Where did you hear about that?

And how exactly you think you get movie reviews in your newspaper and online every week before said movie is actually released in a theater ?

Are you really sure about that? 

Considering how many magazine editors I know who openly receive thousands of dollars in "gifts" that are used to buy cover stories and good reviews, yeah, I'm pretty damned sure it's not illegal.

Interesting.

I'd have to read the text of the regulation itself to be certain, but my inclination tells me that it would not apply here.

"The revised Guides specify that while decisions will be reached on a case-by-case basis, the post of a blogger who receives cash or in-kind payment to review a product is considered an endorsement."

If I were the bloggers, I would argue that this does not apply because I am not being flown abroad and put up in a cushy hotel as a reward for reviewing the product; instead, it's a non-negotiable condition that I do so in order to receive a review copy. And as we all know, all-expense paid trips to play games are not a reward!

Even if it did apply, the FTC is usually the only group that can enforce its own regulations. You CAN use FTC violations to enforce a private action in some cases, but the remedy is usually rescission of a contract, which means squat-diddly here. And the FTC is not going to go after Kotaku: they're too small of a fish.

Actually, there is a way to stop it: regulation. Furthermore, it's NOT a free market: the FTC was created for the purpose of regulating these very activities, and that's what it's been doing for the past 70+ years. In light of some of the abuses of the actual free market that hitherto existed, I applaud this regulation, as should all consumers.

Furthermore, your proposed solution ("If you think a reviewer or publication may be on the take, don't read their reviews") would only be assisted via regulations: the government needn't make this activity illegal, it need only require disclosures of these facts. If the reviews begin with "Note: these are the things we received from the publisher as part of this review" then the consumer is better able to decide whether to give the review, and by extension the reviewer, any credence. Win-win, even by your own standards.

I have no problem with disclosure. I have problems with regulating the gifts that can be received and what constitutes a "gift". I don't need the government acting like the NCAA and trying to enforce Draconian regulations about the most minor of details in the business world.

Of course, there are ways to avoid disclosure most of the time as well but it really doesn't hurt anyone or cost businesses any money.

Nah, he's just a commentator.

 "Not illegal" and "not enforced" are not the same things. Much of the behavior that we abhore CEOs for pre-meltdown were illegal, but not enforced. Example: using company funds to throw yourself a birthday party and other goodies. This behavior lasted for years.

 Apples and oranges. You need a product to review it, everyone acknowledges that. What you don't need in order to make a review is "gifts" or "perks" from the publisher. This is a case of the latter.

"Comparing game reviewers to soldiers is just stupid"

No, just as a counterpoint to the claim the job of a reviewer is hard.

Reading comprehension FTL.

Where did the reviewer say that his job was hard?

You guys are letting Malstrom put words in the reviewer's mouth, completely misinterpret what he said, and you don't seem to even notice...

Sorry, missed this response the first time around. I can mostly agree with this stance, I just want gifts/perks/etc. to be disclosed so that I, the consumer, can better evaluate the reviewer's opinion.

And yes, there are ways to avoid the necessary disclosures. But much of the time someone eventually catches on, or you get sloppy, and if it turns out that your borderline case falls on the wrong end of the border you'll have to pay for your cleverness. I see no problems with this system. Shoot, it keeps me employed...