1. Again, you don't get it. IGN is a business, congratulations! They don't only review games. And unless you can prove it, the only revenue they get from it are from the ads they play. They don't need to pay to use their reviews to display the scores. They "pay" (Which isn't paying) to display the scores by giving the gigantic website a free game early to review it, so if the reviews good, they can display it. Guess what? I don't see R* displaying the bad scores its gotten from reviewers. I mean, I thought companies paid the reviewers? Why are there bad reviews of GTA 5 then? I mean, they got the same "payment" (Not a payment) as everyone else, but they still game them a bad score. Hmmm...
Let me write this quote from Destructoid Reviews Editor and Game Front and The Escapist contributor Jim Sterling:
“Any site big enough to be worth bribing is big enough to where the writers involved can make their name off the back of exposing something like that,” he said. “In order to make any potential bribe attractive, you’d first need to offer more value than exposing your shady ass would hold, plus enough cash to be worth more than my job is, basically enough to keep me going for life. The money required to even tempt any writer with self-respect is a silly amount. In short, I don’t think a ‘paid’ review is worth paying for, nor is it worth selling.”
Now, you think games would do all of that for a good review that frankly doesn't much matter, as proven by the CoD franchise? Sure, you keep believing in your 'facts' that isn't a fact because you can't prove it. You have fun with it.
2. It is exactly the same premise. If you can't prove something, it's gonna be thrown out. As in, you can't prove to me anybody paid anybody, so I'm throwing it out as you having no idea what you're talking about.
3. Known corporate sellouts? Alright then, some more:
Dead Island, Battlefield 4, FIFA 14, etc. You told me to get you more games, I got you more. You're wrong, yet you can't admit it. I can see you're the kind of person to use Wikipedia as a source.
1. I skimmed through your point, and your still not understanding sh*t. You said the only revenue they get are from the ads they play (or whatever that means), I am assuming you mean advertisements. Well you do know a review is classed as an advertisement? You do know R* have IGN (and multiple other positive) reviews on their website showing how 'successful' their game is? You do know companies pay other companies to be able to use their 'good publicity' (i.e in the form of a review)? Google the main ways to advertise a game, every list will have 'Reviews' in it, why? Reviews are a form of advertisement (look at movie trailers, they always have 5 stars etc etc on them and the name of the reviewer), I still find it hilarious you think IGN review games for the 'f*ck of it'.
You also said they gave the company a gigantic game free of charge as a form of payment. Regardless of who is correct that proves my point. IGN get paid to review games be it in the form off money or in a free game. I have never said the payment was money now have I? Or did I 'insinuate' it?
Also quote me where I said R* pays off ALL reviewers for good scores? Why are you passing off statements that I have not made then attempt to argue them? Are you that insane that you will pretend that I said something then 'argue' it which in turn is arguing with yourself..... Dude you are a walking ball of fail.
Also your quote is irrelevant, basically he is saying
"Only people with no dignity would allow themselves to be paid off"
Huh. There is no possible way he could be talking out his ass huh? Not a chance in hell huh?
2. What the f*ck is the same premise? No it is f*cking not. A courtroom has actual real world consequences, a court room has a judge, a jury, lawyer and a whole bunch of other stuff that this f*ckING THREAD, does not have! It is not the same premise. Also remember I am not passing of anything as fact that you have not agree with me on. The only thing I passed off as fact is that IGN and other companies will recieve some sort of payment for reviewing games be it money or a free copy whatever the hell it is. You are the one that 'insinuated' (which I recommend you refrain from doing in the future to prevent situations like this) I meant something that infact I did not. Not my fault you rush to conclusions. Bottom line. I said an opinion I did not use the word fact, you 'insinuated' I passed it off as fact and were wrong. It is your f*ck up that we were having this debate. Do you see?
3. Battlefield 4 and fifa are f*cking EA. Are you cereal right now? Also Dead island got a 80 which is a average / good score. The user score is only 1.2 (or 12) behind it which is also a average / good score. GTA IV and V on the other hand are more than 1.1 (or 11) points difference AND GTA IV HAS THE HIGHEST META CRITIC EVER. The games you have listed do not even come close in terms of scale.
I am wrong?
A man who insinuates and makes up stories then argues with those self made stories to prove points is saying I am wrong? Ask yourself why are we debating right now?
Here it is.
"No doubt the reviews were paid"
Hmm? Do you see the word fact in there? It is my opinion that 'No doubt the reviews were paid' I even said it was poorly worded however it is not my fault you jumped the gun and 'insinuated' I passed it off as fact.