Silentpony said:
Yes! Or 50% off or something. Anything to make it look like the games aren't gifts. For all we know the games arrive at the reviewer's office wrapped up like a Xmas gift with a little note saying 'Thanks for playing XOXO'
The issue here is you are asking developers and publishers to unify and set standards for themselves that they have no requirement or incentive to do so, and every incentive to not do so. There's practicality to consider too, in the case of lending, what does this actually solve? Why would the publishers or devs want to get back the hundreds of review copies they sent out, they aren't really in a position to resell them, so they've now got a bunch of useless game code that they either have to trash if it's in physical format, or it's a digital copy in which case its just code that deletes itself after a certain period of time.
In the case of discounts you run into the issue that developers and publishers aren't really set up to accept money like that, they aren't store fronts, so you have a likely chance that it would actually be cheaper for the larger developers and publishers to send out free copies than it would be for them to try and set up a system for the reviewers to purchase the games early at some kind of discount.
Demonchaser27 said:
2. Journalist aren't attached to Dev/Pubs like a leash. Meaning some form of enforcement (or discount) to make sure all qualified reviewers can get a copy for review. If not this, then at the very list illegality of blacklisting and still requirement for qualified reviewers to get a copy for review. At this point, a time where you often can't try before you buy or return goods whether buggy, damaged, lied about or just outright shit, reviews should be looked upon as a required consumer good. They should be treated as the balance against the marketing forces of entertainment goods. There really isn't any excuse why a publisher should be able to actively harm both the reviewers and consumers by saying "You didn't do what we wanted/give us the score we wanted, your blacklisted".
And as a perfect recent example of all this, Destiny has had an embargo essentially set after release (yes they got the copies but what good is that if you aren't allowed to play the damn game). It's getting to a point that some new laws might have to be made just for some fucking consumer protections against the fraudulent activities of these corporations.
Good luck convincing the U.S. government to actually enforce anything like that, you would be lucky if it didn't die in committee, the U.S. government takes a very caveat emptor (buyer beware) approach to any consumer product that doesn't effect physical safety or health. Reviews are protected from copyright infringement under fair use, but there is very little regulation beyond that, the government sees it as the consumers responsibility to inform themselves and the review industry is a free market enterprise that is providing a non-essential consumer service based on subjective quality of a non-essential good.
The EU is a little more on the consumer side, with laws stating that even software should be returnable for a refund, and generally stricter laws on false advertisement, but even then, the consumer review industry is still not seen as an essential consumer service, and you would have a hard time convincing them that view should be changed.
Luxury items are generally not very strictly regulated in any fashion, as it is seen as the buyers responsibility to inform themselves, especially if the product has a minimal risk of causing physical harm or issues.
