This has always been an issue with the enthusiast press, regardless of industry. I used to like what we did in game journalism to what people did in automotive journalism. Both groups rely on manufacturers (publishers) for the stuff they review, and more importantly, for access to in-development products, interviews, behind the scenes info, etc. Both groups also have audiences who expect both early pre-release info and hard-hitting, honest reviews, something that is occasionally tough to balance. In general, during the print era, both groups of journalists managed to strike a good balance, largely because the balance of power was more equal. Journalists could push back because there were comparatively few outlets, and manufacturers/publishers needed mags for publicity.The cost of goods, too, prohibited (and still prohibits, for the most part) any real thought of going it alone. Consumer Reports buys the cars the test, but their financial model is way different.Car companies couldn’t really fail to provide vehicles to reputable mags without stirring up more trouble than it was worth. Game publishers, though, could easily and with a clear conscience not send out copies, knowing the mags would just buy a copy anyhow.
Today, things are different. The Internet means there are virtually unlimited outlets for game info, reviews, streams, what have you. While this is also true in automotive journalism, I’m reasonably confident that reviews in enthusiast magazines (or on websites, YouTube channels, etc.) don’t impact car sales as much as reviews do game sales. There’s very little downside to a manufacturer providing access to a car reviewer these days, given that most cars are pretty damn good anyhow; the trick is making sure you get the right reviewer for the right segment of car (don’t send a minivan to the street racer channel). And the big three auto mags–Car and Driver, Motor Trend, Road & Track–have long standing relationships and pretty established (and quantified) evaluation methodologies that make it pretty easy for manufacturers to ride out the occasional negative review. And cars, assuming the car actually works as a car, which all of them do these days, will always appeal to someone, no matter the strengths or weaknesses of a particular model.
For games, though, oy vey. The cost of goods is nil, so companies can provide as many copies for review as they want (back in the day we actually got crates of boxed games, whee!). So many people want to get free stuff that there is no shortage of people willing to, ahem, provide services in return for free stuff, that it’s a seller’s (or giver’s) market. Most of the reviewers out there are not part of established publications with at least a modicum of a tradition and culture of responsible journalism. Some end up being very responsible and reliable, but others, not so much. There’s likely some pressure to give publishers what they want so the free stuff (and publicity, and likes, and viewers, and subscribers, etc. ) keep coming, I imagine, and not much upside to raking a game over the coals if it deserves it. Some reviewers do develop reps and followings that allow them to tell it like it is, but that is often somewhat rare. And that’s not even considering the phenomenon of people who feel compelled to destroy everything they review–something that in the old days we saw with neophyte reviewers but which we beat out of the quickly.
