"I routinely buy games because it's less hassle then trying to get PRs to send them to me."

Ch-ching!

I have to agree with Mr. Rossignol. Print media doesn't seem to have this problem, but it's not like 'net media is any less significant these days, especially when it comes to reviews-- if you wanna know whether a game is good, do you go to the newsstand or just hop on the computer for a sec?

Not that I'm an especially prolific reviewer, but I would definitely do a lot more if it weren't such a hassle.

Also it's worth nothing that the classic junket is pretty much dead. Marketing department's manage the odd event here and there, but they're feeble compared to the ostentatious events of a decade ago. You're far more like to be flown to an office somewhere in Boring, Texas, to play a game for a few hours before traveling home again.

If we're going to have this argument, can we justify accepting free games as well? It seems to me the only differences between free games and free airfare are the price and how commonplace the former practice is.

Frankly, I'm a little surprised how vehemently people defend the free junkets. Yes, some journalists can proclaim they are not tainted, and they are probably right, but as some commenters at Kotaku testified, not all writers or Web sites are immune.

And as much as I'd like to agree people can sniff out the bullshit in those cases, I honestly don't buy it. Not everyone is media saavy and knows what goes on behind a story and is able to read between the lines of an overtly positive preview. Is the precedent of accepting these junkets worth deceiving even a handful of people?

(yes i reposted this from Kotaku, but I was late to the party there too, so no one responded.)

While I understand the argument for easier access to free games for reviewers, I worry that free games distort reviewer values in comparison to pay-to-play gamer values.

There seems to be evidence of such behavior in gaming, from the changing attitudes of the guys at Penny Arcade to the extremes of ROM kiddies. Gamers, given increasing access to free games, seem to value said games less and can become hair-trigger on judgement. (And videogame reviewing already has enough complaints of reviewers not giving games enough time, or even being deceptive about how little time they've given a title.)

Note to the above: I'm not saying the Penny Arcade guys turned into ROM kiddies. I meant the Penny Arcade guys as a kind of casual gamer that gradually reaped increasing benefits of influence in the gaming market, to the extremes of ROM horders.

"I've been pretty defensive about this in the past, and I think I still am."

Then you need to bloody stop. As a game journalist, you have no business accepting anything free from the people you cover. It's as much the appearance of conflict as the conflict itself. If the gaming press wants to be taken seriously, then it needs to start towing the ethics line and stop being a bunch of industry farm animals.

Hey, soul4sale, didn't say I did it myself - in fact, I don't, and my staff doesn't.

I think what I was saying was that I don't feel that game journalists are a massively biased bunch. But things like this - sure - could imply impropriety.

Industry farm animals, though? I don't think so.