Releasing half-assed games. Rushed games. Destroying franchises to cash in on the newest gaming fad. Buying and destroying studios just to eliminate competition. Locking down sports licenses so you can continue to charge absurd rates on rehash after rehash. Setting precedents of contracts that limits a worker's rights. Trying to forcefully change the gaming medium, both in software and hardware. Trying to undermine middlemen with unfair charges to the customer. Oh, and releasing beta quality games and games that lack core advertised features (or omitting core restrictions until the game has shipped).
Puppeteer is amazing. The way it's advertised, talked about by gaming sites("Puppeteer is a little quirky, perhaps even a little insane in places, but unashamedly so) misrepresents it.
What this guy is trying to say is that we have stereotypes and our stereotypes lead to prejudice (ie conspiracy theories). Problem with this line of thought, this kind of cop-out toward the question of whether or not reviews are paid by game companies, is that it circumvents the problem. Reviews DO do this. You don't need to address our psychological tendencies.
Review sites are paid with ad money, they are given free games, access to events and interviews. Anyone who has read a few dozen reviews can tell you that they've read reviews that are absolute trash bull, and they'll probably read a few reviews by someone who didn't even play the game. We've seen employees fired for giving bad reviews--including this website--seen favors given. Hell, Cam even says that the problem is whether or not it is common, not non-existent.
@Danny_KickAzz @mellow09 I can't stand when someone has the gaul to mock a group of people's relative intelligence, while displaying a lack of intelligence of their own. I suppose it's even worse when that person ignores the criticism. To quote, "Sad...very sad."
mellow09's comments