Imo, that is a very sad business/working environment.
At least from what I got used to, if I hired someone to do the job X and this person didn't warn me that it's a bad idea (and proposed how to do it better), I'd find them quite indifferent to putting in the effort to be a part of my company's success. That presumes, of course, that they were onboarded properly and so encouraged to behave like that.
And, if they warned of some Y being a bad idea (and proposed how to do it better), whilst not even being hired to do Y, I'd appreciate it deeply, and make sure they see additional bonus if that idea was good. No penalty for speaking up. Positive reinforcement for speaking up well about the right things.
Le sigh.
I was just speaking to the standard, shall we say, professional decorum that would normally be expected. I was talking worst-case scenario, there. I wouldn't (as a journalist) ever want to point out the flaws in my client's professional work in a different field. That would be wildly presumptuous -- even if I also had professional experience in that other field. It just wouldn't happen by way of good manners.
I would, however, if I was personally associated with my contact at a studio, perhaps send them a text or give them a call and be like, "Ah, I just wanted to check in with you before we published the article. What's with the low-res textures in the vid? They make the video look more than a little rough. You guys want us to edit those scenes out, or are you okay with it?"
^But that would be 100% personal and off-the-record. I would never, for example, ask my contact about that at work in front of their team or anything.
So either they "tried" to find a bad explanation for poor graphics meaning they cared a bit.
Or, more likely, they just had no idea what people were on about because they didn't pay attention to the video. Either way, the response was a foot-in-mouth moment for them, and it does seem to make it look like they're just pretending everything is totally up to snuff. I don't necessarily think it was intentional, but it's still a rather embarrassing and unfortunate response.
Simply put, reviewers expect you to send them a product that is representative of the end product. That is what they will review. If you fail to provide them with that, that's on you. Because the reality is that if you are willing to send reviewers, someone who will tell people what they think of your product, a shoddy product, it generally means you are willing to send a shoddy product to your customers.
Responding to all of it, but mostly focusing on this part.
From my experience with the studios I've worked with, it normally works one of three ways.
1.) The journalists contact the studios, put themselves on the studio's media contacts list, and they just get any press release stuff when it comes out. No money really changes hands, as the studio is known and the magazines want the info because they know it will be popular, get clicks, and they can make their money from advertising on their websites and such.
2.) The studio might not be well known, so they'll hire popular magazines to run some spots for them. In this case, the studio will pay for an article, or interview, or whatever, and the magazine will run the story.
3.) The studio is mega-popular, and the magazines will get into a bidding war with the studio to secure exclusive rights to certain stories, press releases, interviews, etc. for key milestones in the game's production. (Like having exclusive rights to announce The Witcher 4, for example.) In that regard, the magazines will normally pay the studio, provide them guaranteed advertising spots, etc. in exchange.
Normally, the "quality" of the product doesn't matter one whit to the journalists because they're going to get views either way. Whether the sensation is because the game is incredibly awesome (hype) or the game is absolutely abysmal (flame), the magazine will get a lot of attention for the story. Professionally, they couldn't care less.
Now, one would hope that this sort of thing would involve a level of respect for the studios, the people involved, and the fact that reputations can be strongly affected by what the media chooses to publish. One would hope that journalists would try to work for the greatest good and help people out where they can.
One would also be well-versed in disappointment if one actually held on to such hopes.
