Of course I know what's happening with Pitchford. But what do his legal problems and financial chicanery have to do with the publisher playing favorites with review codes?
No. They should remain unbiased and professional. I want to know that they will rate a game based on the games merits and not be influenced by petty shit.
Borderlands/ Gearbox is surrounded by controversy from both Randy and 2K, that's what I'm talking about. Randy is an all-around shithead and I really don't like that he's the head of the company that makes one of my favorite IP's, and 2K is one of those companies that you can tell literally cares about nothing but scraping money. They both make it hard to talk about Borderlands because the scummy shit they both pull are usually the center of attention.
the 2k drm they're talking about only for reviewers sounds like a nightmare
The whole thing was blown out of proportion. Randy was researching camgirl ejaculation for BL3's new physics engine. /s
Na, it's not shitty at all especially when the game is from known sleazebag Randy pitchford. Some may not care but that doesn't make the ones that do bad.
Imagine a world where the leader of a nation denies access to a press conference to all media outlets that have ever been critical of him, but will send a video copy of it to the previously mentioned outlets when the "good" outlets file their reports on the 6pm news. It's controlling the narrative. That's not a good thing, whether it's for something as big as a press conference or as niche as a high-profile game release.
I don't have your experience etc but that all makes a lot of sense. What stopped the other review outlets throwing the PR company under the bus though? Why didn't they call out the cherry picking and selective coverage?
That's just how it works everywhere. It's access journalism. Also in games a lot of people are in it because they're basically paid fanboys and girls. And there's no solidarity across company lines. One outlet loses access? Great, one less to compete with for clicks.
I don't see those as the same thing...at all lmao. It's not like they're only sending it to a select few outlets, they're sending it to enough outlets that'll most certainly be unbiased in their reviews. They're just not sending it to one independent outlet, who isn't really entitled to a copy anyway.
How is it petty to essentially manipulate review scores in an industry that can see sales vary wildly due to said scores?
I meant it's petty to not give Giant Bomb a copy for free because they (Gearbox) didn't like what they (Giant Bomb) said about them during E3.
if only he wasn't the sole owner and founder left of gearbox...he woulda been booted long ago
