Nah, there's a huuuuuge difference between someone who's being paid a ridiculous amount of money as an entrepreneur/businessman failing upward while fucking over lots of other people in a very real way... and a games journalist getting a thing wrong, possibly, before correcting it.
Because the "failures" we're talking about here are often just a reasonable misunderstanding or point of confusion, and tend to be happening in the context of often not really being able to discuss/find info on a game with others pre-release when anyone playing the game after could just google it. Or just playing a game poorly (often in a situation where that's easily explained), and so on, which is literally a non-issue.
That's not really comparable at all to any meaningful "failure" and I am legitimately confused as what instances of this you could be seeing such that you'd make the comparison.
Stakes might overall be lower than some other businesses, but a bad review for a game from a notable/trusted outlet can have a cascading effect that impacts the livelihoods of many people (or even a few people more significantly). Most AAA games are more expensive in terms of pure dev cost than all but the most intense CGI films. When you add in marketing it can get ridiculous, even if you're not paying for multiple (or even necessarily one) award-winning actors to to voice or do motion-capture. Notable voice actors who are primarily voice actors are still going to be way cheaper than notable screen actors, especially Oscar-winning or "hot" ones. Like, no one is hiring Meryl Streep for their video game, or even Emma Stone. You're much more likely to get someone like Jennifer Hale or Nolan North, and even then that's two of the most prolific and respected voice actors, so they're still going to be significantly more expensive compared to Morgan from the cafeteria or whatever, as an extreme example.
It has been well-documented that review cutoffs as well as sales metrics can be used against developers to withhold monetary bonuses among other things, as illustrated by the well-publicized case of Bethesda refusing to pay out bonuses to Obsidian over a 1-point deficit from an arbitrary Metacritic goal of 85 or higher. There are enough other cases in the industry to go around. And that's just for the more technical developers shipping a product that isn't even a new IP (spinoff standalone expansion in the same engine), let alone a GaaS beyond some standard DLC packs. It has been documented that even in the "best" studios and often the "best" ones as well that extended crunch without appropriate compensation is a very real thing, even if the crunch itself isn't as intense across all studios. Not even counting other game studio workers that provide community management or customer support. QA as a more core development job is often particularly thankless.
So yeah, you could work on a game for 2+ years, maybe crunching a significant portion of that at 50-60+ or even more hours a week at sub-standard pay for the tech industry at large, let alone the games industry, to meet internal milestones and other deadlines, and then some big enough critic comes along who probably doesn't have much more than a bachelors degree in Journalism or English if that, or even a deeper background in tech, games, or whatever specific genre of games and decide that your game isn't up to whatever standard they might have, causing you to lose out on a significant bonus. Which isn't chump change in the places most game studios are located in the West especially.
To the original topic: I think game reviewers especially ARE threatened by streamers and people that record gameplay videos for YouTube or wherever because easily accessible gameplay footage/early impressions is something that game journalists alone were privy to.
PAX (and other conventions) as an open convention eventually forced E3's hand to become open to the public, as something that was previously only promotional for devs/investors/journalists.
The primary thing a standard streamer/YouTuber won't have is insider industry access and connections to do real investigative reporting outside of more public information like job openings or descriptions. But pretty much anyone can pony up $60 or whatever and post a review (text/podcast/video) once it's released to the public. The barrier to entry there is extremely low. The only question in that regard is if you have enough money or time to review everything notable. Smaller platforms certainly won't have the money to sustain the release rate of games themselves these days (even if you only covered AAA stuff), but they might have the time. Larger platforms might have the money, but not the time to cover everything or cover everything in-depth. It's a classic paradox.
For the record I encourage the calling out of bullshit by all parties involved in anything.
Anthem looks like a promising free to play game that you should totally remember but won't remember to check out again in a year to 18 months.
Fallout 76 is more like an avant garde interpretation of the Fyre Festival but as a video game.
Well that's a condemnation of Fallout 76 if I've ever seen one. And I mostly agree on the Anthem description, but since at least PC players (and Xbox players too I guess) have the option of demoing the full product for a month for $15, I don't think it looks bad at all. Let alone the $5 or less 10-hour trial. I probably wouldn't spend $60 on the thing, but like I've said before I don't spend $60 on hardly any game.
The only game on the horizon that I'd be willing to drop that much or more on would be Cyberpunk 2077 because it really scratches some pleasure points for me, even if it doesn't fully live up to the gameplay demo, let alone the other early trailers, especially coming off of The Witcher 3. It's a also a game I'd be willing to drop $2000 on a complete new gaming PC for, or buy a VR headset for if there's VR support, which is another $300+ probably. Am I overhyped? Probably, but no game in any recent stretch of ever has done a fully cyberpunk story as well as 2077 is shaping up to.