EA accused of trying to manipulate Battlefield 3 reviews

Several Norwegian video game reviewers received a strange survey sent by EA, asking for their personal preferences concerning Battlefield and the franchise’s main competitor, Call of Duty.

Video game sites getting permission to publish early reviews is nothing new in this industry, and in 9 out of 10 cases, that review will probably praise the game. Only last week, we saw the first review of Uncharted 3: Drake’s Deception go public with a staggering 9.9 score out of 10. Developers and publishers want naturally to create a positive buzz around the game, and good reviews are probably one of the best ways of doing that. So giving high rated review the initial spotlight, often before the general  embargo falls, is quite common. However, where does the line go between releasing a positive review early, one of genuine praise, and a review that may be affected by the mindset of getting that first hands-on exclusive, that initial spotlight? May review sites be tempted to improve the final score of the game just for some early publicity? This is indeed a grey area of video game reviews and of journalism in general.

Today, news of video game publisher EA and their upcoming blockbuster title Battlefield 3  have been the centre of attention in gaming related news in Norway. In particular their market strategy concerning the selection of review outlets.

In regards to Battlefield 3, scheduled to release October 27, EA announced that three Norwegian news outlets would receive early review copies of the game. The sites in question is PressFire, Gamer.no and Gamereactor, arguably some of the most popular Norwegian sites when it comes to gaming news.

What has generated a lot of controversy is that these three sites have received a questionnaire from EA which looked like this:

(NRK)

A press release from Norsk Spillkritikerlaug (Norwegian game critics ‘guild’, an organisation consisting of several video game reviewers from different media outlets in Norway.) reads:

• We regard this as an attempt by the publisher to control the review of the product. We wish to remind our members that such an attempt to gain access and control of the media’s process of evaluation is an undermining of press ethics.

Jon Cato Lorentzen, a member of Spillkritikerlauget and reviewer for the newspaper Aftenposten had this to say:

• This is an obvious attempt to manipulate the media. The fact that EA want information regarding who reviews the game, could basically mean they can choose to withdraw the exclusivity if they are not satisfied with the choice of reviewer.

The review sites themselves have also reacted to this behaviour by EA, and have chosen to not fill in the form or sparingly where suitable. In an interview with PressFire , EA’s market manager in Norway, Ørjan Sveen, are questioned regarding the form.

From PressFire:

• Why did you choose to send out this ‘questionnaire’?
• The form at question has never been a part of our strategy. This has been sent out due to a human error. We have made a mistake and we are sorry. This has never happened before and it is not something we will continue with.
• But such a form does not appear out of nowhere. What was your intention behind the questions?
• It should not have been sent out. The sites that received these forms answered them sparingly or not at all. Before this topic went public, they had already got approved and delivered the game.

The EA representative continues to say that there will be no consequences for those who have refused to fill out the form.

This is a complex matter and difficult to conclude, if at all possible. Early access and exclusive reviews have always been a part of the video game industry, but questionnaires regarding the reviewers personal relationship with a game and a franchise is something we haven’t seen before. EA have apologised for this and calls it a human error. Still, it begs the question, how much power do the publishers have in the video game industry? Is this the first case of its kind or are there things happening behind closed doors similar to this? It is also an important reminder that media outlets in the end need to operate according to journalistic values, and it is their task and responsibility to be fair and balanced in their news coverage.