| Puppyroach said: I don't get it: So MS paid them to do favorable Xbox coverage. What is the difference between this and advertising? Also, we have numerous "official Xbox, PS, Nintendo" review sites, does anyone think they will ever be objective? So I don't really get what the complaint is? Someone care to explain? |
The issue isn't that they were being paid for the favorable coverage, the issue is that they weren't upfront about it, indeed they're accused of outright hiding the fact. You ever watch a commercial and see a lot of tiny white print at the bottom of the screen? That's the stuff telling you that the celebrity endorsing the product is being paid for their time, or that the account given in the ad is being made by an actor not some schmuck off the street giving you a heartfelt recommendation (unless otherwise stated of course). It's a truth in advertising thing, people are generally more prone to trusting an endorsement from someone they feel is unbiased, and to try and atificially create that sense of impartiality is tantamount to false advertisement.
