Rockstar is pretty notoriously strict about reviews for their upcoming games but it appears as if they are straight up refusing to send review copies to some publications for their newest game. There has been some rumors as of late that Giant Bomb wasn't given a review copy of Red Dead Redemption after some comments made by Ryan and today, it seems as if Joystiq is also among the shafted publications. 
 
Justin McElroy, editor at Joystiq, tweeted this today:
 
 "Despite our repeated requests, Rockstar refused to send us a review copy of Red Dead. When theres no review from us today, that's why."
 
He then followed it up with another tweet saying:
  
"In response to several questions: I have no idea what Rockstar's problem is with us."
 
McElroy's was then retweeted by our own Ryan Davis, which pretty much confirms any doubt that Rockstar did indeed choose not to send a review copy to Giant Bomb. So, this raises a couple questions. Why were Joystiq and Giant Bomb both refused review copies? And what other publications were denied review copies by Rockstar? I highly doubt that Rockstar would single just two websites.

Too bad. I was kinda hoping for an early review.

Quality control over the reviews. They send out review copies to the companies they trust.

" Quality control over the reviews. They send out review copies to the companies they trust. "

" Quality control over the reviews. They send out review copies to the companies they trust. "

" Quality control over the reviews. They send out review copies to the companies they trust. "

most of the sites that got review copies early had adds for the game on their site.  doesnt mean that high scores were promised, it could just mean that "if you put adds for our game up we will pay you plus let you review the game early" type of deal.

ign has a review up. Guess Rockstar trust those dudes, the guy gave it a 9.7.

" Quality control over the reviews. They send out review copies to the companies they trust. "

Not only that, but this way there was no leaked copy on internet. what is reassuring. :p 

oh well, they are going to review it anyways. when the game comes out in stores tomorrow.

Somebody over there trying to remind their 'puppet media' how they're supposed to act perhaps?  They (the GB crew) did sound totally nonplussed about RDR when it came up on the Bombcast, after whatever the last trade show was.  But if Rockstar are going to be dicks about it then they can go fuck themselves as far as I'm concerned.  
 
This industry-holding-the-media-to-ransom bullshit has to stop.  If that means only reviewing launch copies, or the media becoming directly reader-funded, then so be it.

" Quality control over the reviews. They send out review copies to the companies they pay. "

*This is all speculation for the sake of conversation:
 
This strikes me as more of a red tape scenario than any sort of "beef" against any of these publications.
I wonder if Rockstar's PR department has potentially grown wary of sites that don't have any form of process or accountability and have therefore put in strict rules about what they require from a publication in order to receive a review copy.

It certainly seems interesting and controversial, but is it really? Or is it really just a bunch of boring rules and documents made and enforced by the suits?

I love all the conspiracy theorists xD

They're not being dicks about it.  This was very obviously a business decision.  They sent out review copies to the outlets that have been generally favorable to their games in the past.  It's a method of keeping initial review scores high so that people that base their purchasing decisions off that kind of thing will pick it up on day one.  Some PR guy was likely handed a list of dudes to send the game out to, and anyone not on the list that inquired was rejected.
 
Not only does this help Rockstar, but it helps the limited number of sites that were able to score review copies of the game.  Since there are only a few of them, they get more traffic than other sites for the time being.  It's a win-win situation.  I don't understand why everyone has to immediately assume money changed hands somewhere behind closed doors whenever something like this surfaces.

Fuckin' Metacritic man, it's a real bummer on the industry.

" They're not being dicks about it.  This was very obviously a business decision.  They sent out review copies to the outlets that have been generally favorable to their games in the past.  It's a method of keeping initial review scores high so that people that base their purchasing decisions off that kind of thing will pick it up on day one.  Some PR guy was likely handed a list of dudes to send the game out to, and anyone not on the list that inquired was rejected. It's called making money. "

I'm not surprised that this happens in general, I mean, I'm not going to get all uppity about integrity in the game reviewing industry or anything, but I'm constantly astounded that Rockstar feels the need to do this.
 
I think most of us will agree that Rockstar's games are pretty amazing on their own merits, and so releasing the game to a few more review sites would really only drop the metacritic score by a few points at first, if that.  I think they are just trying to create mysterious internet buzz by doing this.  Also, they're probably doing this because they can.
 
Another example of this crazy behavior was during the Kotaku interview with a couple of developers.  One of them (who was kind of an asshole throughout the interview), kept saying "no comment" when asked about features in RDR... the game is already made, dude, as long as you're not spoiling anything you might as well tell people why they should buy your damn game.
 
Really disappoints me that a studio that can make such good games seems to be staffed by dicks.

Not sure I agree with that view, trying to control the media as already burnt one to many companies and I can't see Rockstar doing that. Their not perfect, but they are the type of company that would let the game do the talking. There as already been a large selection of reviews hit the web. 
 
 If Rockstar wanted to control scores they wouldn't have given Eurogamer the game, considering they have an reputation for giving out tough scores and 8/10 is still a pretty solid score. We'll wait and see I guess but I can't see Rockstar controlling the media. If a games good, it's good no matter what you do. Why are we even moaning about this, shouldn't it be a good thing if a game is good? 
 
The piracy thing could also be an issue, you let out to many review copies and it will get pirated to hell. 

" @Kombat said:

" They're not being dicks about it.  This was very obviously a business decision.  They sent out review copies to the outlets that have been generally favorable to their games in the past.  It's a method of keeping initial review scores high so that people that base their purchasing decisions off that kind of thing will pick it up on day one.  Some PR guy was likely handed a list of dudes to send the game out to, and anyone not on the list that inquired was rejected. It's called making money. "

That's doesn't make sense when you consider that Giant Bomb gave Grand Theft Auto IV Game of the Year. "

That's probably why they didn't do a TNT for this. Well let's cancel the friend request.

" They're not being dicks about it.  This was very obviously a business decision.  They sent out review copies to the outlets that have been generally favorable to their games in the past. "

They're selecting who they want the reviews from. 

Weird considering GTAIV was the GB staff's GotY for 2008.

" @Kombat said:

" They're not being dicks about it.  This was very obviously a business decision.  They sent out review copies to the outlets that have been generally favorable to their games in the past. "

That's about as 'being a dick about it' as you can get, surely?  What message does that send?  "If you don't score our games how we think you should, we will actively prevent you staying competitive".    That's so blatantly fucking shady and open to abuse than I'm surprised there isn't a law or some kind of trade guideline against it. "

" @Kombat said:

" They're not being dicks about it.  This was very obviously a business decision.  They sent out review copies to the outlets that have been generally favorable to their games in the past.  It's a method of keeping initial review scores high so that people that base their purchasing decisions off that kind of thing will pick it up on day one.  Some PR guy was likely handed a list of dudes to send the game out to, and anyone not on the list that inquired was rejected. It's called making money. "

That's doesn't make sense when you consider that Giant Bomb gave Grand Theft Auto IV Game of the Year. "

" Not only that, but this way there was no leaked copy on internet. what is reassuring. :p  "

" @Milkman: True, in 2008.  But since then they've also given Ballad a 3/5 for basically being the same game as GTA4, whilst saying how it now feels outdated.  If RDR still feels like GTA4, then you can see why they might want to avoid that reviewer seeing it.  Perhaps.  More likely they just looked at Ballad's score and crossed them off the list (assuming they are off the list that is). "

" @Jeust said:

" Not only that, but this way there was no leaked copy on internet. what is reassuring. :p  "

Yeah, except there was and people were streaming  playthroughs of it over the weekend... "

" They're not being dicks about it.  This was very obviously a business decision.  They sent out review copies to the outlets that have been generally favorable to their games in the past.  It's a method of keeping initial review scores high so that people that base their purchasing decisions off that kind of thing will pick it up on day one.  Some PR guy was likely handed a list of dudes to send the game out to, and anyone not on the list that inquired was rejected. It's called making money. "

" @Jeust: @Bionicicide: It was downloadable on the internet since last friday is what I am saying... "

While you guys all run off about Metacritic scores and conspiracy, here's my question (that none of you will answer I'm sure):
 
I love GiantBomb, you love GiantBomb, but when Rockstar is going through their endless list of videogame publications, what it is about GiantBomb that should make Rockstar stop and say "Oh, we have to get one to these guys"?

Seems silly of them to snub Giantbomb like this. Really, I can't imagine them scoring it anything but a 5 out of 5.

" @Jimbo said:

" @Kombat said:

" They're not being dicks about it.  This was very obviously a business decision.  They sent out review copies to the outlets that have been generally favorable to their games in the past. "

That's about as 'being a dick about it' as you can get, surely?  What message does that send?  "If you don't score our games how we think you should, we will actively prevent you staying competitive".    That's so blatantly fucking shady and open to abuse than I'm surprised there isn't a law or some kind of trade guideline against it. "

What are you talking about?  It's their product.  They own it.  And, what do Rockstar care what message they send to the press by making a move like this? "

Wow.  2 small video game websites didn't get a review copy of a video game.  Let's freak out some more. 

" @Kombat said:

" @Jimbo said:

" @Kombat said:

" They're not being dicks about it.  This was very obviously a business decision.  They sent out review copies to the outlets that have been generally favorable to their games in the past. "

That's about as 'being a dick about it' as you can get, surely?  What message does that send?  "If you don't score our games how we think you should, we will actively prevent you staying competitive".    That's so blatantly fucking shady and open to abuse than I'm surprised there isn't a law or some kind of trade guideline against it. "

What are you talking about?  It's their product.  They own it.  And, what do Rockstar care what message they send to the press by making a move like this? "

Uh, because sending out that message and attempting to passively blackmail the media, makes it far more likely that any future review will be scored higher than it deserves?"  

" Wow.  2 small video game websites didn't get a review copy of a video game.  Let's freak out some more.  "

I think they said before that they dont get review copies of games from everyone, and that they have to buy them.

*gains more hatred of MetaCritic every day...
 
Good to know they're pullilng this BS though, thanks OP.

" @MAN_FLANNEL said:

" Wow.  2 small video game websites didn't get a review copy of a video game.  Let's freak out some more.  "

That's not the problem. They were refused, not forgotten. "

Let's continue to go on making assumptions without those annoying things called facts.

They used early copies as leverage to get cheaper advertising or just gave it to sites like IGN because they basically work on a 8.5-10 scale on big budget games unless they are complete shit.

" @Milkman said:

" @MAN_FLANNEL said:

" Wow.  2 small video game websites didn't get a review copy of a video game.  Let's freak out some more.  "

That's not the problem. They were refused, not forgotten. "

But if they were refused because Rockstar deemed them unimportant then what's the problem? "