No, I'm pretty sure Zach's right.
99% of reviewers out there have to support themselves out of pocket. Why? Because companies don't like giving shit out for free. Companies also don't like giving games to people who have given them poor reviews in the past. Yes, this has happened and it made a giant shitstorm in the community.
It's moronic to believe that all reviewers rely on the industry. And it's also why a lot of review sites flop over and die. Because they can't support themselves. They don't know how. Or the economy hits and they can't pay for the copies.
But hey, keep believing that 99% of the high scores out there were paid for. Keep believing the game industry is like the mob and they pay people off to give a good word. Keep believing that the industry supports those who review. They don't, but you're free to believe it.
I find it funny that I predicted this kind of thing.
So you put words in my mouth as well. (You and Zachski seem to think alike... in every thread that both of you have had an opinion... I start to wonder).
You say there was a shitstorm in the community, however you provide no clue if the practice stopped due to that shitstorm or it was just a three day wonder. (Oh how tempting it is to make a ME3 analogy here...)
Your next paragraph is difficult to parse for meaning. Are you saying the a lot of reviewers' sites flop over and die because reviewers do not rely on the industry? (And the logical conclusion is that those that DO rely survive?) In addition does your statement imply that you call those who believe that reviewer rely on the industry morons (sounds like ad hominem to me)?
From what you said I feel like you are actually supporting the argument that indeed the high scores are paid for by the industry. Oh and I do not see you mention the reliance of sites on advertisement.
Your statement about predictions you made seems non sequitur.
