There are a lot of parallels between advertising and copyright. Buy wholeheartedly in to either, and you end up sort of failing to accept the reality of their flaws.

Advertisers think they have a big problem whenever someone circumvents their ads. They panicked when VCRs came around and allowed people to record shows and fast-forward through ads. They panicked when DVRs came out and let people digitally skip through ads. And they are panicking now, with more and more people getting fed up and putting ad-blocking software on their computers or devices.

Copyright holders think they have a big problem when someone tries to circumvent their system, too. They worried about libraries giving people free access to books; but at least a physical book is pretty much limited to one person at a time. They freaked out about cassette tapes being easily copied with a dual cassette deck. They freaked out about people sharing MP3 music over the internet. They freaked out when DVDs came out with CSS protection which was circumvented almost immediately. They continue to freak out by pushing for ever more and more drastic DRM schemes, that are generally circumvented quite rapidly.

The general theme in both advertising and copyright is escalation; a sort of arms race. The problem is that that solution doesn't actually improve things for anyone, in either case. Ads get more and more offensive and annoying, more and more people block/skip them. Copyright gets more and more locked-down, more and more people circumvent it. In both cases, as the "legitimate" side squeezes harder, it ends up making the user experience better for those who circumvent it "illegitimately". See, for example, this good old comic from The Oatmeal:
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones

The web with adblock software is a massively better experience than the web without it. A pirated 1080p movie or TV show lets you skip the previews/commercials that are often unskippable on a DVD. And on and on.

This arms race doesn't have a good future. Creators and distributors must start wracking their brains to come up with whole new ideas, or at least variants of the old ones, that break that cycle and ensure that "illegitimate" users/viewers don't have a better experience than legitimate ones. I'm sure not holding my breath though.

embarassingly, I'm kind of intrigued; I think it has a Texas Chainsaw Massacre / Evil Dead quality about it

I was also thinking during the preview that it was pretty amazing that they killed off Danny Trejo so quickly and later came to the conclusion that it's probably because they couldn't afford the budget and that's Danny Trejo money which probably isn't alot compared to say Tom Hanks.

I'm going to be crossing my fingers in hopes that this is good. At least with what we got for this preview, it looks promising and people have been commending how the beginning of GITS did look to be emulated here too.

I just hope that we finally have a decent adaptation on our hands. Hell knows that if we ever need to start identifying bad films, we use "white washing" to start finding them. (Why are there white kids in the Antarctic shyamalan?!)

This is why I don't watch previews at all. (Once I decide that I want to watch the movie at least.) This scene mostly worked in the context of the movie where they were escalating this effect over time, but in isolation it does look a bit silly.

I funny the broader furor about this game hilarious. Developer previews game without showing any meaningful gameplay, progression or storyline. Then people are shocked, shocked the game contains none of these things. This train wreck was predictable as hell, right down to the committed fanboys digging in their heels. I hope this is featured as a tech demo on the latest 3DMark.

I will see it, but probably on the home release. I am not expecting much. Previews were meh.

Your video, Previewing the Republican Convention: A Closer Look, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

The only box next to the preview button is one for sarcasm...

It should be next to the 'preview' button under any comment you're writing.

it's probably worth noting that 'broken back' isn't a medical diagnosis. There are a whole range of injuries that could potentially fall into that category with damage to the spinal coord being the most serious. A fractured vertebra/pedicle or a popped disc can have complications including sciatica and variable paralysis of a nerve root which may fully resolve with time and or surgery.

In this case, you can see in the preview she is sitting on the side of the pool with her spine taking the whole weight of her torso/head - so i'm not sure what the 'reduces forces on her bones' means.
While this type of exercise offers fantastic rehabilitation I wouldn't want people to think that you could dump Christopher reeves in there and cure his ailments!

Weird, I wonder why he chose Far Cry Primal for this particular rant. The game received mixed reviews and has an average Metacritic score of 76 (across all three platforms). I seriously doubt Ubisoft would pay for such reviews.

As others have mentioned, publishers don't offer explicit bribes. They offer access. Preview copies, preview events, interviews, footage, screenshots, etc. In the long run, that's far more valuable than straight up cash.

Yeah, I'm sure being rejected early access to review code has a far bigger impact than cash. It takes time to review a product and get content generated and ready to go, which is why early review code is necessary so you can launch your review as soon as that review embargo ends... as those are the ones that will generate the click revenue, which is probably exceeds whatever studios may pay directly.

Hey, I've been offered review code (never of AAA titles, biggest I got offered was The Incredible Adventures of Van Helsing: Final Cut and Sword Coast Legend) on occasion from a PR firm that somehow I got on their list (I do have a blog that is gaming focused, got a very small Twitch channel and YouTube channel that largely focuses on games). I personally only accept ones that I genuinely have an interest in... of course this perhaps clogs judgement all the more. I wanted to like the title... so I may be more forgiving. When I founded and ran Mortyr.net (it's long since been taken over) I admit my preview of the game was clouded a bit, though I've tried to apply lessons learned from that forward. Then again, it's perhaps easier to apply those lessons to myself as I'm too small to matter (and the offers for review code are very few and far between), a big publishing site who's reviews count on the Metacritic analysis, and rely on click through revenue has less room to be apply such lessons and almost needs to ignore impartiality in favor of making sure you keep in the publisher's good graces. A PR firm handing me a review code that doesn't work out well isn't as bad if Game Informer or somebody like that doesn't give it a positive review.

TLDR: Exactly what RedSky and Stormsinger said.

@Stormsinger

Indeed, I doubt it's ever explicit cash, just the promise of being rejected from early review events and being snubbed for previews. Being late to review or not getting any exclusive information can be a big deal for a mag or game site.

I was 13/14, games back then were magical. Anytime I was on a plane or in the car I was reading PC Gamer or CGM drooling over the demos (or shareware!), ads, previews and reviews. Remember those days? When information on gaming was largely through print?! I still remember those Dark Forces previews, I could have shot a load. PC gaming at that point really was fucking cutting edge.

1997 & 1998 also hold a special flame in gaming for me - 1997: Ultima Online (actually learned HTML and had a website for UO cuz I was a NERD), Fallout, GTA, Age of Empires, Dungeon Keeper, Quake II, Myth (incredible multiplayer component probably even still).

1998: Starcraft, Half-Life, Baldur's Gate, Thief, Grim Fandango, Fallout 2, Tribes, THIEF, Unreal, Commandos.... so many innovative games back then. Now we just build on them over and over and over again