The man told jurors he spent hours listening to far-right podcasts before breaking into the Pelosi home and attacking the then-Speaker’s husband with a hammer.
The man told jurors he spent hours listening to far-right podcasts before breaking into the Pelosi home and attacking the then-Speaker’s husband with a hammer.
Gamergate started with the premise that professional game reviewers were being biased by publishers due to being granted preferential treatment and access.
All the same stuff people are saying now about Clarence Thomas, which is TRUE, they were saying about video game reviewers back then.
I was actually a game reviewer back then, and, yeah, I got review codes for games and backstage access at Pax… it didn’t influence my reviews though and I never had pressure from publishers or editorial to give good reviews for access.
By having those privileged access doesn’t it have an implication regarding the tone of the review you’re making? If you shat on the game that the publisher gave you access to there might be a possibility that they won’t invite you to future events?
This had happened on PC component review space. I remembered that LTT used to get review units for Apple products, but because of their reviews mostly just shat on Apple products, Apple basically stopped inviting them to events and sending review units.
There’s the possibility it could happen, all I can say is I never saw it. Everyone was perfectly cordial before and after reviews.
Largely I think because when someone releases a garbage game, everyone knows it. The two biggest disasters I reviewed were Brink and Duke Nukem Forever, both of which I was granted backstage preview access for, both of which released in an absolute shit state.
Of the two, I still feel bad about Brink, it had such promise as an IP and then just absolutely fell apart.
Gamergate started with the premise that professional game reviewers were being biased by publishers due to being granted preferential treatment and access.
All the same stuff people are saying now about Clarence Thomas, which is TRUE, they were saying about video game reviewers back then.
I was actually a game reviewer back then, and, yeah, I got review codes for games and backstage access at Pax… it didn’t influence my reviews though and I never had pressure from publishers or editorial to give good reviews for access.
My experience may not have been the norm though:
https://www.gamezone.com/originals/the-fallout-of-the-kane-lynch-debacle/
By having those privileged access doesn’t it have an implication regarding the tone of the review you’re making? If you shat on the game that the publisher gave you access to there might be a possibility that they won’t invite you to future events?
This had happened on PC component review space. I remembered that LTT used to get review units for Apple products, but because of their reviews mostly just shat on Apple products, Apple basically stopped inviting them to events and sending review units.
There’s the possibility it could happen, all I can say is I never saw it. Everyone was perfectly cordial before and after reviews.
Largely I think because when someone releases a garbage game, everyone knows it. The two biggest disasters I reviewed were Brink and Duke Nukem Forever, both of which I was granted backstage preview access for, both of which released in an absolute shit state.
Of the two, I still feel bad about Brink, it had such promise as an IP and then just absolutely fell apart.
Kind of funny that nowadays people just watch random YouTubers who get review codes instead, and don’t seem to care.