SteelAttack said:
Aren't they the cause of this?
I believe so, yes.
It seems to me like Eidos is admitting that their game is less than amazing. If they doubt their own games, why shouldn't we?
I heard ages ago from IGN that this is commonplace.
From a marketers point of view, they want the best reviews. It's really up to the magazines. I wouldn't call Eidos corrupt, I'd say that the mag who accepts the deal
AND DOESN'T REALLY BELIEVE THE GAME IS A 9/10
Yet still runs it as that - well they are the corrupt ones. It's a reviewers perogative to just say no.
It will be fun to see what mags give the sot of coverage described above.
WTF the game is not a 9??? Fuck you gaf dude. This game better be excellent, dont destroy my dream.
As for the practice of embargos, yeah its terrible, but it's up to the press to not give in to this crap. Everyone should break the embargo at the same time, what is Eidos going to never appear in any game outlet again.
---
Tell me to get back to rewriting this site so it's not horrible on mobile
Unlike our no-longer-regularly-updated blog, corruption in the games industry has so far failed to go into hibernation. In the week that Eidos has breathed its last, they’ve decided to go out with a bang by brazenly attempting to artificially hype up their forthcoming Arkham Asylum release.
Several mags have their review code already, but have to sit on their reviews until a hateful embargo expires at the end of the month. But Eidos, ever the helpful fellows that they are, have been offering a way around this embargo. If you dedicate the cover of your mag to Arkham Asylum and guarantee a score of at least 90%, Eidos will allow you to run the review early.
We know that one editor has already valiantly told Eidos to fuck off, but we can’t tell you which to protect our Anonymous Dark Knight. We also asked the usually chatty UK Officially Corrupt Xbox 360 Magazine editor Jon Hicks about it, who tellingly clammed up tighter than a nun’s cunt at the mere mention.
But what of the others? Well, there’s an exciting way to find out in the form of a game that you can play at home over the next month called “Spot The Corrupt Arkham Asylum Review”. You see, Arkham Asylum is a decentish release that’s not quite up to par when it comes to variety and depth. This means even the most charitable outlets should settle at no more than the 80s in their verdicts, but don’t be surprised if you see a few 7s from the pseuds.
This means that if you see a mag turn up within the next few weeks (ding!) that features Arkham Asylum on its cover (ding!) and gives it at least 90% (ding ding ding!), you have a winner.
Exciting…
_______________
I guess this is somewhat accepted as standard practice these days (just look at GTA4, MGS4, Ass Creed and many more), but I can't help but think if there is someone else that should share the burden of guilt because of this. I mean, someone else besides the publisher that resorts to shady PR moves in order to seel its game at all costs, or the gaming press who willingly bend over and accept the publisher's conditions to circumvent the embargo.
Namely, the people who live and die by reviews and their scores and base in them their purchase decisions.
Aren't they the cause of this?