Unfortunately this happens quite often. Most software and hardware companies do it to an extent. Some extort favorable reviews, bribe journalists to get them, or withhold funds to get what they want. These reviews are viewed to be financially critical. Poor review scores can damage a product and cost the developer millions of dollars. There are no saints here, and the devil plays for both sides.
The reviewers are often willing participants. Often being more then happy to review a game highly in order to steal advertising revenue from their brethren. Who often cry foul even though they probably did the same thing a few months earlier to someone else. Gaming journalism has never been a bastion of journalistic professionalism. They rely entirely on being spoon fed information, and rely on the companies to supply them with advertising revenue.
For those that do not want to play ball their is a abysmal fate. There are a dozen other gamers waiting for a shot to get that cushy reviewers chair. There are more then enough people out their desperate enough, hungry enough, and with little to no integrity. Who will gladly sell a company a great review.
The greatest problem is their are too many journalists. You need some monopoly formation to take place. Once a journalistic organization gets large enough they become more immune to corporate pressure. You want to see a few magazines and sites get so large that developers would be insane to not advertise with them, and if they push the publication. The publication can push back. Creating a large negative back lash.
People often think monopolies are bad things. However they do tend to generate universal standards, and in the end get universal rules of conduct set. Right now their are hundreds of small time players hustling for every scrap they can get. The competition is too fierce. Which makes exploiting the system that much easier. Will that ever change I doubt it. Just something we have to accept.







