"... prolonged virtual loneliness ...", nice phrasing.

I already pre-ordered, but based on what I have seen so far, it seems appropriate. Pioneer in a vast galaxy, making discoveries, that no one is likely to see.

I am sure it will be a great crafting sandbox exploration game, though and I look forward to Friday. Don't plan on going further than the bathroom and the fridge til Monday and I might call in sick if it's that good.

This is the PC port I want.

Does this mean the Oculus Rift will come with free ads?

I wonder where the suitcases of money are delivered?

@dribblesbarbax not to generalize right ;)

There is however content like this semi independent of games. Even when an episode talks about what they are going to investigate, its more about the topic than the game. No ad.

So maybe they are getting "paid" by the big and small boys and girls... to make their own content. Like I have to sell drugs, that people like games, to do what I want, make episodes about conspiracy theory stuffs.

It does seem really hard to believe that if a game got a terrible review, the company would not come back and low ball advertising offers and just call it capitalism, explaining the game is doing worse, in part because of your site, therefore we will provide reduced advertising revenue. Just like politics there are ways to hide the favoritism, I mean the essential relationship both rely on for profitability.

I notice there was very little talk about the specifics of GS and their policy including case examples.

I don't think we are talking political cash here, the ole quid pro quo, but I do believe GS get tickets to events, early copies, swag, and relies on certain contracts for advertising revenue and perks for the higher ups.

Sorry maybe it was my mistaken impression, but JUST like games that provide large betas do better at launch, when games launch promo's at expos give out the freecrap, their specific intention is to manipulate existing and future impressions of their games. When Gamespot reviewers engage in this events and the typical users do not... their is room for influence on one group... namely the insiders.

It is basic etic and emic phenomenon. We are not insiders with access and are thus not as greatly influenced when we are delivered a less than spectacular clip on our gaming news sites.

Whether gamespot likes it or not they ARE influenced on a level the basic user is not creating room for the idea that the have's are using their position and bias to influence events.

If I get swag for a game, I am going to like it more. You think these game companies are giving away crap including early access for your benefit gamespot. HAH They are directly trying to influence your view and opinion of the game. But it probably doesn't work, that is why they offer it, extra money they want to give away to gaming insiders with influence for no reason.

Passive influence is still being influenced. Not that humans can really avoid it. Do you like my sweater, my accent, my topic, and so on. Just minimize it.

Why can't GS go the ethical route to eliminate any confusion. No GS employee will accept any swag or gift from a company they might review. It's not like they don't have jobs. We laugh at political ethics, even major sports, but why does our news and information have to be so questionable.

I want my money back, I already played Arkham City.

By everything seen and heard, expected a Arkham City 1.5 no real new innovation, but repetition of something admittedly enjoyable. Review not a huge shock, may have been little more generous, but that's me.