It's not a matter of opinion--some reviews are factually paid off. Game journalists have admitted it. Honest reviews have resulted in firings. The only debate is how naive some gamers are to think this is some made up issue. It exists in every industry.
People keep saying this like itís a common happening in the industry, and I would to hear those people provide one example that ISNíT the whole Jeff Gerstman Kane & Lynch thing. That was a clear-cut example of a review NOT being paid off, or at the very least an example of a reviewer who refused to sugar-coat his analysis of a game because money was involved. As many others have stated, it seems very likely that there is internal pressure within publications to gloss-up a review when there is some advertising money involved, but to think of it along the levels of a hand-to-hand bribe is excessive. Some people make it sound like they think Bobby Kotick from Activision is arranging one-on-one meetings with journalists in dimly-lit parking garages wearing a trench coat, rain hat and sunglasses, doing a hand to hand briefcase exchange. Thatís not reality, folks. --- Can someone bum me a sig? I'm fresh out.
#82DuwstaiPosted 2/6/2013 2:01:04 PM
From: Winternova | #080
You're right - there is a difference in the level of care...but, still, if they gave a northeast Ohio show multiple free copies of their games (usually a box of 5 for each system), why would they care about 1 copy given to a magazine or game website?
It isnt about the single game, its about the bad publicity it will spawn.
Those 5 copies they gave to you would end up with an opinion that would only reach a relatively small number of people. That 1 copy they gave to an IGN or something would reach millions.
Im not taking sides or anything here, but IMO that logic wasnt very sound. --- balls