for a GAME. I'm already disappointed with some of my purchases. If the games were $30, I wouldn't mind buying a lemon every now and then but $60?! Nah...I need the TRUTH!