I personally prefer to read reviews from outlets that I know purchased their own copy of the game.
Why? If you've spent money on the game, that's a sunk cost.
Some people will try to make that cost look better to them, than it is.
In an ideal world, I would want gaming sites to have zero relationship with publishers.
Then don't go around saying PR strategies are not immoral. Instead teach people to actually understand what games consist of, either through educated guessing via previews, or in this case, not purchasing at all until external reviews are done by people outside of 2K's system - likely when the game has been released. Even calling out manipulative situations such as this one, might help a few people.
I just don't think 2K are doing anything wrong here. Someone is just doing there job and they're not misleading people any more than how everyone else does by not listing all of the games faults on the retail box. Everyone wants their products to be viewed as positively as possible.
Not everything is positive, so sometimes information is being hidden from a consumer.
Whether that is wrong or right, depends on how easy it is to pass on the information, in order to allow people to make an unbiased decision as possible.
Since 2K could easily allow independent reviews just by sending the game to most journalists, which takes less effort than setting up their approach, there's a hidden reason why they are doing so. They could tell us what that is, but they haven't.
Should you trust someone that unnecessarily hides information from you?
