Honestly I think it means giving Digital Foundry first dibs on the consoles before anyone else. By doing that they can make Digital Foundry feel like Microsoft is treating them well so they will side with them more. At least that's what I think happened.
Not that Microsoft dropped a fat sack of cash on Digital Foundry's doorstep in exchange for positive impressions.
This is very believable and likely what went down. They wanted the One X to look good to hardcore gamers, DF was established as providing technical analysis showing off the power of hardware and games...why not invite them out to test the new hardware and games and provide some sweet accommodations?
Sounds perfectly normal if that was the case, because Sony, Nintendo and many 3P publishers do the same thing. It's no different than a hotel throwing in a few perks to a whale, if that gets the whale in a good mood to spend more at the establishment. As long as it's not completely tasteless in how it's done (and if it was as far as giving DF first dibs on new hardware and games, that's well within the reason of taste), I don't see the issue.
No, it's not worth it.
And this thread was the worst venue for anyone to bring up the "MS shills" point in the first place, this is the least likeliest of threads where that would have worked in the first place.
I don't even know what led to the post being dropped TBH, but it did seem kind of out of left-field because most discourse was (and should've been) focused on the content of the video. I didn't see a bunch of people suddenly accusing DF of being Sony shills ITT but, maybe I missed something
It was Gears 5.
Kingthrash
just pointed out that analysis wasn't much of an analysis, and got shit from DF supporters and DF them selves.
Well in the end basically John finally admitted reading straight from MS script for what was supposed to be "professional" analysis.
After this shit show John has kept clear of corp PR.
Well
Kingthrash
has his own issues with a few of his "analysis" but that's not the point of the thread so I won't go off into that.
"Don't bite the hand that feeds you"
I think that could apply here. Not that Microsoft paid Digital Foundry anything but if they went all negative on Xbox (just an example) Microsoft wouldn't work with them in the future. It's very important for a site like Digital Foundry to get an extremely early look at the tech. They certainly don't want to loose that perk with any company.
Yep, that's part of the game basically, when you're in the press circuit and whatnot. Know where your bread is buttered and don't go too out-of-line else you lose the bread and the butter. It's always something at play when it comes to previews, reviews etc. from the big sites, and it's not just Microsoft who set that precedent: all the platform holders, and likely all the publishers, have a similar attitude.
They want any negative coverage to be presented as positively as possible, and the odd few who don't quite follow the general model might face things like getting blacklisted, or certain privileges revoked. Certain companies can implicitly enforce this better than others: Sony, for example, given their position in the industry, a reviewer might have more to lose if they get too overly critical and negative on the brand or do blatantly misleading reviews (tho in the case of the latter they prob deserve to lose certain access because of doing misleading coverage and reviews) compared to if they did so with another company.
That said, I strongly doubt any of these companies are outright "buying out" anyone and there's only so much they can throw out in terms of perks to select people. Also a general rule, those who rely on advertisers for their revenue are probably more likely to tow a certain, slightly less critical line than those who are sustained off of community funds or self-funded. I just don't think there's any singular examples to be had where outright blatant buying-off of clout or preferred coverage is happening, whether by Microsoft or any other company.
If that were happening I'd like to think a lot more whistleblowers would come forward with corroborative examples, and perhaps some outside investigations would be started up with the courts potentially getting involved. I know rules on propaganda got more laxed over the past decade (highly unfortunate), but the environment can't be so bad that blatant buy-offs are being pursued, especially by larger publishers or platform holders who risk losing more if it gets exposed.