Redner: People Threatened my Family Over Duke Nukem Review Outburst

[Logan Westbrook]

Redner: People Threatened my Family Over Duke Nukem Review Outburst

The head of 2K's former PR company says that choosing who does and doesn't get review copies is a PR person's job, not some Sword of Damocles he or she holds over reviewers.

Jim Redner, who earned [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/111038-Duke-Nukem-Forever-PR-Agency-Threatens-Sites-Over-Bad-Reviews-UPDATED ] himself a fair amount of notoriety when he voiced his displeasure about the tone of certain Duke Nukem Forever reviews, says that he was surprised at the level of anger that was directed at him following his outburst, and that he even received threats against both him and his family.

Redner said his rant - in which he said that he would look at which publications he sent review copies to in future, prompting a great deal of discussion about blacklisting - had thrust him into the spotlight for a couple of days. In that time, he received a significant number of Twitter messages and emails. Some, he said, were funny or clever, some were mean, others were scary, and a few were actually supportive. He said that the experience had given him a new appreciation for how difficult it must be to be a celebrity, and that he shuddered to think about the volume of hateful comments that some people had to put up with every day.

He also refuted the idea that he would have blacklisted certain outlets, had 2K not terminated his contract. He said that people were using the word "blacklisted" incorrectly, as he would not have prevented anyone from working. Instead, he said that he would have simply chosen not to support certain publications in the future.

He said that PR companies were under no obligation to send games out to reviewers, especially not if they felt that said reviews would be detrimental to a game's sales. The job of a PR person, he said, was to get the best - or in other words, the most favorable - coverage possible, and that meant being selective about what reviews he or she sent games to, especially when those games weren't the best in the world. He reiterated that no one was being "blacklisted," as they could still review the game, but that he saw little point in sending games to people who - for whatever reason - would be unsympathetic to them.

While Redner's outburst was ill advised - something he himself admits - his points about the relationship between PR companies and reviewers have a lot of truth to them. The job of a PR company is not to make reviewers lives easier; it's to maximize the sales success of the brands they manage. Sometimes what a reviewer wants and the the PR person wants intersect, other times they don't. This isn't limited to videogame reviews - studios often won't show movies to critics if they think the reviews will be bad - and is simply one of the pitfalls of product-orientated journalism.

What's really interesting though, is that people cared enough about the behind the scenes interplay between reviewers and PR companies to send Redner threatening messages. It's highly doubtful that any of the threats were actually credible - this is the internet after all, the home of anonymous, vicious hyperbole - but that people sent them in the first place is rather remarkable.


Source: Industry Gamers [http://www.industrygamers.com/news/duke-nukem-pr-man-i-received-threats-against-my-family/]


Permalink

 

[Catchy Slogan]

Death threats? Seriously? There is something seriously wrong with these people.

 

[BoredDragon]

Who the hell threatens someone over video games? Anyway, this is the first time I've heard about this guy, but what he's saying makes sense. This is definitely the reason why Yahtzee never gets any advance copies of games

 

[Jumwa]

His mistake was just speaking honestly about the thorny issue. Which, being a PR guy, was a rather whopping mistake to make.

Certainly, it's his job to get the game the best publicity he can. Why would he want to send future games to reviewers he felt were overly harsh on the product he was advancing? That wouldn't make sense.

I know we're all accustomed to reading through the BS speak of politicians and corporate mouth pieces, but we're talking about a highly subjective issue here. Game reviewing is, in many ways, like any other art critiquing, and there's often no right answer. There are few objective things we can criticize in a game, after all, when compared to the endless heaps of subjective choices based on taste and preference.

Sure, there's bugginess of the product to address, technical flaws and such. But there's such a heap of things that can be chocked up to "Personal preference".

Anyhow, long way of saying: I can sympathize with the sentiment, at least on the grounds I listed.

 

[Jamboxdotcom]

So, apparently there are people out there who don't know that the whole point of PR and marketing is to lie? Newsflash: ad men are paid to improve sales, not to tell the truth.

 

[Glamorgan]

Who the hell threatens someone over video games?

Well, I can sorta sympathise with all the ones directed at Michael Atkinson.

OT: I can understand sorta understand what he's saying, but in the end, what he did was way out of line.

 

[koroem]

This guy is still seeking attention. That big column he wrote the other day was a joke in and of itself. He basically apologized for what he did, then went on in detail about how he wasn't sorry, without saying he wasn't sorry. It felt very hypocritical.

He then goes on to detail some utopian world of reviewing which basically amounted to him preaching, if he don't like what the review said, then it's tone is bad and the reviewer is not doing his job. He was basically saying all reviews should be positive and not hurt the feelings of the people who made the product.

Reviewers are meant to be honest, and brutal if necessary to get the point across. Not worry about hurting someones feelings. They shouldn't have to sugar coat a pile of shit because Timmy or Johnny can't handle someone saying their work was terrible.

So when that doesn't work he continues his 10 minutes of fame by crying about people who "threatened him." I highly doubt any threat against him was credible.

 

[archabaddon]

In every demograph, including the gaming population, there is a set of people who are mentally unbalanced. Case in point.

 

[DeathWyrmNexus]

Eh, the game got more bile than review, to be honest. So I honestly can't blame him for reconsidering who gets his business in the future. This game release made me wonder if I had entered into Bizarro world considering that the game is a solid C average and a lot of reviewers acted like it killed their parents and then raped the bodies in front of them during their formative years.

I've seen games with much more problems get an infinitely kinder hand.

 

[rembrandtqeinstein]

"The job of a PR person, he said, was to get the best - or in other words, the most favorable - coverage possible, and that meant being selective about what reviews he or she sent games to, especially when those games weren't the best in the world. lie to the public, have no integrity or honor, shovel shit and expect people to eat it, and sleep like a baby because you have no conscience."

If all of the "PR" people suddenly disappeared I can't imagine any way in which the world would be a worse place, and can imagine several ways in which it would be better.

 

[Hungry Donner]

The guys comments were dumb, and while his explanation does add some rationality to his rants it doesn't change the fact that he was ranting.

But really, threats? It doesn't surprise me but outbursts like this are far stupider than Redner's.

It is nice to see him tackling this head-on however, rather than trying to sweep it under the rug in the hopes that people will forget a few months down the road (and most gamers probably will). However I would have liked a bit more apology if he was going to spend that much time offering up an explanation.

 

[Therumancer]

I have little sympathy myself given that this guy's job is to deceive the public. As much as I hate big goverment, it's guys like this that cause me to question my own beliefs with some frequency and think in terms of goverment regulation. Especially when it comes to video games where we've been getting handed some pretty junky products by an industry that increasingly relies on glitz, forced public ignorance (ie not revealing much about games until they are out), or outright disinformation. It's PR guys like this that are a big part of the problem simply by their very existance.

The guys who are supposed to protect the customers by informing us through reiviews and such are of course becoming increasingly corrupt, and as this guy sort of demonstrats the reviewers that can't be bought (or those with bosses who can't be bought) can simply be cut out of the loop as part of the whole PR process since the company and it's employees can pick and choose who they want to review their product before it's officially put on the market.

Death Threats are going too far, but at the same time it's not entirely unexpected. You have to remember that gamers are increasingly being mistreated by the industry, and have little or no recourse if we still want to play games. The outright contempt shown towards us as customers and how what we say is ignored... even in the form of petitions, is causing an increasing amount of anger, and it's not surprising that when reason fails nastier forms of threats are beginning to form, as well as specific people who are responsible... like PR guys whose job it is to lie for the companies, are being targeted rather than general QQing about a company or product in a general sense.

While it goes beyond this PR guy, understand that just within recent memory we had that entire "Dragon Age 2" thing. That is a multi-faceted issue that started with Bioware asking if fans would mind if they cut down on the character generation options, they received an overwhelmingly negative response, and then said people supported the desician. Then of course there was the game itself with it's enemies spawning in waves and constantly re-used enviroments, and then the whole review shilling thing. Then we've of course got the entire "Old Republic Online" thing with the community getting it's chain jerked over something as simple as a release date.... and during E3 the guy running the demo made a "joke" about how they planned to give a release date but thought it would be funnier not to... and this is just from Bioware and people actually LIKE them comparitively speaking.

While it's something of a grim prediction, I think things are just going to get worse since the gaming industry doesn't seem to be changing it's attitudes, and there is no effective consumer advocacy. We've kind of seen this happen before, rumbles of anger and discontent from the fan base turns into threats, and then next thing you know you have people in the industry getting jumped at cons. I wouldn't be surprised if at some point a guy like Bobby Kotick (given how generally disliked he is) gives a speech somewhere and winds up with angry gamers jumping up on stage to try and lynch him like has happened with various musicians and music company executives giving speeches at concerts and such, not to mention sporting events.

Basically I see it as a warning sign that things really should change, it's not too late, but nobody is going to. I might be the only one who really notices it, but things have been nastier than usual over the last couple of years, and I think it's just going to get worse.

 

[Sir Prize]

The threats and overall reaction from people does seem harsh, after all it's his job to try and get postive publicity(sp). In a way the guy does have to think about who he spends a review copy to an what they will say, again it's part of his job. However going into a rant about how much negative feedback a game is given looks pretty whiny.

 

[Formica Archonis]

Death threats? Really? The best game in the universe, one so amazing that six people die from the holy glory of the title screen alone, would not be worth death threats. Duke Nukem Forever is NOT THAT GAME.

He said that people were using the word "blacklisted" incorrectly, as he would not have prevented anyone from working. Instead, he said that he would have simply chosen not to support certain publications in the future.

And the hundreds of people on the Communist blacklist were free to do whatever work they wanted. Just not in the country where they were born and lived their entire lives. What's that? No money to move because you can't get a job? Swim to the USSR, you red freak!

black·list [blak-list] -noun
1. a list of persons under suspicion, disfavor, censure, etc.: His record as an anarchist put him on the government's blacklist.
2. a list privately exchanged among employers, containing the names of persons to be barred from employment because of untrustworthiness or for holding opinions considered undesirable.
3. a list drawn up by a labor union, containing the names of employers to be boycotted for unfair labor practices.

#1: Since he claimed he was "reevaluating" reviewers and who would be sent stuff, he was, by definition, making a list of people in disfavor. He's also got that "for holding opinions considered undesirable" part of #2 down pat. Hell, you could even make a case for "a list privately exchanged" since his company represented more than one developer.

He said that PR companies were under no obligation to send games out to reviewers, especially not if they felt that said reviews would be detrimental to a game's sales. The job of a PR person, he said, was to get the best - or in other words, the most favorable - coverage possible, and that meant being selective about what reviews he or she sent games to, especially when those games weren't the best in the world.

I'm pretty sure there's an implicit "don't be a whiny *****" and a "don't threaten people" in there too. He didn't lose the contract for playing the PR game, he lost the contract for his public behavior, for being to PR people what a lawyer joke is to lawyers: A representation of the worst of the industry and the thing that the cynical public assumes is the norm.

It's also not technically against the rules to slash the tires on your opponent's car just before he leaves for a sporting event so you win by forfeit, but that doesn't mean you can do it and not get in trouble when people find out.

He reiterated that no one was being "blacklisted," as they could still review the game,

After it comes out, which would put them at LEAST one week behind the favored publications. This is the Internet, where one hour can make or break a time-sensitive item.

but that he saw little point in sending games to people who - for whatever reason - would be unsympathetic to them.

And if you only send the game to people who promise a good review sight unseen, then you're not sending the review to anyone whose opinion matters.

 

[Uber Waddles]

Aww, corporate shill is complaining about a little karma in effect?

That's just too fucking bad.

Get a real job.

I detect me some hint of jealousy. First off, if you got fistfulls of money for the equivilent of doing nothing all day, would you leave that for a "real job?". I dont even have a response for the person who says yes. People who work for corperations are just doing their job. They got to that job because of unique skillsets they had to learn from colleges, and by proving their worth. Most aren't as evil as you think they are: without corperations, your life would be very different, in a negative way. Get a real job? Get a real perspective.

And thats not karma in effect. You dont get review copys of videogames does not warrant death threats in the grand scheme of things. He pretty much hands out videogames to companys so they can say "yay" or "nay" to it. Nothing he could do should ever warrant threats to his family. Thats not karma evening things out, thats crazy people over-reacting to what equates to nothing.

Its kind of shocking that things have gotten to the point where death threats are going out because a company isn't pleased with reviews. Find a new PR company. Problem fixed.

 

[The.Bard]

This guy is still seeking attention. That big column he wrote the other day was a joke in and of itself. He basically apologized for what he did, then went on in detail about how he wasn't sorry, without saying he wasn't sorry. It felt very hypocritical.

The way I took it was he was apologizing for venting on twitter, and then explained what he meant. I wasn't under the impression he was apologizing for his stance about review copies.

Honestly, I agree with him. Not the venting on twitter... that was REALLY stupid. But if you only have 50 copies of a game to send out, you would lose your job very quickly if you didn't OPTIMIZE that 50 to be people most likely to enjoy it.

I remember 1up got in some hot water a few years back for having one of their staffers review Neverwinter Nights 2, and the guy was clearly not an RPG fan. The review reflected that, and people got very irate.

I'm totally on board with PR firms looking to optimize to ensure that the audience they give copies to are the people most likely to like that kind of thing. It helps everyone. After all, if most DNF reviews were by FPS fans, they'd quickly slice through the BS and detail in great length what a piece of crap it is. If RTS people were reviewing it, they might not articulate their hatred so well.

So yea, to recap. Twitter brainfarts? DUMB. Optimizing review copy distribution? SMART.

He then goes on to detail some utopian world of reviewing which basically amounted to him preaching, if he don't like what the review said, then it's tone is bad and the reviewer is not doing his job. He was basically saying all reviews should be positive and not hurt the feelings of the people who made the product.

I think he was implying that CONSTRUCTIVE criticism is ok regardless of whether you like it. For instance, "DNF is a bad game because the gun controls are wonky and the plot is paced poorly." Constructive. "This game is such a PoS, I can't believe the morons behind it were fit for life outside of a home for the mentally handicapped." Not constructive.

If a game is baaaaaaaaad, I think people are entitled to be a little more snarky with it, but ideally, he's saying that professional reviewers should strive towards constructive criticism, whether they love a game or hate it.

Reviewers are meant to be honest, and brutal if necessary to get the point across. Not worry about hurting someones feelings. They shouldn't have to sugar coat a pile of shit because Timmy or Johnny can't handle someone saying their work was terrible.

As someone who has spent a lot of work on something and put it out on the internet, I can tell you that a lot of people tearing your blood sweat and tears apart SUCKS. If ever there was an exception to that rule, DNF miiiight be it, but at the end of the day, the people working on the game deserve some level of respect, I think, even if the game is hideous.

So when that doesn't work he continues his 10 minutes of fame by crying about people who "threatened him." I highly doubt any threat against him was credible.

Agreed. But it is still baffling that people thought his comments threat-worthy.

 

[Marudas]

It is not the job of a PR person to try to lie and deceive the public as best as humanly possible. I can't think of a big reviewer that is purposefully scathing to a game for no reason. The fact that you think you need to pick and choose who plays your game is probably a monolithic hint that you think your game isn't very good. I understand the frustration of needing to try and sell your game, but if you generate shitty work, trying to hide it isn't going to help you any. Take your lumps and pray that you get another chance.

 

[Xanthious]

Eh, as long as review sites accept advertising money from the companies they choose to review it's probably best to believe the larger portion of them are on the take.The ones that won't play ball are the ones that likely get a "closer look" when it comes time to decide who gets the game for early review and who doesn't.

In my opinion the integrity of online video game reviews currently is right around absolute zero and it's because of ass hats like Redner. They say for every one cockroach you see in a house there are thousands you don't. I hold that same logic to scandals like the Assassin's Creed 2, or Kane and Lynch or this most recent one for Duke Nukem. For every one of these we actually hear about there are likely countless more than we don't.