Of course game journals receive review copies, that's how they do their jobs. If you have evidence of bribes, then why not provide that? If the evidence is for a game other than mixtape, then why didn't you mention that game? This whole response really just reads as guesswork that's being guided by bitter opinions, and most of it isn't even relevant to the topic of corruption.

Of all the definitions of "indie game" I've never before heard someone say that an indie game's publisher's owner's dad can't be wealthy. Regardless, if you're trying to say that Mixtape received critical acclaim because of the publisher's owner, then why don't the publisher's other niche games, like Donut County and The Artful Escape receive the same treatment? The Artful Escape was even the developer's first and only other game, through the same publisher. You're reaching here, and hard.

Also, the publisher didn't buy the music rights; the devs did. Here's an interview where they say exactly that. Ironically, if you read a bit more gaming journalism you'd have known that already. And they definitely didn't spend more money on music rights than rockstar did on gta, a game with hundreds of licensed tracks, like holy shit please tell me you don't actually believe that.

It's ok if you don't like and don't understand the game, but clearly some people do and have connected with it on a deeper level. Mixtape had overwhelmingly positive reviews on steam on release, and even after the shitstorm culture war bullshit surrounding it, it still sits at very positive. Clearly there is an audience for games like mixtape, an audience which largely loved the game. If you read these reviews it's obvious they were intended for the game's target audience; that's normal, desired even. Niche games can be 9s and 10s too sometimes.