Meh. I'll give them credit for typically having the balls to say what they thought right from the beginning, but I stopped reading EGM years ago when I noticed a few instances of them printing things that were regarded as rumour (and even proven to be rumour before the issues came out) as fact. It's not something that happened all the time and it wasn't always blatant, but it was enough to make me question their credibility and therefore drop them like a bad habit. I've even seen former editors admit this happened too often after they moved on to other jobs/companies.

Still not as bad as former Game Informer editors admitting that the review scores are just what they think the general public will rate the game.