Jimquisition: Integrity, Journalism, and Free PS4s

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

I frankly don't care if the reviewers post images of their PS4s or not. I mean, I really, REALLY don't care. They're not rubbing it in my face any more than people who bought theirs are. Sure they have their names on them or whatever but that's like going into a Starbucks and being jealous that you don't have a nifty little apron with your name embroidered into it. It's their job to give you coffee so yeah, there are perks to it. I work a low level position at a TV station so I know when somethings coming on and I have access to neat little exclusive posters and shit. That's just a perk of the job. Sure you can get mad when I show you my sick-as-fuck Agents of Shield poster on twitter with a #CoulsonLives slapped onto it but whatever. It's a part of my job. It's a perk. Most every job as perks. You want perks, then get the damned job. I really hate it when people whine about not getting the same shit that game reviewers get. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

Miyenne:
Many "self-employed" people do have to buy their own supplies. Cooks buy their knives, hair stylists buy their tools.

No, cooks do not buy their own knives. Chefs do. But chefs are highly paid, and knives are personal to them. And even then, most chefs probably have them paid for anyway. Moreover - does a cook buy the ovens or the pots and pans they cook with? Of course not.

Also, most hair stylists work for salons who buy all the tools. I'm not sure where you get the idea that the typical hair stylist is buying all their tools, unless they work for themselves.

And is it wrong to be a straight woman with a crush on Jim? Cause I do. And I don't care.

I'm confused. Why is this a question? What does your gender or sexual orientation have to do with attraction to Jim?

Aardvaarkman:

Miyenne:
Many "self-employed" people do have to buy their own supplies. Cooks buy their knives, hair stylists buy their tools.

No, cooks do not buy their own knives. Chefs do. But chefs are highly paid, and knives are personal to them. And even then, most chefs probably have them paid for anyway. Moreover - does a cook buy the ovens or the pots and pans they cook with? Of course not.

Also, most hair stylists work for salons who buy all the tools. I'm not sure where you get the idea that the typical hair stylist is buying all their tools, unless they work for themselves.

Perhaps you missed the "self-employed" part in their post? Regardless, in almost every other profession people either buy their tools or have them provided by their employers. Why should games journalism be any different? Unless the games companies providing them with games and consoles and flights are their employers?

I'm sure Jim's picture of things as they currently stand is more or less accurate. But as a game consumer, it's hard not to feel a note of unease. In my case, it's not so much at the idea that getting game systems etc. for free amounts to a payoff for good "critical" press as the recent cases where companies or their reps groused or threatened (or in some cases, actually followed through) on preventing some portions of the critical press from getting the same access to their products as their peers on the basis of their alleged negativity.

Every time something like that makes the headlines, one wonders if it's an anomaly or the status quo- or if the first is turning into the second in some seamy underbelly we aren't privileged to observe.

I imagine a different model- and please, anyone feel free to poke holes in this idea; I'm sure there are problems I'm not seeing.

First, I imagine some kind of "board" of game reviewers whose existence is funded by a modest payment from participating game review outlets, payment scaled based on the staff size, viewership, and annual profit of the institution. The board would serve two major purposes: one, to keep a roll list of independently "accredited" game reviewers (just so any schmuck who makes a game video on YouTube doesn't get the same treatment as a writer of long standing for a major site), and two, to holler holy murder if a company tries to stick it to an accredited reviewer- limiting their access, etc. The reviewer board would insure that the companies that tried to employ strong-arm tactics would get the "blacklist" treatment, not the other way around.

Secondly, accredited game reviewers or their institutions would pay for their own games and systems. Ah, hold on- I'm not talking about MSRP. Your presence on the roll list as a reviewer means you get an enormous discount- maybe paying $5 for a AAA game and $100 for a system, say. That would put even a high-traffic reviewer on a roughly even playing field in terms of their expenses as a gamer who doesn't review every game and have to cover every system. A reviewer's presence on the list would mean they still get early access- and if a game company tries to exclude anyone on that list from receiving the same treatment, see above. It would help significantly lessen the appearance of impropriety- every expense the game reviewer had paid to the company, every shipment the company sent out to a reviewer, could be a matter of public record on a web site that the board maintained. Reviewers would have "some skin in the game".

The hardest part, from where I stand, would be making absolutely certain the Board remained independent and free of prejudice. They would have to receive no funding at all from the game companies, directly or indirectly; they would also have to have some means to suspend or remove reviewers who had broken a code of conduct (which would presumably largely consist of breaches of journalistic ethics); they would have to be absolutely above pressure from companies to censure particular critics for their reviews. I'd also recommend that there should be a way for a critic to keep his or her "accredited" status even if their parent company turned them loose, just to avoid things like the Gamespot "Kane & Lynch" debacle.

That's my "perfect world" scenario, anyway; I'm not pretending such a thing is ever going to come about on my say-so.

Weaver:
The game is, of course, dreadful and in places functionally broken but I wonder if reviewers would have been a bit kinder to it if they didn't have to shell out personal money for it.

Psychologically, I think it works the opposite way. When you pay money for something, you are more likely to praise and justify it, because you are invested in it. This is one of the reasons fans become so rabid - because they have invested time and money in their products, and they don't want to seem foolish for having bought an inferior product.

Imagine if clean air wasn't free to breathe. I'd imagine that the review scores for "fresh air" would go through the roof. But if you've lived your whole life somewhere with breathable air, you don;t even think about it.

I think the area where money mainly comes into this is the promise of future money. If somebody gives you something for free, you aren't invested in reviewing it positively or not. You already have it. However, if somebody promises future money based on an outcome (advertising revenue, etc.), then the situation changes. Likewise, if your livelihood is threatened by not taking certain actions (i.e: Kane & Lynch) then that's also a motivator.

A straight-up review copy doesn't really act that way. What does is the way that advertising revenue is what most review sites are dependent upon these days.

SirCannonFodder:

Perhaps you missed the "self-employed" part in their post? Regardless, in almost every other profession people either buy their tools or have them provided by their employers. Why should games journalism be any different? Unless the games companies providing them with games and consoles and flights are their employers?

Well, that makes it completely irrelevant, then. If you're self-employed, you pay for all of your expenses, not just tools.

Do self-employed cooks even exist? the whole idea of being a cook is that you work for a kitchen, which is presumably owned by somebody else. If you owned the place you cook in, then you are a business owner, a restauranteur, or a chef - even if you do some cooking, that's not primarily what your stake is.

The thing is, if game companies were in the habit of "implying" to the people who received their games that a good score was somehow expected, someone somewhere sometime would have documented this and revealed it. Yet this simply doesn't happen. Because that would be stupid, and believing that this is a thing that happens is stupid. People who cry about corruption and such nonsense are short sighted and bitter little people and we should all just ignore them.

Aardvaarkman:

Weaver:
The game is, of course, dreadful and in places functionally broken but I wonder if reviewers would have been a bit kinder to it if they didn't have to shell out personal money for it.

Psychologically, I think it works the opposite way. When you pay money for something, you are more likely to praise and justify it, because you are invested in it. This is one of the reasons fans become so rabid - because they have invested time and money in their products, and they don't want to seem foolish for having bought an inferior product.

Imagine if clean air wasn't free to breathe. I'd imagine that the review scores for "fresh air" would go through the roof. But if you've lived your whole life somewhere with breathable air, you don;t even think about it.

I think the area where money mainly comes into this is the promise of future money. If somebody gives you something for free, you aren't invested in reviewing it positively or not. You already have it. However, if somebody promises future money based on an outcome (advertising revenue, etc.), then the situation changes. Likewise, if your livelihood is threatened by not taking certain actions (i.e: Kane & Lynch) then that's also a motivator.

A straight-up review copy doesn't really act that way. What does is the way that advertising revenue is what most review sites are dependent upon these days.

That's a good counter point! I hadn't really considered that.

I guess it might come down to the type of person you are. The kind feels the sort of financial investment like you mentioned or the one who fells ripped off at a poor quality product you paid money for. I'm quite cynical myself and I feel pretty ripped off when something doesn't deliver on its value, personally.

I do have to wonder if, on a base level, the PS4 is even worth reviewing at all. The only people who have them, and subsequently the games for them, bought them months ago as pre-orders. I couldn't even go out and buy one as every store capped their pre-orders and sold out within like a week of their availability.

It's not like you're saving them money by telling them not to get something, because they already got it.

I believe that concluding shot just guaranteed Jim a role as the spare love interest in Mass Effect 4.

MatsVS:
The thing is, if game companies were in the habit of "implying" to the people who received their games that a good score was somehow expected, someone somewhere sometime would have documented this and revealed it. Yet this simply doesn't happen. Because that would be stupid, and believing that this is a thing that happens is stupid. People who cry about corruption and such nonsense are short sighted and bitter little people and we should all just ignore them.

Sadly, this is not the case.

I'm not saying, based on the above, that it's common practice; I genuinely hope it's not.

But few things are as likely to get you proved wrong as "always" and "never".

Hmm, I wonder how mad Jim would be if someone photoshopped a copy of Aliens Space Marines in place of the ps4. I assume he'd turn into Voltron and slay the offending photoshopper.

medv4380:
Clearly you missed the point the the embargo was set to the release date. No one could see those crappy reviews until after their pre-order went through. That was actually the point to the down to the wire embargo.

If they didn't get copies before the game then they'd have no game before launch and the reviews wouldn't hit websites until a day or so after launch. So, I think you're pretty wrong regarding embargoes. Yeah, they're bad but they're not as bad as reviewers not getting the games prior to release to have something prepared by day one at least.

I stopped watching Jimquisition weeks ago, maybe a couple months, but it wasn't because I didn't like them. It was primarily because several episodes were about things I knew about, and most of Jim's opinions are also my own. This was the first episode I've watched in a long while, and I'm really happy to see your sense of humor has not changed one iota. Keep gettin' 'em, Jim.

Aardvaarkman:

SirCannonFodder:

Perhaps you missed the "self-employed" part in their post? Regardless, in almost every other profession people either buy their tools or have them provided by their employers. Why should games journalism be any different? Unless the games companies providing them with games and consoles and flights are their employers?

Well, that makes it completely irrelevant, then. If you're self-employed, you pay for all of your expenses, not just tools.

Do self-employed cooks even exist? the whole idea of being a cook is that you work for a kitchen, which is presumably owned by somebody else. If you owned the place you cook in, then you are a business owner, a restauranteur, or a chef - even if you do some cooking, that's not primarily what your stake is.

You're missing the point, in either case, the person doing the job either pays for their tools or has their employer pay for them. Why should games journalism be any different?

SirCannonFodder:
You're missing the point, in either case, the person doing the job either pays for their tools or has their employer pay for them. Why should games journalism be any different?

So, what's to stop a self-employed chef being given free knives by a company? There are even plenty of self-employed chefs who are paid by knife companies to endorse the knives. Your point simply isn't true. Those aren't the only two ways a person doing a job can get their tools. They may have even inherited them from their grandfather.

Why would the client of a self-employed hair stylist care if the stylist was given a free curling wand? Plenty of hair salons get discounts to stock certain brands of product.

I guess I am missing the point. Would you care to explain what it is?

Jimothy Sterling:

Ken_J:
Wait. Blacklisted by Konami? HOW?

There is a Jimquisition episode called Konami. The road to blacklisting begun there.

It ended when I pretended to be the newly crowned head of Konami's PR department for a day. :)

All I can say is... Well done, Well done.

OT: Why would reviewers have to buy their own games/movies/music/whatever? Does a cop have to buy his own gun? I know I would be pissed if I had buy everything I need for my job.

...

After all that... I am less disturbed by Jim showing that he's been given a facilitating PS4... And more disturbed by the fact he licked it.

...Just... Eww... Unnecessary.

Then again... That's kind of the point isn't it? It's unnecessary for journalists to show off that way, since the journalist reviewer's job is to sit down, scrutinize the hell out of the subject's good and bad sides, and for the love of all that is holy, don't make it about you.

It's funny that this one little gag essentially sums up the entire stance so easily.

Well done Jim, you have again managed to find a perfect metaphor for the entire situation in the most uncomfortable manner possible... A Tactic that makes it very hard not to see your point.

While I don't expect reviewers, It still doesn't change the fact the larger sites like IGN and Gamespot are extremely less critical on bigger titles. Rome II and Machine for Pigs off the top of my head for example.

Their scores below 8 seem reserved mostly for indie titles that don't give them gift packages or ad revenue

Zubaru:
Did someone want a gif?
http://gifti.me/i/cMPhJWB3.gif

Yes! Thank you, good sir. I can now watch this endlessly, and it will serve as my recovery from the Aliens Colonial Marines blow up doll.

SirCannonFodder:

Aardvaarkman:

SirCannonFodder:

Perhaps you missed the "self-employed" part in their post? Regardless, in almost every other profession people either buy their tools or have them provided by their employers. Why should games journalism be any different? Unless the games companies providing them with games and consoles and flights are their employers?

Well, that makes it completely irrelevant, then. If you're self-employed, you pay for all of your expenses, not just tools.

Do self-employed cooks even exist? the whole idea of being a cook is that you work for a kitchen, which is presumably owned by somebody else. If you owned the place you cook in, then you are a business owner, a restauranteur, or a chef - even if you do some cooking, that's not primarily what your stake is.

You're missing the point, in either case, the person doing the job either pays for their tools or has their employer pay for them. Why should games journalism be any different?

The servers that run the website are tools. The computers and software used to generate content for the website are tools. If a new system or application comes out; you don't have to buy it if you can't afford it, and what you do buy you must scrutinize heavily before purchasing -lest you be left with an inferior product (perhaps you will go to various review sites to make such a determination).

Games are not tools. They are review products.

Imagine if, as a self-employed person, you had to buy NOT ONLY the best in a line of new products that have just come out mere hours ago, but also the shittiest that no consumer in their right mind would touch within mere hours of their release. Every time, year-round.

There's the primary difference. That is why getting games for free is not 'bad jarnalizm'. Your site has to review every game when or before it comes out because, otherwise, it's old news and you won't get traffic.

Lightknight:
Hmm, I wonder how mad Jim would be if someone photoshopped a copy of Aliens Space Marines in place of the ps4. I assume he'd turn into Voltron and slay the offending photoshopper.

medv4380:
Clearly you missed the point the the embargo was set to the release date. No one could see those crappy reviews until after their pre-order went through. That was actually the point to the down to the wire embargo.

If they didn't get copies before the game then they'd have no game before launch and the reviews wouldn't hit websites until a day or so after launch. So, I think you're pretty wrong regarding embargoes. Yeah, they're bad but they're not as bad as reviewers not getting the games prior to release to have something prepared by day one at least.

Actually, not getting the review copies would be better. When movie critics don't get review screenings everyone knows in advanced. It's become a red flag that the movie is known to be bad by the studio, and they want to reduce damage from critics. The act of doing it actually causes a backlash unless the film has a cult following, like horror movies.

In the case of Aliens all the critics were aware for a month that the game was bad, but couldn't inform anyone due to the embargo of Feb 12, 2013 at 8PM.

What would be better is a Publisher like Sega who can get away with setting an embargo to the day of and after pre-orders are proceed get Black Balled by ALL Game Journalists. If a movie studio did that the critic Society's would do something. Critics don't like the movie coming out before their review can be read because a significant amount of the audience already knows if it's good or bad due to word of mouth. It waists the critics time watching the movie, and writing the review. This is why Movies that are screened Months in advanced have reviews a week or two before release. However, if a movie critic reviews a month in advance of the film they get black balled by their Union because breaking an embargo gives you the jump on your competition as well.

Game Critics can't do it because they are actively dependent on the Publishers, and Developers. They aren't organized like their contemporary counterparts so they can't collectively punish groups like Sega that have abused the system.

Aardvaarkman:

SirCannonFodder:
You're missing the point, in either case, the person doing the job either pays for their tools or has their employer pay for them. Why should games journalism be any different?

So, what's to stop a self-employed chef being given free knives by a company? There are even plenty of self-employed chefs who are paid by knife companies to endorse the knives. Your point simply isn't true. Those aren't the only two ways a person doing a job can get their tools. They may have even inherited them from their grandfather.

Why would the client of a self-employed hair stylist care if the stylist was given a free curling wand? Plenty of hair salons get discounts to stock certain brands of product.

I guess I am missing the point. Would you care to explain what it is?

Because the purpose of a games reviewer is to provide (as unbiased as possible) advice on whether or not a game is worth buying. If the reviewer is beholden to the company whose games they are meant to be reviewing for the basic tools needed to do their job (such as the console they have been given as a "gift", or an early exclusive they need for readership, etc), then they have a vested interest in giving the game a positive review, meaning the reader has no way of knowing if the review is genuine or not. And even if the reviewer does give their genuine opinion, that opinion could be influenced (consciously or not) by feelings such as gratitude or indebtedness to the game company. In short, having to depend on the people you're criticising taints the whole process. There's nothing wrong with taking a review unit, reviewing it, and then either returning it or disposing of it, but it's when things like these free PS4s, or being threatened with blacklisting, happen that the reviewer's integrity becomes undermined.

Cry as many do about their concerns regarding bribery and unfair reviews... All I can really hear is "Waaaaa! I want that stuff for free and now! Waaaa! No fair they got it and I did not! Waaaa!"

Jimothy Sterling:

sushkis2:
Am I the only one who thinks that Jim has lost quite a bit of weight since he first started his show?? Keep it up Jim.

Thank you! I've been taking steps to do so. Watching episodes from months ago is a shocker to me!

I noticed too! Good Job Jim! I've been trying my best to lose weight to and it can be rough with a sedentary job. Keep up the good work!

senordesol:

SirCannonFodder:

Aardvaarkman:

Well, that makes it completely irrelevant, then. If you're self-employed, you pay for all of your expenses, not just tools.

Do self-employed cooks even exist? the whole idea of being a cook is that you work for a kitchen, which is presumably owned by somebody else. If you owned the place you cook in, then you are a business owner, a restauranteur, or a chef - even if you do some cooking, that's not primarily what your stake is.

You're missing the point, in either case, the person doing the job either pays for their tools or has their employer pay for them. Why should games journalism be any different?

The servers that run the website are tools. The computers and software used to generate content for the website are tools. If a new system or application comes out; you don't have to buy it if you can't afford it, and what you do buy you must scrutinize heavily before purchasing -lest you be left with an inferior product (perhaps you will go to various review sites to make such a determination).

Games are not tools. They are review products.

Imagine if, as a self-employed person, you had to buy NOT ONLY the best in a line of new products that have just come out mere hours ago, but also the shittiest that no consumer in their right mind would touch within mere hours of their release. Every time, year-round.

There's the primary difference. That is why getting games for free is not 'bad jarnalizm'. Your site has to review every game when or before it comes out because, otherwise, it's old news and you won't get traffic.

And if they then return the review unit when they're done reviewing it (or dispose of it if returning it isn't practical), that's fine. Keeping it, such as with these PS4s, makes it a gift.

I approve the use of the Warframe trailer, 'The Call', cause its a Bad.Ass. trailer, not as awesome as 'The Profit' mind you, but still awesome.

and in a rare turn, both are mostly game accurate as well.

oh, right >.> the stuff Jim said >.>

I'm going to agree. Both sides are at fault here, but at the same time.... gamers will bitch about anything they think is 'unfair', so I generally consider it a wiser course to just not even acknowledge them in such instances.

SirCannonFodder:
Because the purpose of a games reviewer is to provide (as unbiased as possible) advice on whether or not a game is worth buying. If the reviewer is beholden to the company whose games they are meant to be reviewing for the basic tools needed to do their job (such as the console they have been given as a "gift", or an early exclusive they need for readership, etc), then they have a vested interest in giving the game a positive review, meaning the reader has no way of knowing if the review is genuine or not.

How does getting a free PS4 make the reviewer beholden to Sony, and require them to give a positive review? And how is that any different to a chef getting free knives?

I'm also wondering who bribed you to claim that that self-employed people in other industries only have two ways of obtaining tools - by either buying them themselves, or having their employer buy them? Who are you beholden to that would make you lie like that, instead of being objective and impartial?

Intensive Jimlick Unit. That is a remix that should exist.

Now... I'm afraid it's simply going to have to be a choice. If you want immediate reviews of new releases, you will either have to accept that the publishers technically gifted a review copy, or simply stick to companies who can afford to purchase in every new release at launch. Or alternatively, only review independant games with lower prices.

It's easy to be jelaous of journalists recieving their games for free, certainly, but it's the best arrangement to make sure there are plenty and recent reviews available. If everyone had to purchase every review copy, something would have to give.

Calibanbutcher:
So, remind me never to touch anything you own, Jim...
Ever.
Snippet
Now to drink the memories away...

Ah... I see. We have to remind you, because you're going to drink yourself into a stupor.

There is an issue here though... either we tell you... and you wonder why, then you look it up... or we inadvertently trigger your submerged memories.

But... if we don't remind you... you might touch his stuff and get cooties... or the gays or something.

I'm stuck here. I wanna help... but how is best?

Captain Jim 'Obvious' Sterling, not complaining but gee these things really seem hard to not get your head around but hey keep up the good abuse... I mean constructive abuse... wait no... critizium? meh whatever it amususes me so keep it up :)

That's the reason why you pick and choose reviewers you can trust and who share your taste.

SirCannonFodder:

senordesol:

SirCannonFodder:
You're missing the point, in either case, the person doing the job either pays for their tools or has their employer pay for them. Why should games journalism be any different?

The servers that run the website are tools. The computers and software used to generate content for the website are tools. If a new system or application comes out; you don't have to buy it if you can't afford it, and what you do buy you must scrutinize heavily before purchasing -lest you be left with an inferior product (perhaps you will go to various review sites to make such a determination).

Games are not tools. They are review products.

Imagine if, as a self-employed person, you had to buy NOT ONLY the best in a line of new products that have just come out mere hours ago, but also the shittiest that no consumer in their right mind would touch within mere hours of their release. Every time, year-round.

There's the primary difference. That is why getting games for free is not 'bad jarnalizm'. Your site has to review every game when or before it comes out because, otherwise, it's old news and you won't get traffic.

And if they then return the review unit when they're done reviewing it, that's fine. Keeping it, such as with these PS4s, makes it a gift.

The PS4 these reviewers are given are probably required to last the entire system cycle, and if they break it they have to replace it on their own dime.

I really don't know how it works, but it's a practice that really is fair, and I haven't seen really any issues so far. Some reviewed Knack poorly while others really liked it. It seems like the normal and honest reviews I've seen before. The "Blue Light of Death" stories have been covered well (if not a little too much) as well. If they were afraid of offending Sony, those would have been swept under the rug quickly.

Bottom Line is you have to buy what you like. I like reading/listening to the reviews from many outlets, but I buy what I want to buy because I think it looks cool. Unless all the reviews are completely lousy (as in controls don't work, or the game is broken), then I get what my preferences dictate.

SirCannonFodder:

senordesol:

SirCannonFodder:
You're missing the point, in either case, the person doing the job either pays for their tools or has their employer pay for them. Why should games journalism be any different?

The servers that run the website are tools. The computers and software used to generate content for the website are tools. If a new system or application comes out; you don't have to buy it if you can't afford it, and what you do buy you must scrutinize heavily before purchasing -lest you be left with an inferior product (perhaps you will go to various review sites to make such a determination).

Games are not tools. They are review products.

Imagine if, as a self-employed person, you had to buy NOT ONLY the best in a line of new products that have just come out mere hours ago, but also the shittiest that no consumer in their right mind would touch within mere hours of their release. Every time, year-round.

There's the primary difference. That is why getting games for free is not 'bad jarnalizm'. Your site has to review every game when or before it comes out because, otherwise, it's old news and you won't get traffic.

And if they then return the review unit when they're done reviewing it, that's fine. Keeping it, such as with these PS4s, makes it a gift.

Why return the review unit? Most product reviewers of low-ticket items don't return the products sent to them; mainly because it's pain in the ass and would just get thrown away as 'used'.

Food critics don't vomit their meal back onto the plate. Book critics don't send back manuscripts publicists and authors send to them.

Weaver:
Similarly, Prime World: Defenders( The tower defense game) had no review codes has a pretty low Metacritic score but I actually thought the game was pretty fun for the $10 it cost.

Except it's more likely the other way around. Game companies avoid review copies for games they know will be poorly received.

Besides, if "I thought it was better than it was rated" was grounds for any sort of assertion, I'd call the entire gaming industry corrupt for not liking Dynasty Warriors. Sans Jim, of course.

The wquestion is, "are these games poorly received because they aren't given away, or are they not given away because they'll be poorly received?" Reason points to the latter. Publishers will try and lock down a bad game by any means necessary. It should be a dead giveaway of a lack of their faith in a game that something's up.

That little "clip compilation" made me want to chew my own head off.

"[Reviewers] should be forced to pay for their own games and consoles."

You go ahead and try it, chuckles. Mein Gott, some people have such an entitlement mentality. "They are LUCKY to be providing a service to us! They should meet our ridiculously high and entirely arbitrary standards!"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here