1) It's unethical because they receive their games for free and are championing for the consumer to pay more for less. 2) They blatantly covered up the fact that the PS3 version was broken and made no mention of it. And praised how good the game was, leading consumers to believe there were no issues with it. 3) Missed 3 cause I can't count :P 4) Brad Shoemaker specifically states the game is not broken - this is flat out untrue. 5) He was a reviewer. He should be expected to do his job. 6) Clearly shows bias, especially if he's going to review the game. 7) How is that not unethical? They're putting forth a narrative on behalf of publishers that consumers should get less for more, while they get their games for free. Clear conflict of interest at minimum. 8) Doesn't matter who you are, this was unethical. 9) Again, how is this not unethical? They are putting forth a narrative they got from publishers. Anti-consumerism is unethical, no matter how you slice it, especially if your job is to inform consumers about products like game journalists and youtubers are.