Nuvendil said:
*sigh* It's relevant because a writer for a publication that reviews games just smeared a direct competitor and told their readers not to trust a competitor. He deliberately and intentionally attempted to undermine and attack a competitor's credibility. I find it amazing you find ethical issue with a review going out early and not connect the dots that what this guy did was a low blow, unprofessional, dickish, and pathetic. And other times Edge gets screwed and their review goes out late. They will get one or the other most times, nature of their business model. And for Edge to have the review early, they would need the code early. So the accusation here is of a bribe, straight up. And that's nonsense. As for why Nintendo holds the embargo later for most, Nintendo does that for the same reason all publishers do: timing. October 12 is really dang early. You want reviews to kick up interest not long before it launches, not two weeks prior and allow it to cool back down. This was something Edge requested. Otherwise, Odyssey would be reviewed in their November issue when it's old news. |
So who can question this then? I mean since all the proffesionals in this industry cant say anything? Do we have to wait for Joe Youtube to say something before we can speculate? Unless the Youtuber competes with EDGE...
The guy says nothing about a bribe. He just tells us that he wonders why EDGE got their review copy so early compared to others and to take the review with a grain of salt. I find that very reasonable to ask. Some deal must have been made. No matter how you look at it. EDGE couldnt release the review without Nintendo saying ok. So thats a deal being made. The bribe part is just speculation on your part as of what the reviewer meant.
