[Ethics] GameStop-owned Game Informer and the ethical implications of its relationship with the video game retailer [x-post reddit] For those who have been in this for a while, you may recall this list of ethical concerns presented by Leigh Alexander. However self-serving her recitation of ethical issues may have been, I have always thought this detail about Game Informer certainly bears investigating. Although their site lists them as part of the GameStop network at the bottom of every page and this ownership is public knowledge (albeit perhaps not widespread among the average gamer), they also claim in their article on GamerGate that they make every effort to insure people are aware of the relationship between the retailer and the outlet. Since it seems no one raising this as something we should investigate has bothered to do so themselves, I decided to take a look and hold them to that standard of ethics and honesty. Articles about GameStop or mentioning GameStop by name do get disclosure or disclaimers, obviously, but in order to understand how this relationship could impact their coverage overall you have to get a good grasp of what is of interest to GameStop and thus of interest to Game Informer as a subsidiary. This New Yorker article is one place where you can identify the potential interests of the retailer. One major revenue stream for GameStop is used games, stated to be nearly half of their gross profits.  So how does Game Informer cover used games and are there ethical issues with it? Clearly, they see it as a potential ethical issue given this article regarding an EA exec's stance on used games contains disclosure about their relationship with the retailer, though not clarifying the reasons for that disclosure. Yet several different articles on used games do not contain any disclosure or disclaimer.  In some cases there is apparent bias as in this piece on the Xbox One's controversial plans for used games, where the author describes Microsoft as "punting the issue to publishers", phrasing that lends itself towards a negative view regarding Microsoft and its policy. In an opinion piece by a senior editor at the outlet, he argues that one potential barrier to the growth of the gaming community are more restrictive policies on used games. Nowhere is it mentioned that his ultimate employer gets a substantial part of its profits from used games. Like many brick and mortar retailers, GameStop is also facing competition from online game retailers that continues to prompt concerns that the retailer will eventually fold despite seeking new avenues for profit. How they cover these online services is also indicative as in this case where they discussed an online subscription service from EA. Although disclosure was included in an update that explicitly named GameStop, there was none previously and in a section for "our take" the writer essentially damn them with faint praise by repeatedly referring to the move as "smart" and state how "this experiment" will "pay off in a big a way for EA." One of the biggest forces in online sales, however, is Steam given how well PC releases sell on the platform. When the recent controversy over paid mods came up, Game Informer did an article on the Reddit discussion that mostly focused on negative criticisms and at one point refers to a "good question" raised by one of them. The article even uses as its image a screenshot from a game where Gabe Newell was added as an enemy. At the end of the article there is some more damning with faint praise in the "our take" section. The most explicit example of the bias is probably this "reader discussion" article where their framing of the debate shows very clear favor to criticism and hostility towards the change and thus towards the Steam platform. It starts out by asking if it would "create a new segment of game development" or is just a "shameless grab for cash", thus using more emotive language for the negative view and offering a weak alternative. There is them asking if they are happy modders will get paid for their work (something they describe as merely nice) and then countering that with "Or are you worried about the consumers?" At the end of the piece is their leading statement about how modders would only get 25% for Skyrim mods followed by asking if readers think it should be more. Suffice to say, they seem to be looking for a specific reaction from their readers that is unfavorable to a retail competitor for their parent company. Contrast their generally negative slant regarding Steam's paid mod policy with their rather enthusiastic embrace of Steam's refund policy starting with a headline stating "Steam Is Now Offering Refunds On Games For Any Reason" and singling out a quote on how you can game the policy by requesting refunds before a sale to rebuy at the sale price, though making sure to tell them not to go "overboard" with refunds as they might get accused of abuse. There is also a bit more of the damning with faint praise in the "our take" section.  I get many may gamers see those stances as consistent with a pro-consumer attitude, but in the case of Game Informer they are reporting on a competitor for their parent company or a market for said company often with no disclosure in those reports and have reported in a biased manner on those issues. Less-informed readers who may be unaware of Game Informer's affiliation with GameStop would not realize that these authors potentially have ulterior motives for their stances on these issues and not examine them as closely for potential bias. Even where they have disclosure they do not always sufficiently explain the nature of any conflict of interest that may arise from the relationship with GameStop. This post was mirrored from http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/3ari71/ethics_gamestopowned_game_informer_and_the/ and may have been edited at the original location.