Guess this was kind of a pointless discussion then. Wouldn't have known that without asking about it though. Thanks.

I don't know whether this is corruption or not, but here's something I was a close witness to:

Game gets reviewed (poorly) at launch.

Call gets made.

Reviews gets 'revised'. (Increases substantially with apology header).

Do you believe all developers have an equal chance of making such a call and getting such a 'revision'?

I'm not questioning whether the revision was necessary here, just that I believe the press will react accordingly to the 'threat' they are made, and this depends on how big a developer/publisher they are dealing with.

It is easy to ignore the plea from a small studio, but much harder to resist the onslaught of a multi-AAA game studios.

I'm not sure how to understand some of the people in this thread who are very clearly and concisely describing what would be called graft if a politician were doing it, yet then going on to say that is not at all corruption. It's very much corruption. It's just a matter of whether or not you agree that the corruption is acceptable.

That just depends if they declare it or not. Politicians have gift registries, so the public knows who is trying to win their graces. It's only when they secretly accept gifts that heads roll.

Likewise, reviewers should declare any excessive gifts they receive from studios (excluding copies of the game, but probably including junkets...).

Yes, if they're being 'paid' by the company they're reviewing then they're obviously biased, and their readership would want to know.

...but "swag", review copies, or being acquainted with a dev aren't really big enough things to warrant a disclosure statement.

Disappointingly, magazines showing advertisements for games probably internally decide that they don't need to disclose this conflict of interest, because it should be obvious to the reader already

If they picked me up in a blackhawk helicopter i still would write : who needs call of duty 5000.

And i also had a strong feeling these game review sites are owned by big game companys,

they Always say how great every game is.

But GameSpot was being paid a fortune to advertise a shitty new game, and one of their reviewers rightfully gave it a shitty review. His editor then changed it to a 9/10 review before publishing, because otherwise they'd lose the advertising deal, so the reviewer quit and told everyone that this kind of stuff goes on.

It may have been IGN (or it did the same as GameSpot), according to a joke in this comic strip (see step 8):
http://www.dorkly.com/post/66182/how-to-run-a-successful-videogame-kickstarter

http://www.dorkly.com/post/66182/how-to-run-a-successful-videogame-kickstarter

Love the subtlety there :)

I'm going to be proactive and simply ban any Zoe Quinn discussion from this thread outright.

Good.

Interesting.

What about that game journalist group email dump thing and some journalist "apology"?