@jellybones: I thought I was making myself pretty clear, but you know what, it's late and I'm tired, so maybe I'm not speaking with as much clarity as I think I am. I'm gonna go get some sleep and come back to this tomorrow - assuming of course that half the comments aren't deleted and we're not all suspended.
uhh... I don't think I've said anything even close to that, and it'd be best for all of us not to get into any of that anyway, because it's not only a thorny subject (although it really shouldn't be imo), but it's so way off topic that it would be deleted so fast it'd make our heads spin. If you really wanna discuss it though, feel free to PM me!
It's one of three games mentioned by name in a throw away list article. Depression Quest is free, and always has been as far as I know.
Where's the moral outrage over the developer of Cook, Serve, Delicious! adding in Ryan Davis/Jeff Gerstmann-themed dishes after GB's Quick Look of the game gave it a massive boost in sales (by the developer's own admission)?
Like I said, I was just trying to think of an example off the top of my head. There were several more articles written, and if it mattered more to the discussion at hand, I'd definitely do a refresher on it, but as it is, this is a tangent of a tangent.
And why would there be any moral outrage over that? Some people with no connection to the developer exhibited a finished game and loved it, and as a way to say thanks, the developer included a tiny easter egg about them in a later update. Now, had they known the developer beforehand, or maybe if the Davis/Gerstmann references formed a far more significant part of the game, then it would be a different situation, but as it is, it's a pretty innocuous shoutout to some fans. Can you explain why you feel this is a comparable situation, because I'm not really getting it?
Yes, and? As I said, not only is it the photo for the article, but it's the first game mentioned. And despite what @russman588 said about not being able to prove they were friends, you generally don't get to playtest early alpha versions of games without knowing the developer, short of them just throwing the game up to a public site for all to play.
That is how the world works, all of it. 99% of reporting on anything other than regurgitated stories from other outlets or press releases are because someone knows someone. Just about every game reviewer knows someone from the group that made said game. This is how people in general work. The ethics is in them removing themselves from their acquaintance or friendship to give an honest opinion. For example Jeff and the other GB guys clearly know the head of Robomodo who made Tony Hawk Pro Skater 5, he was even on the E3 stream and they were quite friendly. It is all about how much you do or do not trust said critic on being honest not about them boxing themselves up and never having any contact with anyone who could possibly influence their opinion.
I feel like 99% of this whole debate is always about not understanding this concept.
That might be how it works, but that doesn't make it right. It'd be nice if game journalism was held to the standards of just regular entertainment journalism, let alone journalism in general. And the issue is that we've been given evidence time and time again that many people in the industry DON'T have the ethics to remove themselves from the situation. Youtubers coming out saying that companies are paying them to say nice things about their streamed games, wild lavish parties for journalists with the implication you'll be writing a good review about their game... Hell, this very website is a testament to the common unethical practices - Giant Bomb wouldn't exist if Jeff hadn't been fired for daring to give a mediocre game a mediocre review score.
Sor_Eddie's comments