I would actually like to know how something like this is brokered.
http://www.ign.com/wikis/gta-5/GTA_V_Week_on_IGN'
These week events by sites like IGN with coverage with nausea-inducing praise on the surface looks like a media buy.
A few weeks before launch, IGN is writing previews and putting together interviews that lack any kind of criticism what so ever. They were called out when it happened, but these kinds of articles are why people are skeptical of whether major outlets like IGN are interested in doing fair and honest coverage or are they more interested in getting their wheels greased and being a cheerleader for "their industry."
Another example would be the IGN AMA leading up to the Xbox One. IGN seems perfectly content with their interview coverage to consist of Microsoft picking and choosing questions from a list that they crowd-sourced and publishing whatever is written with very little editorial control at all. I don't know how you could look at these articles as anything less than an exchange of clicks and announcements for complete editorial control of IGNs feature.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/08/05/ask-microsoft-anything-about-xbox-one
It may not be corruption, but even if a benefit of the doubt is given, this could easily be described as a laissez-faire attitude that exists at different levels of intensity throughout the industry of games coverage. Some outlets take it more seriously than others, but there is little public derision for these kinds of practices. It's almost as if there is a culture that exists within the industry to not rock the boat too much, because you're either jumping onto the development ship or waiting to be rescued by another media outlet.
I've said some of these things in the past, and I realize you individually and probably a lot of the people at Kotaku are doing their best to shake things up in a safe, PR-controlled coverage area, but I think these kinds of discussion cannot exist without actual tangible proof or interest from within or outside the beast in finding out what is going on.
We can all pontificate and talk about how things work as outsiders or as insiders who benefit from the success and survival of these outlets, but you cannot dismiss or affirm our suspicions without making an earnest effort to not only examine your own practices, but also the practices of the industry at large. These questions may never be dismissed, but there are very few articles out there that are willing to take a chance to burn bridges within the games writing community.
Something like this.
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/129966/pr_and_the_game_media_how_pr_.php?print=1
I'm not sure if you read that article, but these stories do exist and impact the coverage that gamers do receive. These stories shouldn't be suppressed. They should be exposed with extreme vigor. Rockstar or any other publisher shouldn't be able to blackball an outlet or screw over another outlet with complete cooperation from the rest of the writers. It shouldn't be viewed as a "score" or a "cover" that someone else won't be able to get.
These incentives and pressures that publishers applied back then in 2007 and certainly apply now, are without a doubt, a problem that the industry and its followers should care about. It should be something that is of interest. Not just as a form of catharsis in affirming a position or pointing out "bad seeds," but as a way to actually make everyone think critically about the system they exist in and whether it is worth continuing to live press release to press release.
These kinds of stories are about bringing substance to affirming or dismissing malfeasance and general carelessness within an industry that influences the purchasing and consumption behavior of a billion dollar market. These stories shouldn't be discarded or examined only on a surface level, because they do not seem like something your readership asks for. Sometimes writers should try to inform people of things that they may not even be aware of or care about. Stories shouldn't be picked based on poll results or Marketing data.