| Zkuq said: I'm not convinced giving out review copies, or any kind of copies, in advance is a great thing to do either, but this is definitely anti-consumer |
Wait, what? So both are anti-consumer? What does that mean?
Fact is, pre-release reviews are handpicked by company, and are therefore less than indepent and objective.
But they are presented as independent reviews, so people trust them more than overt company PR.
Being the only reviews in the wild for a period of time means people WILL go to them for information, affecting their opinion.
EDIT: AND getting more views because they were out earlier pre-release means they are higher ranked,
better to attract MORE views even post-release when truly independent post-release reviews do come out.
In other words, a very collusive, corruption inclined system, that primarily benefits the few pre-release reviewers.
Getting rid of that system means objective independent reviews will be on the same footing,
and company-promoted reviews will not have the exclusive time window advantage to "queer the pitch".
If you care about objective reviews, you can still purchase on the same date you would have had independent reviews before.
If you don't care about them, you can still purchase on the same release date without objective independent reviews.
The only difference is dropping the non-independent handpicked reviews, which are basically disguised PR.
I don't see how that is anticonsumer to remove one avenue for disguised opinion manipulation by company PR.
I don't see how this is anti-consumer.
It is obvious why media, youtubers etc who were profiting off of pre-release system don't like the change.
It is obvious the conflict of interest between media coopted to PR and actual consumer interest.
