Fact-Checking Policy

What We Fact-Check

Depending on the article and the claims it contains, fact-checking may include:

• game, company and product names;
• release dates and release windows;
• supported platforms;
• prices, editions and subscription availability;
• developer and publisher identities;
• direct quotations and attribution;
• system requirements and technical specifications;
• patch notes and version details;
• performance measurements;
• announced features and game modes;
• storefront and regional availability;
• links to supporting evidence;
• whether information is confirmed, reported, alleged or speculative.

Fact-checking also considers context. A statement may be technically correct but still require qualification when its source, platform, region, version or limitations materially affect how readers should understand it.

Preferred Evidence

NGB prefers primary and attributable evidence wherever practical.

Sources may include:

• official developer and publisher announcements;
• platform-owner statements;
• official storefront listings;
• patch notes and support documentation;
• technical specifications;
• direct interviews and on-record comments;
• public records and company documents;
• first-hand testing by NGB contributors;
• original data or measurements with a described method.

Secondary sources may be used when they provide original reporting, independent confirmation or relevant context that is not available from the primary source.

The appropriate evidence depends on the claim. A storefront may establish a listed price or platform availability, while a performance claim may require technical documentation, measurements or first-hand testing.

Basic Verification Workflow

1. Identify the material claim and, where possible, its original source.
2. Consider whether the source has direct knowledge or relevant authority for that claim.
3. Check whether the information is current and applies to the relevant platform, version or region.
4. Compare the claim with supporting documents, data, first-hand observations or additional sources where appropriate.
5. Separate established information from analysis, prediction, allegation and rumour.
6. Identify material limitations, uncertainty or conflicting information.
7. Determine whether the available evidence supports publication as fact, requires attribution or qualification, or is insufficient for the claim.

The depth of verification varies with the nature of the information. A release-date announcement, a technical benchmark and a serious allegation about an identifiable person or company require different forms of evidence and editorial review.

Breaking and Time-Sensitive News

Time-sensitive publishing does not remove the need to establish where information comes from and how certain it is.

When a story is still developing, coverage may:

• attribute information directly to the available source;
• identify details that remain unconfirmed;
• avoid conclusions that go beyond the available evidence;
• explain when information remains subject to change;
• be updated when official confirmation or additional context becomes available.

NGB prefers a qualified report that accurately reflects the available evidence over an unsupported conclusion published for speed. A developing story can be incomplete without being inaccurate when its limitations are made clear.

Press Releases and Promotional Material

Press releases, promotional trailers and company statements can establish what a developer, publisher, platform owner or manufacturer has announced.

They do not by themselves establish that:

• a feature will work as described in the final product;
• a performance target has been achieved;
• a product offers good value;
• a comparative marketing claim is accurate;
• a planned release will occur on schedule.

Promotional claims are attributed to their source when independent evidence is unavailable. Coverage distinguishes announced targets and marketing statements from results observed in released or tested products.

Quotations

Direct quotations are checked against the original interview, statement, transcript, recording or publication where those materials are available.

Quotations are not edited in a way that changes their substantive meaning.

When a quotation comes from original reporting by another publication, NGB credits that reporting where appropriate.

Shortened quotations retain the speaker’s intended point and should not remove context that materially changes how the statement is understood.

Rumours, Leaks and Anonymous Claims

NGB does not normally rely on unnamed sources as evidence for published factual claims.

Anonymous social-media accounts, forum posts, alleged insiders and unattributed messages are not presented as confirmed information simply because the claims have circulated publicly.

Several accounts repeating the same underlying rumour do not automatically constitute independent confirmation.

When an unconfirmed claim is relevant enough to discuss, coverage identifies:

• that the information remains unconfirmed;
• where the claim originated, where that can be established;
• what evidence is available or missing;
• whether an official response exists;
• why the claim is relevant to the story or player expectations.

More detail on the treatment of confidential and unidentified sources is available in the Unnamed Sources Policy.

Reviews and First-Hand Claims

A contributor may state that a game, demo, build, platform or product was tested only when that access actually occurred.

Review fact-checking may include:

• confirming the tested platform;
• confirming the game version or patch;
• checking graphics and performance settings;
• separating observed behaviour from editorial opinion;
• checking whether a reported technical issue can be reproduced;
• identifying material limitations in the testing conditions.

A reviewer’s judgement is an editorial assessment rather than a factual measurement, but the access, circumstances and observations used to support that judgement should be represented accurately.

Performance and Benchmark Claims

Performance claims are based on identifiable observations, measurements or data appropriate to the conclusion being presented.

Where material, technical coverage may identify:

• CPU and GPU;
• memory and storage;
• display resolution;
• graphics preset;
• upscaling or frame-generation settings;
• game version;
• driver or system context;
• testing method and limitations.

A result obtained from one hardware configuration is not presented as universal performance across every PC or console.

Technical measurements are described with enough context for readers to understand what was tested and what the result does not establish.

Regional and Platform Differences

Release dates, prices, ratings, subscriptions and availability may differ by region or platform.

When a regional or platform difference materially affects the article, NGB identifies that distinction rather than presenting one market’s information as universally applicable.

Information established for one version of a game is not automatically applied to other platforms without supporting evidence.

Sensitive Claims

Claims involving cybersecurity, privacy, harassment, legal disputes, consumer harm, safety or reputational allegations receive additional scrutiny appropriate to their potential impact.

Verification may include:

• reviewing original documents;
• seeking an attributable response;
• distinguishing allegations from established facts;
• avoiding unnecessary personal information;
• consulting additional reliable sources;
• delaying publication when the available evidence is insufficient.

The seriousness of a claim is considered alongside the strength, relevance and clarity of the evidence supporting it.

Editorial Review

Editorial review may include checking material factual claims, source links, quotations, dates, names, technical details and whether the headline accurately represents the body of the article.

The level of review varies according to the article’s format, complexity, urgency and potential impact. Sensitive or consequential claims may receive additional review before publication.

When an error is identified after publication, it can be corrected even if the article was reviewed before publication.

AI and Fact-Checking

Fact-checking, source selection, source verification, research and editorial judgement are handled by NGB contributors and editors.

AI is not used to fact-check articles, select editorial sources, verify claims, summarise source material, conduct news monitoring or prepare editorial text.

NGB may use AI only for selected images, illustrations and other visual materials. AI-generated visuals are not treated as evidence or as a source for factual claims.

Responsibility for the accuracy, sourcing and context of published information remains with the editorial team.

After Publication

Published information may be reviewed again when:

• new evidence becomes available;
• a release date or supported platform changes;
• a game receives a material patch or update;
• a company revises an announcement;
• a reader submits credible evidence of an error;
• an article becomes materially outdated.

Factual errors are handled under the Corrections Policy. Information that was accurate when published but later changed may require an update rather than a correction.

Report a Possible Error

Email:

corrections@nextgengamingblog.com

Please include:

• the article URL;
• the exact statement involved;
• an explanation of the concern;
• a reliable source or supporting evidence;
• contact details if follow-up is requested.

Specific reports that identify the disputed statement and provide supporting evidence can be evaluated more effectively than general disagreement without a factual basis.

Related Pages

• Editorial Policy
• Publishing Principles
• Corrections Policy
• Unnamed Sources Policy
• AI Use Policy
• Feedback