Barkley said:
I'm not going to say that there was any sort of "shady deal" or that the score would have been any different if Edge didn't get the game earlier. My point is just that no publication should get beneficial treatment over another as it inherently raises an issue of bias, whether that bias is actually there or not. That they recieved beneficial treatment is evident by the edge editors comment. They got the code earlier than other reviewers. "You want to know how we got code early? We spent two decades building a thing that's respected the world over. Then we asked for it." |
The person I responded to is pushing the notion of a deal which as you've taken up the argument for him kindly explain the deal ohterwise if that's not what you're arguing I'll kindly say don't respond. Magazines have always had early and late reviews and Edge have had more late ones then early ones the problem with your argument is that outlets use different mediums the's no way to empose an embargo on mags that have been given review copies and no way for everyone to review at the same time before a game is released otherwise online outlets would have to wait for all mags to be release to not have reviews out before the mags and mags would have to delay release until the embargo which would impact business.
It's not being favoured it's just how the territory is Edge likely got copies the same time as IGN, GS and other big outlets who also asked they just happen to be a magazine with a release date before release of the game and embargo. Big outlets get copies because of the respect they've built up from consumers and companies otherwise in your argument anyone with a blog should be getting a copy.
