Thanks for all the suggestions! I already found lots of interesting writings. And it's nice to see that some of you have your own blogs, too. Agreed 100%.

www.gamespite.net are quite good too

www.outofeight.info

Sorry gog doesn't detect it as an URL.

Just because other sites are biased, so can RPS be?

Kissing Valve's ass, and talking shit about EA, Blizzard, and Ubisoft, for EXACTLY THE SAME THING, yea, that is very professional.

But then, Valve gave them a Steam account with all games, and now RPSs feed shows up on Steam. The other companies don't do that, so they have no reason to kiss their asses.

Yeah, this is absolutely a case of RPS kissing Valve's ass.

Sorry, you're wrong. As I remember Navagon succinctly putting it the other day, Steam is not news. Ubisoft's bizarre flip-flopping regarding DRM every other week is, as were the stories on Diablo III being an always-on pseudo-MMO and Origin forum/service bans. They're not reporting on Steam DRM because it hasn't changed at all since its inception all those years ago.

RPS articles on Diablo III are extremely enthusiastic, with the sole exception of the DRM issue. Go ahead and read them.

EDIT: The article I linked to also has this comment by one of core RPS writers John Walker, which I would be willing to sign myself: "Bearing in mind we, and most our readers, are incessantly being told we’re Valve fanboys by the mad-angries, it seems there are those who would disagree this is [preaching] to the choir.

Also, can this discussion not be reduced to a strange two-sided war? I like Steam because it’s a great system and keeps my games tidy. I don’t like Steam because it has ludicrous rules and is horribly clunky. It’s possible for people to like and dislike something without being a “fanboy”."

That is just one article pointing out one problem that affected one person (who was probably trying to game the trading system), while RPS continue to ignore problems that affect entire regions, and ultimately everyone whether they know it or not, (such as Valve intentionally advising customers that games purchased over Steam are never IP blocked, despite knowing full well that they are). Yet at the same time, being all too happy to jump the gun to post any problem with other publisher's games without having all the facts beforehand (such as blaming DRM for a few people not being able to play Darkspore) despite the issue actually being a bug not related to DRM at all).

You'll also notice the following comment at the end of that article: "PS. We held this story back a day to give Valve a second chance to respond to our questions", a courtesy they have not extended to any other company that they have posted complaints about.

Now, if you can show a similar article posted by RPS covering another publisher, etc., in which they have extended the same courtesy (i.e., holding off posting the story so that the publisher can offer a response prior to the article being published), prior to that Valve article, then I'll happily admit to being incorrect.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/11/14/ea-forum-bans-are-still-affecting-games/

I'm inclined not to count that one as that is a follow on article from a previous one covering the same alleged issue (linked right at the start of that one) and in that original article they did not contact EA prior to publishing it.

There's this one - http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/03/06/fear-not-assassins-creed-3-will-be-on-pc/ - where instead of repeating the rumour that AC3 wouldn't come to PC, they contacted Ubi to clarify first (in the original article) and then again for further clarification (in the linked).

And again, Assassin's Creed and Ubisoft, this time Revelations - http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/11/10/oh-but-some-good-ass-rev-news-drm/ - contacting Ubi to confirm DRM rather than reporting the existing rumours about the DRM.

I say again, name me one review source that doesn't have some biases.

Fact is, there aren't any. You want to label RPS as being unprofessional, then you have to label the entirety of videogame journalism as well. Besides which, the complaints leveled at RPS are woefully petty, especially when compared with some of the crap that sites like Gamespot, Gametrailers, and IGN have pulled. Failure to report on some rumors while reporting on others is not the same thing as blatant ignorance and dishonesty.

Then who are you comparing them to?

To none. Just because some other sites are biased, doesn't make their bias any less wrong.

A good attempt, however, not only was the first posted after the Valve article (and I did state I wanted to see one prior to that), it's also not about a problem. It's about the possible availability of an as yet unreleased game.

Similarly, the second too, was at the time of publishing, about an upcoming game and not an existing problem that was affecting customers at that time.

I guess I should have been clearer with my original request. What I am looking for is:

An article about a current problem affecting customers at the time of the article's posting (so must affect a product already on the market at time of writing), that is not a follow on article from a pre-existing issue. That article must be posted prior to the Valve article (before Feb. 1, 2012) and must clearly indicate that the writer of the article attempted to contact the company involved prior to the article being published.

(As an added extra, said article should not contain negative wording which is the sole result of the authors bias towards the company involved.)

But that said, it's nice to see that RPS did at least try to confirm a release date before posting an article about a release date. Kotaku wouldn't have bothered. They'd have just slapped a "rumor" tag on it...

...and it must have been published during a full moon in February.