Ok. Good for you.
Just adding to this, I'm not trying to say my preferences hold any special weight. Just that they influence what I'm personally going to care about, or complain about.
In actuality, it means that they are late to the review and miss out on a shit-ton of clicks and money. If that happens enough, it could kill the site.
The thing is, I don't think major AAA game reviews are even a huge percentage of articles on a site like Kotaku or Polygon. A lot of it is pure click bait, and that's one reason why there's been a big push for all of the social issue articles.
I'd be curious to see how many people insist on reading whatever reviews they can find on release day so they can make their purchase then ignoring all else. Or worse, previews. A lot of gamers are actually sick of how much previews are pushed on gaming sites (given some big misfires), and a growing number are sick of reviews of pre-release review copies that don't give an accurate representation of what the game will be like at release. Or are willing to overlook flaws on the assumption that they'll be fixed when that isn't always the case. I for one think the industry would be better off getting complete reviews and not rush jobs on pre-release copies where the embargo is lifted shortly before they come out. And if I were to actually take review sites seriously anymore (I may read them but I take it all with a ton of salt) it's going to be in a decent volume and after the game has been out a bit and normal people have had a chance to play it too.
Look here on AT, since Anand and Brian left they've been super late on some big phone reviews, but the ones by Andrei are of a fidelity that you can't find anywhere else. Sometimes there's a market for later but better.
Further on clicks...
I really don't think covering more worthwhile/independently meritorious games actually correlates that strongly with click volume. In fact, I think most of Gakwer media's network has crafted not just click bait but harvesting hate reads. If they were really trying to optimize indie game coverage for clicks they'd cover the ones with the catchiest titles or whatever they could use as the easiest hook, not quality. But they can pretty much spin titles as they please to get clicks.
IMO journalism in general has suffered a lot in the move from subscription models to click models (although subscriptions had their own problems), but the box is permanently opened on that one.
As for not covering games, are you of the opinion that reporting is a zero sum game? I'm pretty sure if a Kotaku writer wanted to cover a game they're excited about, an article about Depression Quest isn't going to prevent them from publishing it.
It's not quite zero sum, there's some elasticity where they can support more, but it's not a huge amount. As it is the writers are pushed to the limit and are already too focused on quantity over quality, IMO.
There was once a Kotaku article covering a hoax about a black woman learning how to drive from GTA IV (http://i.imgur.com/iLNDWSf.png). The e-mail exchange between the author and the hoaxer has a relevant comment that I think speaks for itself:
"We cover many, many games but can't possibly cover every game we're e-mailed about."
http://i.imgur.com/iLNDWSf.png
Really? Have you never heard the phrase "money talks"? Besides, it's not about the swag, it's about the clicks (or lack of, if you can't get a review copy before release).
The publishers dictate who will receive these preview copies, and thus, who will get those clicks.
You know what would probably get a lot of clicks? "AAA publisher refuses to send us review copies since we gave an honest review of their game."
I wonder how much this even happens, and how much it's a personal thing where individual reviewers are heavily invested in it.
Honestly, I still haven't seen any proof of collusion in relation to Zoe Quinn, just a long diatribe by a jilted ex-lover making a lot of accusations.
I'm not saying it doesn't happen, just that it's not even in the same order of magnitude as the issues with the major publishers. To me, it's like complaining that someone left the door open when your house is on fire.
For the billionth time, Eron Gjoni never accused Zoe Quinn of colluding with game journalists. I don't understand how this is so difficult for people to get.
I don't think collusion happens in the way you're implying, where there's this explicit trade going on. But people simply are more likely to say good things about and publicize their friends. I just don't see much room for argument against this in my mind. I wouldn't want to have to write about my friends because I'd have a really hard time being fair.
In this particular case, I very strongly doubt that Nathan Grayson would have called Depression Quest a "powerful indie darling" if he wasn't close friends with the developer and they weren't part of the same particular clique. It's portraying it as this kind of phenomenon that generated a lot of indie buzz, for comparison all other instances of "indie darling" I've seen were for games like Braid or Fez. I just can't see this as being an accurate description, and I think if he weren't so tied into this close group he would have seen that.
Edit: I do respect your opinion, though. You seem to have put some thought into it and it is not unreasonable. :thumbsup:
Thanks, and thanks for reading and responding.