It's obviously happened before but the problem is it doesn't offer any insight into how representative of a practice this is besides suggesting that it happened during a certain time frame and applies to nonmajor sites. The latter especially is strange - the logic of it is sound, but the insight to me still feels limited. I'm inclined to believe it but I want a deeper look - but of course this isn't possible due to the perceived threats to these writers' well-being.
What I find interesting is the conflicting interests involved in this setup. See, presumably if you throw out a negative review for a prominent game it's entirely possible that a publisher will decline to provide you with review copies. Konami already has an axe to grind with Jim Sterling due to his perceived hostility over time. More generally, fraying relations with a company has more ramifications than just the above - less likely to get interviews, have to shell out money for game (however little it may be relatively speaking to operations of a media company), and possible signaling to other publishers that you are a hostile party that should not be dealt with. These risks for a hypothetical return of more traffic? I mean, I understand that this is a strategy that a niche or mid-sized site would probably employ (better risk buffering) but still it doesn't seem rewarding. Absent context, I would think that our current structure rewards either positivity or hiveminds/orthodoxy. As should already be clear, publishers do not always play honest with the concept of reviewing, too, and I think the leverage of publishers needs to be acknowledged in light of some black marks in gaming media (Jeff Gerstmann, Robert Florence departures).
I feel like it should be noted that the very obvious point of this article is not to stoke the flames of INCESTUIS GAEMZ JOURNZLIAMS and claim that reviews are useless ("We have no writing awards for our field and gamers typically just spend their time trashing and insulting reviewers") but to point out the weakening of gaming media in general as the economics of the media industry have changed. That is, payment through ad revenue. But of course, under our current system of economics there is no recourse for gaming journalists and little to encourage them, strictly from the vantage point of self-interest, that such behavior isn't desirable. I feel like the industry is evolving to reward predatory behavior more over time.
btw, it should not be the case that deviations from the norm are viewed immediately as suspect - i.e. assuming that Arthur Gies' review of Bayonetta 2 or the other relatively low scoring reviews are fundamentally dishonest.
Journalism is a shriveling industry on the whole, and this has continued to be the case over the years. Pay is bad, opportunities are scarce.
