- Amethyst
- 6 May, 2025
Corporate Money in Gaming Reviews:
When Reviews Look Alike!
Journalism in video games was once a thriving market. It’s journalists filled with independent voices with unique tone and approach. Today’s environment is vastly different from that. Standalone review platforms have merged with bigger companies, now being part of major corporations. Readers can now start to notice something unusual; Every platform now sounds the same.
It is not due to talentless or lazy journalists, it’s far from that. Many are professionals with an intense passion for gaming. But when your content is governed by the same business interests, the room for disagreement tightens. There’s a real chance that, when reading a review on the latest AAA-game or indie game, the perspective looks the same on multiple platforms.
Who Owns Whom? A Quick Look Behind The Corporate Curtain
It helps to know who actually owns the most known names in gaming journalism.
- IGN is owned by Ziff Davis, which also owns Humble Bundle, MapGenie, and since 2024, Gamer Network (which consitst of Eurogamer, VG247, Rock Paper Shotgun, and GamesIndustry.biz)
- GameSpot, Metacritic, and Giant Bomb all are a part of Fandom, Inc.
- Polygon is owned by Vox Media, which also owns The Verge and SB Nation.
Even if each platform maintains the same team, business strategies, marketing targets and financial goals, the lines are set out by the same executive branches. This influences the coverage, how it’s covered and what tone is used.
When The Reviews Are Aligned Too Well
Let’s use a practical example. The latest installment of Call of Duty, Assassin’s Creed or Final Fantasy releases. IGN, Eurogamer and Rock, Paper, Scissors all have raving reviews within minutes of each other. Planned as they are within minutes of each other, it may not seem like anything different. But when reading a little deeper into the articles, the core critiques are disturbingly aligned.
The scores of the game will be in the same range (8 or 9 out of 10), but even the tone of voice is the same. Examples like: “a confident return to form”, “solid gameplay throughout”, “ambitious but flawed”. It’s not uncommon to see multiple platforms with variations on the same guidelined narrative.
It’s not a coincidence when these platforms have the same ownership or work with the same sponsorship structures. To be in disagreement or a harsh negative opinion is less likely, when there is an incentive to be, let’s say more positive.
Metacritic’s Echo
Metacritic is known for it’s aggregate reviews. Reviews of other sites are counted up and averaged into an overall score. But we don’t know how scores are weighted and if that is equal. The curated list of trusted platforms also often excludes newer or more independent platforms.
This means that if multiple platforms owned by Ziff Davis or Fandom all score the game highly, Metacritic automatically reflects that higher score on its own. This gives the perspective that publishers public acclaim. This also influences financial decisions, as some developers tie bonuses to the scores on Metacritic.
In essence, the circle will uphold itself in four easy steps:
- A major publisher releases a new game.
- Multiple big gaming outlets of the same owner publish similar reviews.
- Metacritic aggregates these reviews.
- The high score for the game makes for more press, preorders, and bonuses. In it, dissenting reviews are being silenced.
Editorial Pressure Isn’t Always Direct, But It Exists
It’s sporadic that a critic is told directly to give a certain game a good score. The pressure put on journalists is often more subtle and indirect through a system.
In 2007, Jeff Gerstmann was fired from GameSpot after giving a negative review on Kane & Lynch: Dead Men. This was not in line as the game’s publisher ran a major ad campaign on the GameSpot site. The company denied the review, which led to the firing of Gerstmann. He later would co-found Giant Bomb, which tried to reclaim editorial independence. That outlet now belongs to Fandom Inc., so it’s no longer fully independent.
When ownership in media is concentrated, it’s increasingly difficult for even principled reviewers to go in against the boss. If your platform is funded by the same company that profits from sales (Humble Bundle for example), you’re thinking twice before writing a negative review on a big release.
The Consequences For Readers
The narrow range of critiques has major consequences for gamers to decide what game to play next. Instead of getting ten different views on the same release, you read variations of three or four corporate guidelines.
While coverage can be different, it’s often styled in the same ways:
- “This game isn’t for everyone, but fans will love it.”
- “It has flaws, but there’s something magical for the fans.”
- “It’s not perfect, but it shows promise for newcomers.”
These catered phrases keep everyone happy. The publisher has a quote for its trailer, the parent company doesn’t burn bridges, and the critic gets no professional fallout with the company. You however, the reader, are left with the same butter on a different piece of toast.
Reviews On Modern Platforms: Are They Independent?
In recent years, readers have shifted towards YouTube, podcasts and niche blogs for more independent opinions. Even for bigger channels like AngryJoe or Noclip, caution is heeded. They do offer more investigative and personality-related content, funded through platforms like Patreon or direct financial support.
As creators grow, they often partner with sponsors, PR companies, and sometimes the corporations behind the major review sites. If these creators receive an early review code from a publisher, there’s indirect pressure to play along. If not, this could risk the content creator of being blacklisted for future releases.
Transparency in these situations help, but it does not eliminate a taken stance. It would make it easier to distinguish though.
How Can We Help Ourselves?
There is no fix for big money flow and corporate mergers, but there are things we can do. The following four steps can help both creators and customers.
- Make use of different sources
Read independent blogs, listen to small podcasts and follow creators with different viewing points. - Support the independent media outlets
You can help support smaller, independent gaming platforms through subscriptions, donations, or promotion through social media. Help the voices that don’t rely on the big money publishers. - Be wary of early reviews
When the review is close or just before the lift of the journalism embargo, be skeptical. Usually these reviews were put in place with predetermined cause. Read into reviews a bit later and watch them evolve, as independent critics have had the time to reflect on the game. - Call out conflicts of interest online
If a site reviews a game it also is actively selling or has shared ownership with the developer, call them out. Transparency is the key again. Collectively, we can exercise that demand the best.
In Conclusion
Gaming journalism doesn’t exist in a vacuumed space. The narrative is shaped by the owner, funder, and the indirect or direct pressure that is exercised on the game critics. This does not mean that all reviews are dishonest, but it means you should read them with the context of this article in mind. When everyone sounds the same, and reads the same, it’s not always the same overall consensus.
It’s just the echo of the well-oiled machine that’s called corporate money.
