Fact-Checking Policy

What We Fact-Check

Depending on the article, NGB may check:

• 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.

The purpose of fact-checking is not only to identify obvious errors. It also helps ensure that a correct statement is not presented without the context needed to understand its scope, source or limitations.

Preferred Evidence

NGB prefers primary and attributable evidence wherever practical.

Preferred 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 human testing;
• original data or measurements with a described method.

Secondary sources may be used when they provide original reporting, independent confirmation or context unavailable from the primary source.

The authority of a source depends on the claim. A storefront may be appropriate for price and platform availability, while a technical claim may require documentation, measurement or first-hand testing.

Basic Verification Workflow

1. Identify the claim and its original source.
2. Determine whether the source has direct knowledge or relevant authority.
3. Check whether the claim is current and applies to the relevant platform, version or region.
4. Compare the claim with supporting documents, data or additional sources.
5. Separate confirmed facts from analysis, prediction and rumour.
6. Review material limitations, uncertainty or conflicting information.
7. Decide whether the evidence supports publication, attribution, qualification or rejection of the claim.

The depth of verification depends on the nature of the claim. A confirmed release-date announcement, a technical benchmark and an allegation about a company require different forms of evidence and context.

Breaking and Time-Sensitive News

Time-sensitive publishing does not remove the need for verification.

When information is developing, an article may:

• attribute the information to the available source;
• identify what remains unconfirmed;
• avoid overstating the available evidence;
• explain that details may change;
• be updated when official confirmation or additional context appears.

NGB should prefer a clear, qualified report over a faster but unsupported conclusion. A developing story may be incomplete without being inaccurate, provided its limitations are made clear.

Press Releases and Promotional Material

Press releases, promotional trailers and company statements may be valid sources for what a company has announced.

They are not necessarily independent evidence that:

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

Promotional claims should be attributed and qualified when independent evidence is unavailable. The distinction between an announced target and an observed result should remain clear.

Quotations

Direct quotations should be checked against the original interview, statement, transcript, recording or publication where available.

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

When a quotation is obtained through another publication, that publication should be credited where appropriate.

Shortened quotations should preserve 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 anonymous sources as evidence for published factual claims.

Anonymous social-media accounts, forum posts, alleged insiders and unattributed messages must not be presented as confirmed information.

Multiple accounts repeating the same rumour do not automatically provide independent confirmation.

If a rumour is discussed because it has become relevant to player expectations, the article should make clear:

• that the information is unconfirmed;
• where the claim originated;
• what evidence is missing;
• whether an official response exists;
• why the rumour is being discussed.

The popularity of a rumour is not a substitute for evidence.

Reviews and First-Hand Claims

A contributor may state that a game, demo, build or product was tested only when that access genuinely 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 opinion;
• checking whether a technical issue is repeatable;
• identifying limitations in the testing conditions.

A reviewer’s judgement does not require independent verification in the same way as a factual claim, but the circumstances and observations supporting that judgement should be represented honestly.

Performance and Benchmark Claims

Performance claims should be based on identifiable observations or data.

Where material, coverage should 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 from one hardware configuration should not be presented as universal performance across every PC or console.

Technical measurements should be described in a way that allows 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.

Where a regional or platform difference materially affects the article, NGB should identify it or avoid presenting one market’s information as universally applicable.

Information confirmed for one version of a game should not automatically be applied to every platform without supporting evidence.

Sensitive Claims

Claims involving cybersecurity, privacy, harassment, legal disputes, consumer harm, safety or reputational allegations require additional caution.

Verification may require:

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

The seriousness of a claim should be matched by the strength and clarity of the supporting evidence.

Editorial Review

Where appropriate, an editor may review important factual claims, source links, quotations, dates, names, technical details and the relationship between the headline and the body.

NGB does not claim that every article is reviewed by multiple editors. Review intensity depends on the article’s complexity, urgency and potential impact.

Editorial review does not eliminate the possibility of error, which is why readers are given a dedicated corrections contact.

After Publication

Fact-checking continues after publication when:

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

Verified 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:

[email protected]

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, evidence-based reports are easier to evaluate than general disagreement or unsupported requests.

Related Pages

• Editorial Policy
• Corrections Policy
• Unnamed Sources Policy
• Feedback