By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Nuvendil on 16 October 2017
Edit Thread
KLXVER said:
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. 

I don't give a crap when you speculate about whatever you speculate about.  But Erik Kain has no business making unsubstantiated accusations of criminal behavior against a competitor.  And there's very little room for interpretation when he says that this act by Edge should make us question if they're above board.  That is a direct and deliberate implication of unethical and ultimately illegal quid pro quo action on Edge's part.  And for Mr Kain, that is astoundingly unprofessional and borderline libel.  And given he works for a direct competitor that will put out their own review, it's profoundly self serving.

Asking for review code early so you don't have to either delay your standardized publication date by ten or more days or publish your review two weeks early is not a "deal".  That's a request.  One they make with probably every big game that this is an issue.  Sometimes publishers say yes, other times no.  Telling us to take it with a hugh hat full of salt is just dumb.

What you are basically saying is that for Edge to be clean, they should just be perpetually disadvantaged because of their business model OR bend over and kiss their own ass for whatever company is currently publishing the next big game.