Well, since I was among the members who got a chance to do a beta-test for the CSRE, here are my few thoughts on the subject:
I can speak only for myself, but I would never write anything that I am not 100% accurate about. It takes very long time to get the knowledge and expertise on some particular subject and driving simulations and peripherals are one of them.
When you come to the community of +150.000 members with decade of tradition and you willingly decide to publish something by your nickname, it must involve some dignity and awareness of having obligation to be objective and truthful in your thoughts and impressions.
I had great dilemmas when writing CSRE overview, it took me more than a month to finish everything and I have invested probably more than 100 hours in all games combined to test performance, compare it directly to performance of my GT2 and G25 wheels, take notes about everything and assemble the overview.
I think that person who is granted with the privilege to beta-test something has double-sided obligation: one towards the manufacturer who recognized him as somebody who can help with development of some product (at lease as beta-testing is concerned, not just usual "reviewing") and towards community who have right to expect a truthful and unbiased overview.
On the matter of my CSRE overview, I still stand behind everything I wrote there. That wheel is still the best I've ever driven, my beta-unit is still alive and very kicking and I had no issues with it whatsoever. But I was also among the first to vocalize my personal doubts about the wheel-rim, which was the issue that soon got many supporters.
To cut it short, making community-reviews is a double-edged sword for both sides. As a reviewer, you have to be aware how you put your personal credibility on particular forum in stake by writing the review. If you write something that is not realistic, or you willingly decide to cater the manufacturer because he selected "you", community will realize it and your credibility will be ruined forever. The manufacturer/product will also begin to suffer, because those kind of processes are always mutual.
I really think how reviews of products on specialized-communities are much more valuable than some general websites. I will not call any names or whatever, but sometimes I really laugh hard about the many reviews and many presentations, especially abut the driving peripherals, that can be found on some respected sites. But that is their problem, they failed in what was most important - knowledge and credibility - all sacrificed for more hits or catering the casual (greater) audience.
I will give you the same logic, but on the inverted perspective. Game reviews. Back in 2005 Konami published a PS2 game called Enthusia Professional Racing. That game was slaughtered on almost all websites and communities (although irrelevant, Metactrtici score for Enthusia is 70%) and only places where you could find positive overviews were specialized-communities. And Enthusia is still a real masterpiece of the genre, even today. Richard Burns Rally is another example of above.
Community-reviews are good thing and I would always welcome them more than any "official" review-channel. There is much more credibility to lose on places such as GTP, for both reviewer and manufacturer, and that loss is happening much faster than in usual media channels.
As long as all sides included are 100% aware how only truth and accurate and full information can be the path to successful presentation to the people of interest, everybody wins. And stakes are enormous, because it takes just one *mistake* to lose your credibility forever.
Internet never forgives. And pretty recent example of that guy Paul Christoforo and his Ocean Marketing episode is a great showcase of the above. And until internet is really a place where no major thing can pass without heavy criticism, community reviews remains a great and objective way of presenting something to the public IMO.
