Another Youtube instance of journalism corruption. A YT member that critiques video games asked and got a beta of a game (can't remember all the details as it was covered in Angry Joe's 2012 or 2013 Top Controversies) and when the critic gave the game a poor review the developer pulled the YT Copyright crap to get the review pulled. There are other instances where indie developers will use copyright to get videos pulled that badly review their game even if it has no actual game footage (also covered in Angry Joe's Top Controversies of 2012 and 2013 videos). Sorry for being vague, but not watched either video for a month or so.

That's not corruption. Journalistic corruption is when a developer makes some sort of bribe to a journalist to get good reviews, and the journalist accepts the bribe and gives the dev a good review.

True, but I think the point Specter was trying to make was that it is a form of integrity within games journalism and that the GamerGate crowd aren't so much interested in journalistic integrity on the whole, as much as they are cherry-picking stories or supposed stories that fit into other agendas. There is no single "GamerGate" of course, and they cannot be everywhere, but the odds that they would be untainted by underlying agendas of some using the tag while at the same time having the general slant to what they pursue that they do are quite long.

That's not corruption. Journalistic corruption is when a developer makes some sort of bribe to a journalist to get good reviews, and the journalist accepts the bribe and gives the dev a good review.

Didn't even register with me that I put journalism corruption, it was supposed to simply read as another example of YT corruption. Either way, as Rayne pointed out it shows the developer had questionable practices and Youtube has basically made policies to allow developers to pull content for any reason they want.

Its a review, its a fucking persons opinion on something, if the author simply lied about it, saying the game have x, y, z, but the game have only t and w, than youre into something, otherwise its like everyone is butthurt because they believed in someones/some media biased opinion. Blame yourself too.

You either was convinced by logic, with means theres nothing wrong with the review, or believed in biased opinion, shame on you. Go watch gameplay videos, mute it if you too weak on the mind. Who the hell goes "let me see if site X is talking good things about that one game, so I can buy it or not" -> humam scum

So ppl even bribe to get good reviews? Damn, I dont want to be called a gamer, what a bunch of dumbfucks..

It already pisses me off that ppl buys pre releases...how they can buy a game that they dont even know is good or not..oh wait, they read SITE REVIEWS!!!!

Of course IM the one that have everything backwards, it would be immature to say Im the only one right and everyone is wrong ¬_¬

Lets fight for honest propaganda, capitalism that visions ppl happiness and not money!! wooooooot /o/

It already pisses me off that ppl buys pre releases...how they can buy a game that they dont even know is good or not..oh wait, they read SITE REVIEWS!!!!

I don't buy anything until it is $20-$30. I've not bought a new release in years and not bought a pre-release ever. Of course I also look at gaming sites and see what gamers have said about the game (not read a game review since maybe Metal Gear Solid 4).

True, but I think the point Specter was trying to make was that it is a form of integrity within games journalism and that the GamerGate crowd aren't so much interested in journalistic integrity on the whole, as much as they are cherry-picking stories or supposed stories that fit into other agendas. There is no single "GamerGate" of course, and they cannot be everywhere, but the odds that they would be untainted by underlying agendas of some using the tag while at the same time having the general slant to what they pursue that they do are quite long.

The thing for me is that those stories came out before gamergate ever existed. Most people would support the idea of integrity in games journalism (disclosure of interests, separation of advertising from editorial, etc), but gamergate is patently not about that.

Agreed, they're not about that at all. The industry is ripe with practices that legitimately deserve criticism of ethics. GamerGaters, apart from perhaps a few useful idiots, have no interest in that. They're seeking out, if not downright fabricating, stories that support their agenda.