There's a topic informing about the practice: Here

His post history doesn't look suspect - he was probably banned for misconduct :P

It's getting pretty crazy over there, but to be fair a lot of them actually did turn out to be shills. The ones who aren't are getting a lot of flak now unfortunately.

They are very effective at changing opinions. If they aren't able to convince their audience wholesale, they will argue to make it seem like they know what they're talking about. Basically they poison the discussion and prevent the community from being able to reach a consensus. If you look at the post history of some…

I wish that were true, but some posters make a point of arguing in the less established threads, which you could say is pretty smart and fairly meta as top threads tend to move faster. They definitely do not lack in argumentative skills and know where to fight their battles so to speak.

Could be. Here's the list of the ones banned yesterday. There will be more bannings in the coming week. Clicky

Yep, they're compiled in this link. Clicky

If you mean the shill bannings sure. Clicky

Hahaha, I'd expect nothing less from EA.

Yeah we are, but our attitudes towards it are different, like half-full and half-empty :P

That plays a big part too. Media has a lot of influence. Shilling is just one of the methods companies use to herd public opinion.

Yeah, it becomes very murky. It's a mess :S

Ah okay, I see what you mean. I suppose Luke feels very strongly about these policies MS is implementing.

Sure! Clicky

I'm certain they do both. Public perception is extremely important to a company's image, and given the anonymity of the internet, it's easy to pay someone to influence that. I mentioned NeoGAF above, here's the list of shills that were banned: Clicky

Luke wasn't saying that at all, his words mean exactly what he said here. Your defensiveness is uncalled for.

Gizmodo and other Gawker sites are also full of lobbyists and other types. It seems this is quite a lucrative way for companies to influence public perception of themselves.

The Xbox One isn't being marketed to 'hardcore' gamers, and everyone knows the XB1 will sell well thanks to public ignorance.

Over on NeoGAF today there were a bunch of bannings of corporate shills. Given their post histories and the way they defended these practices, I'm inclined to believe they're more prevalent in comments and discussion sections than most people think. I can think of a few on Kotaku, for example.

What it means is the PS4 will work the same as the PS3 does in used games - there will be online-pass equivalent, but that's it. Lending/borrowing and reselling can still be done privately, unlike the Xbox One.