Editorial standards & corrections
The rules we hold ourselves to, and what to do when we get something wrong.
Sourcing
Every article must cite its sources, and the source list is published at the end of the article. Our publishing system will not publish an article without at least one source on record.
Source receipts and dating
Sources are labelled by kind (press release, patch notes, interview, filing, first-party capture and so on) and, where it matters, by independence: a studio's own claim and an independent report are both sources, but they are not the same evidence, and the label says which is which. Guides and deals carry the date their facts were last checked, because a guide that quietly went stale is a lie with a byline.
Desk rules enforced in software
Four desks carry extra rules that our publishing system enforces rather than recommends. Gambling: sponsored and affiliate content, bonus codes and referral links are refused at publish time; the desk publishes journalism about the industry, not offers. Web3: an article cannot be published until the position and client-relationship disclosures are answered, and price-prediction content is refused. Brain training: a cognitive-benefit claim requires a linked study and a published limitation note. 18+: everything sits behind an age gate, is excluded from the homepage, feeds, search and the main sitemap, and is not indexed by default.
How pieces are published
Some of our coverage is produced and published automatically, on a schedule, without a person reading it first. The verification gates still apply and are enforced by the software rather than by memory: a piece without at least one primary source does not publish, prices and specifications carry the date they were checked, and sponsored content is labelled. Automatically published pieces carry the publication itself as the byline, never a person's name, so a named byline always means a person stood behind that specific piece. Review of automated work happens continuously after publication, and corrections are logged in the open on the article.
Specialist review
Articles making significant financial, market, technical, legal or security claims can be flagged for specialist review. A flagged article cannot be published until a named reviewer and review date are recorded, and that reviewer is shown on the article. We never display a reviewer who did not actually review the piece.
Sponsored content
Paid content is always labeled. See our Sponsorship & Affiliate Disclosure policy for the full rules.
Corrections
When we get something substantive wrong, we correct the article and log the correction in a visible "Updates & corrections" section on the article itself. We do not silently rewrite published work, and we do not change dates to make old work look fresh.
To request a correction, use the contact page and include the article link and the specific claim you believe is wrong, with evidence where possible.
What our reporting is not
Gaming Trend Wire is journalism, not professional advice. We report on what studios ship and what the evidence shows; we do not advise on your purchases, your compliance obligations or your bets. Prices, patch behaviour and availability are accurate as of the date we checked them, which we state, and games change under our feet with every update.