"Take journalist Jeff Gerstmann’s termination from Gamespot some years back, one that received plenty of coverage from other gaming outlets due to the supposed reason of dismissal, his reluctance to give an Eidos Interactive game a better score; at this time, the publisher had plenty of advertising money in Gamestop."
Jesus, this is the only example these conspiracy theorists cling to.
There's no conspiracy. Publishers aren't paying journali...
13 minutes was more than enough for what they were offering. On top of that, the line was inching along. If there was no limit, people would be playing it all day. You need to have structure with these things.
Generalizing without substantiation is DragonKnight's trademark.
...A what...
Ubisoft is not going to scrap AC. They would be walking away from trucks of money. These theories never make any sense.
Ubisoft wants both AC and Watch_Dogs to be successful. Not one in lieu of the other.
Because the medium has evolved and grown bigger to the point where a game's story can continue past what's on the disc.
I have more proof that it isn't than you do that it is.
Where's your proof of that?
Don't like it? Don't buy it. This is ancillary content. You can enjoy the game to its full extent with or without it.
If people didn't buy it, they wouldn't offer it. Stop buying it.
It's a window. As an actor, Dinklage has no say in set design or construction.
Language, sweetie.
You posted a link to a singular site and you think it proves your point about the entire medium. That's silly.
Again you prove my point that you ONLY focus on the clickbait and sensationalists. Yes, they exist, but they're not the norm, and they're not a majority. That's a fact.
Thanks for proving my point DK.
You post a tab from a singular site. What does that prove? It proves the fixation I'm referring to.
Your second link glosses over the reality that the medium has expanded. There are more publications and more writers out there. You know what you get when that happens? A more diverse pool of opinions and sources for news.
Get over it already.
"Once upon a time gaming journalism was about informing their readers about games and what goes on in the gaming world. When you bought a magazine and looked at the articles you where provided with information and it felt that the writers genuinely liked games and enjoyed them."
It's still very much this way. Nothing's changed except for the fact that it's mostly digital, and there are tons more sources for readers to find news, reviews, etc.
<...
No, they did not, and this article doesn't posit anything.
I can has bubble?
Or maybe you should accept the fact that people have tastes that differ from your own. "Lol."
Go back under your bridge, sir.
I'm delusional to not believe gaming journalism is corrupt because of an incident that occurred 9 years ago? Or because I don't accuse the industry of corruption because a reviewer has an opinion of a game that differs from my own?
That's all it boils down to.