"No review copies?! Anti-journalists... I mean, anti-gamers! Consumer advocacy, HO!"

hot opinion le epic contrarian 14 year old

How is it bad? They only give copies to certified bribed shills so they can rate it 9.5/10 before the game is even out.

That is important to anybody but the reviewer because?

It's hilarious to me that these types of people scream about "muh journalistic integrity, we were only searching for the Truth man!" when they loose the ability to get clicks off of shit but they could care less all the 365 days of the year when they decry the "muh ethics" message

Either way I'm glad Gawker and GG are both dead

The article is correct. It's bad for everyone except the publisher who wants to control the information flow regarding their average to mediocre games. It's exactly the same thing as review embargoes, except now reviews will be published even later than that because there is no lead time whatsoever.

Unfortunately this, I'd be pissed at this if it weren't for the fact is the alternative is outright collusion, if these publishers didn't hate the gaming press they would be right in bed with them.

but it's almost guaranteed that, as long as publishers grant any "selective privilege" to specific reviewers, that these reviewers will be competing eachother in a publisher cocksucking contest so as to not lose that review copy privilege and by doing so gaining popularity and traffic for themselves

Yeah, being in the pocket of the publishers is how you get a review copy in the first place. Sensible people don't buy games day one anyway so even if gaming jurnos gave fair reviews I would still not see what the fuss would be about.

so people can buy it day 1, with some semblance of an idea of the quality of what they are buying. This is all assuming the revoewers aren't brain dead stupid or paid out, which would be never.

FTFY

Every other reviewer IS shit. The problem is many reviewers are 'specially selected' or bribed to make a good review. This way, we may start seeing more reviews from normal people have more relevance. Before, everyone had to wait for those SJW to have the first word.

If not for review copies Gone Homo would never have become big.

You're just helping the other argument even more

People need to learn how to pirate and make decisions for themselves. Journos can get fucked.

It's hard to pirate something that hasn't been released yet.

You don't have to buy it on release day, silly.

If you rush out to buy a game day 1 then you run the risk of getting a bad game or you can wait a bit and see what other people who did buy it have to say about it.

Reviews nowadays are either rewriting the games PR release into a review or social commentary shit, they provide fuck all information on whether the game is good or not. All this does is stop reviewers from getting free shit.

Except it's the exact opposite. Now that publishers won't give games to review to their handpicked and/or paid reviewers, people will be more inclined to wait after day 1 to see what the game is like, not necessarily from corrupt reviewers

Review copies wouldn't be a bad idea if the whole industry wasn't the shitshow it is, as a day one purchase shouldn't be an automatic mistake, even though it most definitely is today. The idea is that reviewers get an early copy to say if the game is good or not so when it comes out people know to buy it or not, but I guess it is stupid anyway because no dev would give out a copy unless they knew the reviews were gonna be gleaming. So ok, I concede, review copies are shit.

Let's pretend for the sake of argument that piracy is not a solution. How else do you resolve the lack of consumer information about a product? If no one can review it before it goes on sale, the only published information is pure speculation and publisher approved marketing.

If publishers were hand-picking reviewers to give their product favorable reviews, and withholding copies from anyone else, why would they want to cut off that positive coverage? Your conspiracy theory makes no sense.

Games "journalists" have become so, to use their own terminology, toxic that it's harmful to marketing and sales to let them be involved. The publishers are making a logical decision that has been a long time coming.

yes this. Make no mistake there will still be countless of fucking mindless, inpatient retards who will for a short time, in absence of these pre-release reviews, significantly boost a publishers sales but they will learn for it and then the "video game industry" will have reformed a bit for the better

It would matter in an industry where Driv3r style misrepresentations by these reviewers isn't happening every other month. Not only do reviewers get paid off, with some of the footage they've put out, I don't even trust them to understand how a game could be bad or great on their own either.

As it stands, pretty much anything that could possibly earn them less money is something I'm down for, outside of the "nuke it from orbit" scenario where video games stop existing entirely. I don't want them to have review copies, I don't want them to be given interviews, I don't want them to have hands to play games with. Arguing whether something like this is "consumer friendly" or not is like criticizing the size of the dick you're getting fucked in the ass by. Not a single thing they say is going to actually matter until the consumers get access anyway and find out for themselves, so why even bother to listen at all?

I'd say that I'd listen more if this was pointed at independent reviewers, but even just Candid alone proved fairly well most of them are hacks too.

I'd hate to say it, but it almost seems like Bethesda has noble intentions if they are sacrificing their hype for journalistic integrity.

Bitch please. It's been a known fact that undisclosed bribes have been a thing in the game industry for a while.
Why this particular publisher decided to stop now may be due to it wanting to focus the advertisement somewhere else, like trailers and such. Or maybe they think bribing reviewers isn't the most effective method and they want to try something different

The games already out, its skyrim with better textures. Whats the point of review copies?

I mean, if its for every single game Bethesda makes from now on, then there's a problem.

Don't misconstrue their actions. This is only to preserve the hype train, barring journalists from raining on their parade with any negative criticism, and letting places like reddit hype it unabated and for free.

I love how they realize they are getting worked out of the system thanks to let's players and are now kicking and screaming about having to get real jobs

it is for all bethesda games AFAIK.

As if anyone but the craziest SJWs would do that. Jurnos are third party shills.

Only bethesda completely cut off access, ea and others are still game for that positive coverage from select outlets. I honestly don't know why bethesda did what it did, and it is absolutely certain they're only doing anything ever for their own benefit, but it's possible that in this case, for whatever reason (maybe they have miscalculated their jewry or something and think this is the best way to make money), that this doesn't SOLELY benefit them

Journalism used to be a real job, and still is in some areas. It's sad but it's become incredibly sensationalism in most of them

...

They wouldn't so long as they are paid out, but like I said, why pay a journo to do what reddit will for free, and possibly more efficiently.

I would like to believe this would make consumers more cautious about buying games at launch but it wont. People will just buy into hype even more.

Not really, they've been making the same game over and over again since Oblivion. Still using gamebryo even. You don't even need to read a summary to know what you're going to get anymore.

Then how did you learn about them? Do you have a source, or are you just parroting what you've heard user say over and over again?

I'm legit surprised they sided with gamers in this one. I even thought that the AAA companies would pay them off for this happening. But actually the journalists are still acting purely on their own selfish interests:

The fact that many many reviewers, including the well-noted ones, will now have only hours to play, formulate, and write up a lengthy reviews means that it's going to be up the fucking creek for them come hell and high water. So they complain and side with gamers because they want back their several weeks early review copies.

This is also really bad for the industry. This is essentially going to rush more shittier reviews. Gotta cash in on dem page views during the release day hype. And this loss of review accuracy effects the brainless consumers.

It only hurts retards who can't wait 1 or 2 weeks to get the new hot game, like pic related.

Now is this bethesda not giving out review copies or bethesda not giving kucktaku review copies? Because the latter is understandable.

Honestly doesn't effect me either way. I don't buy behesda games and even if every company did this I always wait until the games out so I can see what it's actually like before I buy it anyway.

Are you going to keep pretending to be retarded to stretch the argument further or are you actually this naive?
>please use archive.is/tech/ftc-disclosure-rules-we-should-credit-gamergate/

archive.fo/yNnWu
there we go

They have some other marketing strategy in place. They don't care about consumers. Don't be a fool.

They're just upset they won't get any pre-relase coverage of the game, so no revenue. Leftist only ever think about how something can benefit the individual.

This has nothing to do with consumer advocacy.

So either bethesda gets fucked over by not having enough solid advertising, or the industry gets fucked and journalists have to start giving more honest reviews.
Sounds like a win win.

I actually like Erik Kain.

Good review sites, go.

Youtube personalities are not reviewers. They are entertainers.

Good I was looking for an excuse to post this.

So why aren't they entertaining?
Checkmate, mudslimes.

Because that would require a skill set past yelling like an autistic 6 year old into a mic.

Let's not also forget the fact that handing out games early to a select few hurts the smaller reviewers. I know this will be hard for many here to take, but non corrupt, serious, non-SJW game reviewers DO exist. It's just that they're pushed to irrelevance by the avalanche of shitty pozzed reviewers that have more views and popularity because the former are forced to review the games later than the pozzed reviews because they don't get these early hand outs. This is because publishers only hand out early copies to big reviewers because they want more coverage.

I know this isn't a trend they're only doing it for this particular product, but things would certainly be better if early reviews weren't a thing. Everybody would have a chance (or at least more of a chance)

after careful re-consideration I do agree mostly with the article that this is ultimately just a bit worse than it was before, and the OP is a clickbaiting faggot. Could've worded it more neutral

It doesn't change my skepticism of any kind of reviewer, whether games journalist or youtuber, but anyone who immedaitely wants to side with bethesda because it, looking at it superficially, seems to hurt game journo pricks is a braindead retard and needs to be gassed

I don't see how this is relevant to my point.
None of the video game journalists make articles to actually be informant, they do it to entertain. Video game journalism is that much of a joke. So, yes, in the videogame industry, personalities, reviewers and entertainers are all roles that are mixed into one.

There are no journalists at all in the videogames realm. There are only paid bloggers.

Oops informative*

Liberals. Old school leftists were collectivist.

GG is you and me baby. Gawker's nobody now. it ain't even full of nobodies, it's gone.

GG's never over, it just gets quiet when there's nothing in the corrupt journo scene, because they're all done at this point.

GG won, so GG's on the way out because that was it's goal, but if dumbasses think that they can pull a Gawker and shame people for liking games, then GG is back in full force.

They'll never win, forever.

This. They don't care about consumers. They're just salty.

He's had his moments.

bad for consumers, critics, the relationship between Bethesda and its friends in the media,
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Why does Erik has to go and get retarded all of the sudden? What exactly is the negative on having people fucking wait a bit to play Bethesda games? If people are getting burned because of a shitty impulsive decision and blow $60 on a shit game that creates a more vigilant consumer base on the long run
KAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIN

Why the fuck is this article so controversial. Honestly. He's not saying anything wrong. What's the fucking problem?

Because it's a game journalists throwing a hissy fit over not receiving handouts from AAA Coprorate PR and how that is somehow anti-consumer because it means no early reviews. Of course Erik here is just bitching and ranting, at no point does he consider taking a stance or doing something in response to this so called anti-consumer move, like say, boycott Bethesda and their games openly.

It is?

Word of mouth is fine enough then. I can't pirate a steak from a certain restaurant but I can have people tell me if their food sucks.

This.

Jesus fucking Christ I forgot I even made that.

Professional reviewers? A lot of those are corrupt anyway.
No best thing is to do your own research. Watch some vids, read some forums.

But y'all lazy fags who just go to metacritic so whatever.

Pirates win again

True. The first 20 pages of YouTube are all just bullshit..

There's probably a good reviewer out there but how are you going to find him/her in the vast ocean of marketing trash?

Review copies of what?
Skyrim brown and bloom edition?
Pretty sure it plays exactly like Skyrim.
Looking at their track record Bethesda Game Studios will make janky crappy time vampires until it is dissolved after ESVI:High Rock turns out to just be a bunch of vibrating rag-dolls.

Its not because Bethsada has no faith in their products, Beth shit sells on name alone especially the now normalfag franchises like Elder Scrolls and Fallout 4.

Its actually exactly due to outlets like Kotaku that they're doing this, when Fallout 4 was coming numerous outlets spoiled everything about it so I guess Beth just had enough.

I'm fine with it, the sooner game journalism dies the better, buy the goddamn like everyone else has to.

Oh, poor journos babies, they're going to lose their clickbait material.

Get fucked, bunch of sellout, bribed corrupt faggots. I hope every single games journos go bankrupcy and starve to death.

I can't be fucked to do that. I watch playthroughs and read strategy guides to understand what the game is like. That's how I judge if games are worth playing these days. It's a lot quicker and more reliable than a review.

Dumblr and Twatter act as if GG is still a thing.
They use it as they boogeyman for everything.

neo-neo/v/ is disgusting

Having an armor fetish is hell

well Holla Forums is a platform for reviewing games.
Almost always with a resounding "it's shit".

Alternative title :
thanks Holla Forums

This.. they're mad about losing their priviledged spot as the only way to get pre-release info/spoilers

It comes across as very obnoxious, but its not surprising that he and other "journalists" are against it. The only difference between game "journalists" and gamers is that the "journalists" get the game early; anyone can review a game and basically anyone with an Internet connection can post it online.

They risk losing their only advantage over the average joe, forcing them to write reviews that compete with absolute anyone and everyone rather than a small clique of well established "journalists" (who receive rewards, free games and either salaries or commissions).

tldr: It does not lead to less information at all. If the game is ready, publish it. If they're willing to publish beta releases, publish them. There is no reason at all to limit access to these clowns.

It's better than Bethesda's previous policy of blacklisting sites for giving honest opinions. Now nobody gets to say anything.

Game "Journalists" don't do that anymore. They use review copies to push their political beliefs instead of talking about the actual game.

archive.is/o48g9

Oh u

I'd think it was a bad thing if most review sites were not complete shit that rate everything 9/10 anyway. Are there people who seriously cared about these "game journalists" who can't even play games above easy mode and usually just log a couple of hours before declaring it game of the year?If anything i'm happy to see publishers turn on them.

Anyone who trusted these review sites deserves to get ripped off by publishers anyway.

Erik Kain was against antiGG and corruption though. He's decent enough.

Don't reply to Tripfags, you filthy shit.

So do you want armorcock or armorpussy user

Erik Kain is a more balanced view, not like Kotaku

It isn't good but the written reviews are nothing worth reading so I am not inclined to get mad over this. If anything this will kill the parasitic sites which depend on review clicks to survive.
If the "journalists" wanted public opinion to be with them in cases like these they should've provided actual value to the consumers. As it stands most not only have they sold their integrity by pushing marketing pieces as reviews their meal ticket of pre release review clicks might go dry.

If I remember, Erik Kain is one of the based ones.

Those were some good times.

i'll take armorpussy if you got it

Good luck, she's down the escalator already and you'll never see her again.

no u

I'd rather trust a gameplay footage from some youtuber that wasnt cut, edited or a made up small premade section for a e3.

Nah. A lot of journalists shit on Bethesda a while back, notably Kotaku. So Bethesdas response is to tell them to go fuck themselves and not send review copies to them. Some have been blacklisted by Todd.
Though IIRC doom was not sent out to any reviewer before release. Course normalfags loved that shit.

They also get to go to parties, be pampered, get presents, etc. All for good reviews.

My little Holla Forums can't possibly be this cucked.

Do you mongoloids realize that only shills get review copies? This is bethesda saying that journos aren't even useful as shills anymore since nobody trusts them. We should just laugh at them.

Journos are shit, but the concept of review copies is still a sound one. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Well that's obvious. A more vigilant consumer is bad for profits.

Review copies give publishers leverage over reviewers allowing them to pressure for higher scores (ie. give us a 8 or no review copy of "game 2" for you).

Review copies are also the only thing that separates professional reviewers from amateurs, once that separation is removed it becomes a level playing field.

What's there even to review?

It's the same fucking game with God Rays and shitty upscaled textures.

Why? Even Amazon is banning review from peoples that get stuff for free

What was the last good game Bethesda released?

Really user?

I don't know m8.

This is pretty smart on bethesda's part when you get down to it. Their rabid fanbase assumes everything they pull out of their ass is 10/10 anyway, so why would they need reviewers?
Journo's getting booty blasted that they don't get free shit anymore is funny but it won't affect Beth's sales all that much
Drones are immune to review scores

Checked.

I'd say Morrowind and Bloodmoon, which was early 2000s. Maaaaaybe Dark Corners of the Earth but it was a buggy mess and they fucked the studio working on it.

They should give review copies to random customers instead.

Bethesda Softworks or Game Studios?
Morrowind both way probably.

The quality of the products is getting so bad even the outsourced marketing of "journalists" isn't able to keep up. Not letting anyone review their stuff before release is a smart move.

You know, you people complain that games are all for normalfags now and that it's full of SJW pandering, but this will only lead to that. The masses are dumb and need to be ruled by philosopher kings.

However, that doesn't mean that gamejournos are the thing to do. In an ideal world, they would act like real press, giving games the reviews they deserve, but we know they won't do that. So what is the solution? The solution, as stated earlier ITT is to simply pirate the game. We cannot trust reviews from review sites, nor can you even trust users on Youtube now, simply because some of them are also paid off by the studios. You can't even trust this site because shills abound.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that while this is shit in principle, in practice it makes little difference. At the very least it may mean that Bethesda games will get fair reviews simply because reviewers haven nothing to gain by giving these games a good score.

Bethesda is still shit, though.

Review copies is nothing more other than selective advertisement. You are being selective of the people you give it to with the chance for more positive exposure. IF you feel there was no noticeable increase of sales from that certain person, I think it's your right to not give them another review copy. Review copies aren't for any joe schmo to have.

Now if there is an underhanded NDA that forces them to only give positive feedback, they might have something but I'm not seeing it. Bethesda just figured out that they'll still make tons of money from the average consumer without having to waste money of giving free games away. It's more of an economic decision than anything truly sinister.

I'm pretty sure there was a thing last year before fallout 4 came out where kotaku leaked all sorts of things about it, causing Bethesda much assdestruction.

Skyrim was good.

No, it was not.

You can't even trust them, if they slate something, because that could just mean, these shitheads didn't get enough free stuff.

Makes sense since they are probably wanting to see what the games do in the wild. And most of the consumer base watches jewtube, twich or hitbox. So I get why they would just say fuck these cunts and move on to other retards.

Also aren't there other companies that do the same practice when it comes to advanced review copies?

Paradox gives early access to new DLC to their stable of goodgoy Youtubers, as does Firaxis.

It doesn't cost them anything to do that. Gifts of that nature are usually tax write offs.

Not when they have a relationship with the journalists employers. This is primarily why there's a huge conflict of interest, Zenimax's CEO is also the CEO of CBS a company that owns Gamespot and also controls Metacritic. I don't see anyone at Gamespot pulling a Jeff Gerstmann anytime soon over a Bethesda game. We're talking some very powerful media people here. They will use intimidation if they can't just bribe their way to success. Zenimax have been notorious for this similar intimidation tactic. Look at what they did to Bethesda's original owner, look at their relationship with InExile and Obsidian. Zenimax are assholes. No one is saying good things because they legitimately thought so, they are saying them because they're scared shitless of Zenimax's jewery.

The system is broken. The concept is still fine.

What it should be is a release date for normal price, and a week or two early release date for "review copies", which cost significantly more (like $500 a copy). If you want to do a review, you buy the review copy. Big publications could easily afford it, and it's still within reach for indie publications that aren't even getting any review copies currently.
There are a lot of ways review copies could work without being susceptible to the current shitshow.

Warner bros did the same with Shadows of Middgar and there where some other games where they gave to jewtubers with advanced copies.

But shit is always leaked due to some spic that accidentally got the game a week early thanks to Amazon. Journalists are powerless now, this is the age of the shill.

...

This is good in the sense that on one day before release, who is going to get more views and real touch for the game? Self-appointed gatekeepers and social justice dregs who think a medpak is an enemy ala Polygone, or just random youtubers or streamers with or without commentary uploading actual gameplay footage?

I'll take the latter by far, the majority of big releases' scores are always inflated anyway and there's no need to wax poetic about fucking vidya in a review, write an op-ed or some shit later on on how much it "touched" you or some shit like the blogger you are.

Eevry studio should do this

You want to "review" a game? Buy it when it comes out, like everyone else, you fucking leeches.

Huh. Didn't know there was so much overlap between Zenimax and CBS.

I know, I'm a retard. I'm just saying that the concept of reviewers getting earlier copies is a good one. Anything which fosters more informed consumers is good. The only issue is the problem of making sure that there's no bias or collusion between developers (/publishers) and reviewers, and making sure that anybody who wants seriously enough to try to be a reviewer can without any necessary corporate backing, as well as doing enough of a good job to prevent review copies from getting into the hands of the general public (I don't think much of the public would drop $500 to get a game early, and if they would, it's even more profit for the developer, so whatever).

You can easily break any street date just by knowing a guy at Gamestop or similar stores. But that would require a modicum of interpersonal skills, which most YT celebs don't actually have.

Youtube and Twitch have completely killed the need for game "journalists"

Why read reviews from biased hipsters when you can just go watch actual gameplay and see if a game is something you might like?

Most game studios are already giving preferential treatment to streamers over review sites and it's just going to keep snowballing until review sites are dead.

Besides, the "journalists" have done nothing but stir up shit and cause problems for devs and gamers the past few years.

Nobody is going to miss them and the faster they're kick out of the industry the better.

cept here's the problem.
Once you kick the traditional journalists out you've got Youtubers and Twitch Streamers, who still take bribes, who actually are worse because a lot of them are reddit shills. And then you're basically left with the exact same problem we're seeing here again. They blacklist everyone again from special treatment.

The problem is to do with the fact that they're sneaking in advertisements as content. Which is where people had the problem with games journalists from the get go. (advertisements replacing critique and curation).

It's probably true that they're all taking bribes but I still think they're the better alternative to game "journalists"

Review sites have essentially had a monopoly for years. They didn't really compete with each other since most of them were friends. Instead, they all helped each other try to keep the status quo.(Just look at what happened during GamerGate) They didn't care if they pissed off their readers because they knew those people didn't have anywhere else to go.

Youtubers and streamers aren't in the same position.

They need to make sure their audience is happy because there are literally thousands of wannabe streamers trying to dethrone them. They have real competition.

If they shill for a game that is obviously bad then people will just stop watching and their "career" will die almost instantly.

Besides, Twitch actually has rules about streamers having to say if they are being sponsored to play certain games. I'm sure some people try to break the rules and sneak in advertising but it doesn't really matter because they can't hide the quality of the game while they're streaming it. So people can make their own judgments.

Hard to lie about quality of a game when you have a video of it running on the screen.
At best they can be apologists.

Actually fucking entitled. Get fucked you god damned hypocrites.

It's not hard to lie about that. Plenty of terrible games can be painted in a good light even based on gameplay. It can be really hard to tell what actually plays well and what doesn't without having a game actually in your hands. There are games that are painted to look great in gameplay videos that are actually pretty mediocre and boring in your hands, like the Uncharted series (I enjoyed the first game, but there's not a whole lot to them). Other games with tons of depth don't leave a lot of impression up front.
Depth is one of the most important aspects to a game, and that's not easy to get across without in-depth analysis or actually playing the thing yourself. Unfortunately, demos are all but dead.

I just want some way to get pre-release reviews and gameplay footage from average joes who just care about video games, and aren't getting paid (through ad revenue or otherwise). Even your average Holla Forums shitter would have more useful insight about video games than almost every single professional reviewer or streamer.

A "dangerous precedent"… are you fucking kidding? For how long have you been living under a rock?!

September 2016: No review copies of Mafia 3.
archive.is/6OVpC

August 2016: Review copies of No Man's Sky only available one day prior to release, news embargo until a few hours after the game is available.
archive.is/t85km

May 2016: No review copies for Doom.
archive.is/KIKer

November 2014: No review copies for Sonic Boom
archive.is/ayucE

September 2014: Review copies of Destiny only available on day prior to release.
archive.is/rIXLY

August 2014: No review copies for The Sims 4
archive.is/5PnwX

etc.

Not sending review copies to back stabbers, click-bait writers and yellow journalists isn't anti-consumer (remember when Kotaku played that card after UbiSoft decided NOT to invite them to their E3 2015 press conference?). But hey, if you want to talk about dangerous precedents, why not come back to the Jim Redner incident of mid 2011, when the guy threatened outlets to withdraw review copies of future products if they were to publish negative reviews of Duke Nukem Forever?
archive.is/MYaVb

Or criticize review embargoes as a whole, like what happened with Dead Island in 2011?
archive.is/lxPf3

Between the stupid consumers who decides to pay the full price on broken products on day one, and journos throwing their audience under the bus while simultaneously claiming it's in their interest they get what they need to attract more click, I think this whole article is downright whiny and pathetic.

Majority of people ARE retards of that level. Now even more of them will buy shitty games at day one.

Not really, he tried to sound neutral at best while constantly telling people "you're wasting your time, stop digging, there is nothing there" a couple of days before that game journo mailing list was uncovered.

Let stupid faggots with no self-control beta test shit for you.

...

all lugenpresse should be facing firing squad

Du hast dein Umlaut vergessen.

best post itt

I don't think shills are concerned about long-term.

Are you seriously implying that people should actually get a taste for the hobby so they can see what is good and what isn't? Next thing you will say is that you want the goyim to be self sufficient!

Kristallnacht when?

Last good Bethesda developed game?

Morrowind expansion, Solstheim?

Bloodmoon was their peak. Everything else has been a freefall in actual talent.

Both are alright.

they now give preview copies to twitch surrogates that will not say single bad thing about game since they build career on earlier games

...