Are you suggesting that being the first publication to release a review isn't a benefit?

The amount of attention Edge is getting over this should tell you otherwise. It certainly does have a bearing.

So you're telling me you won't consider any other review because Edge has one out and you rushed out to buy their mag? Fact is magazines have always had early or late reviews that has always been the trade off for having less embargoes, believe me the only attention that matters is from the people who buy magazines which doesn't matter to non mag outlets, most people on the net will see the score then move on until the other reviews come in.

OK its time to lock this thread.. this is getting ridiculous.

Agreed,this got a little out of control.Lets just wait more reviews come out and forget about this, guys.

We're long past that.

I'm telling you that the 1st review of a game always gets far more attention then the rest. That the first few reviews gain much more exposure for their publication. This is big publicity for Edge, they certainly sold magazines on the back of this and it's good advertising too, it's driving discussion and raising awareness about them.

You can't argue that there is no benefit to breaking a report (or review) first. It's a basic fact of journalism.

Maybe so now explain how a deal factors into this as being a magazine getting a review out first or late is part of the territory.

I'm not going to say that there was any sort of "shady deal" or that the score would have been any different if Edge didn't get the game earlier. My point is just that no publication should get beneficial treatment over another as it inherently raises an issue of bias, whether that bias is actually there or not.

That they recieved beneficial treatment is evident by the edge editors comment. They got the code earlier than other reviewers.

"You want to know how we got code early? We spent two decades building a thing that's respected the world over. Then we asked for it."

Imagine edge had given the game 7/10, now everyone on here would be talking about "Oh no Odyssey is doooomed!" and Edge's relationship with Nintendo will have been damaged by the negative discussions and outlook that would now be surrounding their future title. They wouldn't be getting the game earlier than other publications after that.

Edge wouldn't want to damage a business relationship that benefits them financially by recieving beneficial treatment over other reviewers.

The person I responded to is pushing the notion of a deal which as you've taken up the argument for him kindly explain the deal ohterwise if that's not what you're arguing I'll kindly say don't respond. Magazines have always had early and late reviews and Edge have had more late ones then early ones the problem with your argument is that outlets use different mediums the's no way to empose an embargo on mags that have been given review copies and no way for everyone to review at the same time before a game is released otherwise online outlets would have to wait for all mags to be release to not have reviews out before the mags and mags would have to delay release until the embargo which would impact business.

It's not being favoured it's just how the territory is Edge likely got copies the same time as IGN, GS and other big outlets who also asked they just happen to be a magazine with a release date before release of the game and embargo. Big outlets get copies because of the respect they've built up from consumers and companies otherwise in your argument anyone with a blog should be getting a copy.

You guys certainly know how to have fun :-/