You brought up a couple of different points in your response and I’ll try to take them in order.

Incestuous is really a good way to describe the game journalist to developer/publisher relationship. They are far too closely linked for my taste. Sure, it’s true in other media too, but in no other media do I see cross over from reviewer to creator so often. Except maybe in politics :P.

I won’t comment on other industries and how they do their business (because I think they do worse in some cases, but it doesn’t really change the wrongness of this), but this is plainly wrong for this industry. It’s wrong because at the VERY LEAST it’s going to give the reviewer that is paid by Sony to come live it up for a weekend in Vegas, reviewing their games, a “leaning” towards Sony. Assuming Sony doesn’t screw it up. It’s going to make that reviewer view Sony as more favorable. And while everyone has their own perceptions of each game company and so on, it is plainly being bought in this case, imho.

As for those allowed to go, I saw some note that Gamespot guys weren’t allowed to go, for instance. I know I wouldn’t let my reviewers go, if I was editor at one the big guys.

And yes, my thoughts are all good takes and everyone should read it more. That’s just common sense. :)

I’m not sure how this is especially different from commentators in any other industry acting as consultants – say a politcal journo heading up some government thinktank or quango. I find that to be frequently dubious, too, I should add – but it’s not comparable to straightforward bribery and I’m sceptical that this is a direct exchange for exclusive editorial, as the article implies. For one thing, there can’t be that many payrolled journalists who would be allowed to do this by their employers.

Good take though – I should read your blog more often.