I feel like that didn't always use to be the case

I agree and I don't think everyone doing this is hoping to cash in on it either. I just think most are and it's more reasonable to think they're doing it for publicity than genuine love.

However, this sadly appears in any situation where cash is involved. Back when I frequented N4G more, you could see that there is a strong correlation between noted controversies and editorials. One thing I commonly post here is how much I dislike most editorials, since they rarely add new commentary to these big issues or even present a new perspective. It also goes to show how one sided this stuff can be.

One of my favorite examples of this discrepancy is Spelunker HD, which is a game that was treated unfairly across the board. This is a game that was widely criticized for difficulty, something that wouldn't have happened if it was a Souls game or perhaps released after the rise of Demon's Souls and many pull quotes allude to incorrect information.

One site said a game with 100 online and offline stages (the stages are the similar, but changed to suit more or less players) and supported up to six people was not objectively worth $9.99. Another site called it a shoddy remake, even though it added something like 95 levels compared to the original game, supported HD and classic graphics and even added an online mode. One site said the original was included, though it isn't.

Games like this simply won't get a single editorial about where the journalists went wrong, clarify details or even talk about it in length, which is sad. However, we might see 30 editorials talking about Breath of the Wild's reviews or that one 7/10 score.

It's just sad that things are the way that they're.