| kn said: The "stuff" is generally corporate property as they are an employee of the corporation. I would imagine that 90+ percent of the "swag" stays in the office for use by anyone... Review guides are standard practice. Review embargoes are to protect their financial interest. I don't have a problem with any of them... |
The purpose of reading reviews is to determine whether or not a game is crap and if I should drop $60 on it or not.
If the reviewer is in the pocket of the game developer, then it completely defeats the purpose of having reviews.
Basically, this kind of thing means you can't trust reviewers anymore.
How would you feel if reviewers convinced you to buy a copy of "Grabbed by the Ghoulies" on launch day because Rare paid them to keep bad reviews from being made public until after the game's release?
"I mean, c'mon, Viva Pinata, a game with massive marketing, didn't sell worth a damn to the "sophisticated" 360 audience, despite near-universal praise--is that a sign that 360 owners are a bunch of casual ignoramuses that can't get their heads around a 'gardening' sim? Of course not. So let's please stop trying to micro-analyze one game out of hundreds and using it as the poster child for why good, non-1st party, games can't sell on Wii. (Everyone frequenting this site knows this is nonsense, and yet some of you just can't let it go because it's the only scab you have left to pick at after all your other "Wii will phail1!!1" straw men arguments have been put to the torch.)" - exindguy on Boom Blocks
