A bit of the ol' soft Shoe

In his editorial for the February issue of Electronic Gaming Monthly, Dan "Shoe" Hsu says that three game publishers snubbed the magazine after being on the receiving end of poor reviews. The result is that Midway's Mortal Kombat team, Sony's sports division, and Ubisoft will no longer be sending products to the magazine. Assuming it's true, it's a terribly childish and petty thing to do, but companies are allowed to send their games to whatever media outlets they wish.

This is exactly the kind of borderline ethical BS that the gaming media has whispered about for ages (and some of us have seen happen), but actually coming out and naming names is a bold and unexpected step. Rather than applaud the effort, though, some people are pointing the finger at Hsu, saying his editorial is nothing more than a calculated ploy to boost visibility during the post-Christmas doldrums. Others are making snide remarks about his integrity, accusing him of "selective transparency." The idea seems to be that Hsu isn't trying to make a stand for integrity as a reaction to Gerstmanngate, but rather that he's using a fragment of information for his own benefit.

My question is, so what if he is?

Let's assume, for the moment, that Hsu is a scorching hypocrite who's revealing the negative ways in which publishers interact with media, but hiding the positive ways (such as trips and swag) because they might make him look bad. Let's say he is, in fact, only naming names now in an attempt to draw attention to EGM, a magazine that is increasingly considered "irrelevant" by the hardcore gaming audience. So what?

The end result-namely the exposure of some questionable behavior by publishers--is the same no matter what the intent. Only Hsu knows for sure what's in his heart of hearts, but frankly his personal karma is of no relevance here. The relationship between the folks who make the games and the ones who write about them has always been sketchy, and we've been saying for years that it wouldn't change until someone, anyone, stood up and said "Ok, blackball me if you like, but I'm not going to say your game is good if it isn't." Someone is doing that. Does it really matter why?

Are we so jaded and cynical that we refuse to see the positive of a situation simply because there's a possibility of a negative? I've heard numerous stories about less-than-ethical behavior at Ziff Davis--some I believe, some I don't--but that doesn't make what Hsu did any less of a good thing.