Eidos has a history of shady practices in videogame journalism. We remember the whole Kane and Lynch fiasco over at GameSpot a while back and attempts to get sites to hold off on Tomb Raider: Underworld review scores that were under 80 until Eidos said it was alright to publish.
This overreaching on Eidos’ part has once again turned up according to The RAM Raider.
Eidos is allegedly only looking for the best review scores to be shown first for Batman: Arkham Asylum. As with most unreleased games, a review for Arkham Asylum is under embargo until a certain date but Eidos will supposedly let magazines publish reviews early if they agree to play ball.
The RAM Raider says Eidos will grant passes on the embargo if magazines put Arkham Asylum on its front cover and guarantee a review score of at least 90%.
Jon Brooke, the head of UK marketing for Eidos fired back at the accusations in a letter to Kotaku claiming the allegations are totally false. He says Eidos hasn’t spoken to any magazines about review scores.
Read [The RAM Raider] Also Read [Kotaku]
figures, i always wondered how horrible games get good reviews, for instance i read and heard good reveiws of the new terminator game and damnation before they came out, and we all heard the true result of the games. it is a sad place we are living in if a horrible game gets good reviews and we can no longer depend on "true" reveiw journalism, luckily i have never listened to any game magazines or websites any ways. i wait untill customers review the games, and if i am really curious, i will buy it and find out.