Ah, another favorited thread... I have to scroll waaaaaaaaaay down just to see recent threads as it is.

The point isn't that SOME other sites are biased. The point is that EVERY other site is biased in some way. You can't single out one as being unprofessional for that and leave the others alone. It's hypocritical. In fact, it's the exact same thing that you accuse RPS of doing.

RPS was mentioned in the first post. Other biased sites are irrelevant.

But never mind me, I'm out of here.

Killscreen there's some pretty good writing there. It's not something that follows a very traditional model of writing about games, and indeed if you want to know about the graphics or the length of the game or what DRM it has then it's not going to be much help. But they do have a way of summing up games in ways that others don't even try to.

"In part, this is because reviewing Duke Nukem Forever is a bit like reviewing your adolescence. You are being asked to tell the drunken, spray-tanned uncle that his moment has passed, or you have caught your high-school teacher sipping margaritas as gargantuan as his loneliness at Applebee’s. Duke is having his Norma Desmond moment. “I am big. It’s the pictures that got small.”"

You know, for someone with such blatant biases yourself - to the point where people start thinking you're a paid PR person - you don't half seem hung up on this topic.

They're relevant because you seem to think that RPS's are worse than those of any other reivew site.

Frankly, that's an utterly ridiculous thing to want, for a staggeringly large number of reasons - 1) the ludicrous specifics you're asking for, there could be countless articles where they held it back waiting for publisher comment and they just didn't mention it in the article (indeed, the only reason it even appears in the Valve article is because they contacted them -twice- and heard nothing back, good selective quoting by you there), 2) the nature of RPS. It's not a news site, it's an opinion-on-the-news site - the vast majority of 'controversy' stories they're reporting on are usually ones where they're just commenting on the articles coming from elsewhere - as such, usually the original news source has initiated publisher contact. But they often contact the publishers themselves anyway.

But how about not only a correction, but an apology to Ubisoft? http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/03/18/correction-ubisofts-dramatic-change/

Like?

What do you mean, like?

Not at all. Or are you agreeing that no such article exists?
It's the exact same circumstances of the Valve article. And if they are not biased towards Valve, then they would extend the same courtesy to other publishers prior to posting similar articles.

The apology is nice, but would have been unnecessary, had they extended said courtesy to Ubisoft first - and thus had checked their facts prior to posting the article resulting in that apology.
.

But that's the thing (and the part of my post you ignored), you're demanding that they're explicit in mentioning that fact. It could have been the case for several of the articles, they just didn't mention it, or just put something like 'We have yet to hear back from blahblah regarding this'. Again I point out that their quote regarding contacting Valve twice was mostly to highlight that they -hadn't- heard back from them, not to highlight that they're extending them a professional courtesy.

No, I'm just pointing out that your requirements are far too specific (and you keep narrowing them down throughout the discussion), to the point where finding such an article becomes pretty much impossible -- provided that it actually exists. Which it may; I honestly have no idea.

(And frankly, I'm not at all sure I'm the burden of proof is on me here.)