The magazine havent be oficially been released yet so this review still isnt a "early" review.

Do this moron not understand that it takes a while to print all the magazines and then ship them out??

Says it was published October 12th.

When you're confident about your product, you don't need to pay for good reviews. And, let's be honest, SMO will certainly score pretty good in most of the media, because I'm sure it'll be a pretty solid game. So... I don't think that Nintendo paid anything.

So you think a company like Sega - a massive company surrounded by a one hundred foot high wall of highly paid lawyers that they run nearly every decision by - is going to commit an actual crime in order to get one possitive review?  And you think that a review publication of any size is going to do the same for a day's traffic?  In an industry that leaks like a sieve?  Given that review scores have an erratic effect on sales, that money is far better spent on marketing.

As one man recently pointed out, conspiracy theories are exciting but reality is often mundane.  The more logical answer is the reviewer probably rushed through the game and gave it a possitive score just to have an attractive review available before anyone else.

Edge has been doing this literally forever.  Their magazine comes out on specific dates, they don't want to be late, so they simply asked for it early.  It's only logical to be suspicious IF you presuppose impropriety.  This was a ridiculous accusation pulled out of the guy's ass for the sake of clicks or controversy or because he just couldn't think of anything better to write about.  

Where was this with other Edge reviews that have come out early?  Including reviews where they were lower than the later scores?  Hmmm?  Nowhere?  Thought so.  

I just wonder if Nintendo would be as understanding with EDGEs deadline if the game got a 7. I dont know any other EDGE reviews that came out early since I dont read the magazine. I just think the guy had a point. Where are the review for this in the other magazines releasing around this time?

Maybe, maybe not.  But blacklisting major publications is something done fairly rarely as it really doesn't stop anything and only earns you blowback.  Again, given the fact that positive reviews don't necessarily help sales and modest ones don't hurt, is it really worth fussing over?

I mean, Bayonetta 2 got a 93 and won awards, yet never crossed 1 mil.  Destiny got a 72 (I believe that was it) and crushed it, selling absolute gangbusters.  

The prestiege is lovely ammunition for marketing, but you can spin anything above an average score.  

Also, not sure what other big paper magazines there are for this other than maybe GameInformer?  But they conduct things on their own timeline as well.

Also, remember this guy works for Forbes reviewing and writing about games.  EDGE is a direct competitor who beat them to a headline.  Keep that in mind when considering his accusation.

Well any article from a bigger news site or publication dealing with video games are in competition with EDGE, so I dont see how thats relevant. I just see it as maybe some sort of deal was reached between Nintendo and EDGE. Not necessarily anyone paying anything, but Nintendo cherry picking that review. If EDGE gets to publish their review on October 12th, then everyone should be able to. 

*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.