When a review score became a bargaining chip
A magazine’s rating was supposed to tell readers how good a game was. But for some print publications, a high score could also help secure something editors wanted: an exclusive interview with a publisher about a highly anticipated sequel.
The leverage came from access. Publishers could choose which magazine got time with developers or executives, and an exclusive conversation gave a publication material its competitors could not immediately match. A favorable review, meanwhile, could look like a reason for the publisher to keep that relationship warm. The score thus served two audiences at once: readers judging the game and publishers deciding whom to talk to.
The cost of mixing access with judgment
That arrangement created a conflict of interest—a situation in which pursuing one goal could compromise another. If editors softened a verdict to improve their chances of getting an interview, readers could no longer assume the rating reflected only the magazine’s assessment of the game. Even without an explicit promise, the possibility of future access could shape a decision.
The tradeoff was especially tempting when a sequel already had a large audience waiting for news. An exclusive interview could draw attention to an issue; a more critical score might risk making the publisher less cooperative. But the bargain could also erode the value of the magazine’s reviews: once readers suspected that praise helped buy access, even an honest high rating became harder to trust. The interview was exclusive; the doubt about the score was not.
