EA admits to manipulating online review scores in direct violation of the FTC Testimonial and Endors

Neil79 · 15 Mar 2011 at 22:01

http://uk.kotaku.com/5782097/dragon...etacritic-ea-bets-obama-voted-for-himself-too

"Of course the people who make the game vote for their own game. That's how it works in the Oscars, that's how it works in the Grammy's and why I'm betting that Barack Obama voted for himself in the last election."

Ea doing really well lately! :rolleyes:

Klo · 15 Mar 2011 at 22:05

Oh dear EA.

coltpython3 · 15 Mar 2011 at 22:11

Klo said:
Oh dear EA.

oh very dear indeed...

iamtheoneneo · 15 Mar 2011 at 22:11

Funny stuff. I love the ripping da2 is getting on metecritic

Which in general is pretty accurate

tommybhoy · 15 Mar 2011 at 23:55

Not surprised tbh.

Neil79 · 15 Mar 2011 at 23:57

http://www.reddit.com/comments/g3td7/dragon_age_2_conspiracy_highest_rated_metacritic/

A post on Reddit centers on a since-deleted user review for Dragon Age II on Metacritic which seems to have been written by a BioWare engineer under the name Avanost, giving the game a glowing review without disclosing his conflict of interest. This has set off a firestorm of irate commentary, and also seems to have generated backlash, as a number of recent user reviews give the game a score of zero.

There are links to cached pages that don't seem to reflect what's in the story, but nin found a cached copy of the Metacritic page that does show a portion of Avanost's 10/10 review. A Reddit comment also notes there is also a 10/10 review by a one-review user named LupoTheeButcher, which is also the nickname of a moderator on the BioWare Social Network. There's also a thread about this on the BioWare Social Network.

FrenchTart · 15 Mar 2011 at 23:58

The only thing that's surprising about this is how badly they've covered their tracks.

LeJosh · 16 Mar 2011 at 00:13

Doesn't surprise me at all.

It was quite clear that reviewers were tipped off.

Antar Bolaeisk · 16 Mar 2011 at 00:14

Yeah, I'd imagine there's a lot of self generated reviews on the community content driven sites like metacritic, they'd be mad not to do it in fairness.

However, since it's EA. BURN THEM!

Retromatic · 16 Mar 2011 at 00:22

Klo said:
Oh dear EA.

This. Ea's become like a raving junky living under a bridge.

Neil79 · 16 Mar 2011 at 00:31

Not just EA

Bioware are doing it aswell, it's all over that DA2. Must be bad if they are getting staff to make it seem like gods gift to gamers

Evilsod · 16 Mar 2011 at 00:38

Lol, comparing a US election involving millions of people to a review site that currently barely passes a few 100 and requires objective reviews is farcicle.

npjnpj · 16 Mar 2011 at 06:44

I always thought that a lot of Amazon reviews were over the top too.

NickK · 16 Mar 2011 at 06:53

The reason I stop buying EA games is the companies core values..

If a competitor does this you name the game - you do not, under any circumstances, drop down to their level.

Shamikebab · 16 Mar 2011 at 07:10

I doubt this is new :confused:

'Wes · 16 Mar 2011 at 07:18

I don't really care, i review a game based on what i think, not anyone else.

orderoftheflame · 16 Mar 2011 at 07:31

I'm not so sure people can jump on the moderator in the same way though. If a Don on OcUK gave OcUK a good review would you be up in arms? Stupid and completely dumb thing to do for the dev in question though.

However it's just another lolEA mountain out of a molehill story imo. I find it pretty funny how people are fuming about EAs morals when this is the actions of a single person. You think EA told him to do it?

Evilsod said:
Lol, comparing a US election involving millions of people to a review site that currently barely passes a few 100 and requires objective reviews is farcicle.

Whut? Requires objective reviews? Have you read some of the ones that are posted? This part of the Kotaku post sums it up nicely:

It seems like a valid concern, but have you looked at the user reviews on Metacritic? This is not a place to get a fair and balanced idea of how good or bad a game is. Those upset with the slightest flaw in a title will rate it zero out of ten. Then folks defending the game from those people will give it a ten out of ten. It's more like a war than any sort of organized system.

Shamikebab said:
I doubt this is new

I'd agree, I bet developers have been doing it for years. Just not in such a dumb fashion as to use a name that gets tracked back to them.

'Wes said:
I don't really care, i review a game based on what i think, not anyone else.

Ding. Correct answer.

AHarvey · 16 Mar 2011 at 07:49

I would image that most game developers/distributors pay people to go around bigging up their games on sites like this, its all part of the PR campaign

Edrof · 16 Mar 2011 at 08:22

The gaming industry seems to be chock full of bottom holes.

Borrish · 16 Mar 2011 at 08:30

It's hardly fair to pick on EA for this since they're not the only ones that do it. I mostly ignore game reviews now having found a fair few games where it's obvious the reviewer was either bribed or didn't play the game for more then five minutes.

Metacritic user reviews aren't perfect but to me they give a much better idea of how good / bad a game is, you just have to know which reviews to ignore.