Jimquisition: Shadiness of Mordor

[Grimrider6]

I love how people just gloss over Gamergate from everything barring the bit that sparked it. Try reading up on it and see that it's not about who shagging who or against females and hasn't been for a very very long time.

But hell those that are against Gamergate are always the ones to go straight back to bringing up the sex, funny ain't it.

The bit that sparked it set the tone for the rest of it. If I were concerned about actual corruption and consumer advocacy, I'd do two things:

1) Not sail under a banner that made a name for itself phoning death threats to people, and campaign under a different name that isn't tainted by basement troll level misogyny.

2) Make targets of game making corporations and PR firms AS WELL AS corrupt journalists, big and small.

Gamergate people make the conscious choice to associate themselves with a really awful group of people who kicked it off.

tl;dr - Get a better hashtag, brah.

OT: It really is sad to see terrible PR practices drag down an otherwise good game. WB and Monolith, pay close attention to the number of people in this thread either swearing off buying the game or regretting they did.

 

[JohnFei]

I love how people just gloss over Gamergate from everything barring the bit that sparked it. Try reading up on it and see that it's not about who shagging who or against females and hasn't been for a very very long time.

But hell those that are against Gamergate are always the ones to go straight back to bringing up the sex, funny ain't it.

The bit that sparked it set the tone for the rest of it. If I were concerned about actual corruption and consumer advocacy, I'd do two things:

1) Not sail under a banner that made a name for itself phoning death threats to people, and campaign under a different name that isn't tainted by basement troll level misogyny.

In other words, you're just going to blindly trust whatever journalists say, even though you are trying to expose their corruption? That sounds kind of contradictory, just saying.

I also suggest keeping an open mind when you are addressing a huge portion of the gaming population from different nation/gender/race/sexuality/etc, and not write it off because of some "bit that sparked it" that you heard from kotaku or whatever.

tl;dr - Get a better hashtag, brah.

There already is another tag. #NotYourShield.


Vid: I find it hilarious that Jim is desperately trying to salvage his image of being pro-consumer, but still only dares to attack safe targets like AAA and their notorious PR. Way to go Jimmy. You sure redeemed yourself.

 

[Netrigan]

I love how people just gloss over Gamergate from everything barring the bit that sparked it. Try reading up on it and see that it's not about who shagging who or against females and hasn't been for a very very long time.

But hell those that are against Gamergate are always the ones to go straight back to bringing up the sex, funny ain't it.

The bit that sparked it set the tone for the rest of it. If I were concerned about actual corruption and consumer advocacy, I'd do two things:

1) Not sail under a banner that made a name for itself phoning death threats to people, and campaign under a different name that isn't tainted by basement troll level misogyny.

In other words, you're just going to blindly trust whatever journalists say, even though you are trying to expose their corruption? That sounds kind of contradictory, just saying.

I also suggest keeping an open mind when you are addressing a huge portion of the gaming population from different nation/gender/race/sexuality/etc, and not write it off because of some "bit that sparked it" that you heard from kotaku or whatever.

tl;dr - Get a better hashtag, brah.

There already is another tag. #NotYourShield.


Vid: I find it hilarious that Jim is desperately trying to salvage his image of being pro-consumer, but still only dares to attack safe targets like AAA and their notorious PR. Way to go Jimmy. You sure redeemed yourself.

I'm watching this one with amusement. I consider this the first real test of GamerGate's anti-corruption stance and so far it's "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" as GG launches into a tepid condemnation of a shady practice because the game is good.

It's easy going after targets who produce games you don't like. The true test of ethics is when it involves someone or something you like.

 

[Tim Chuma]

Funnily enough I watched a few hours of a live stream of this game today and only just finished watching Totalbiscuit's video where he mentioned the same issue. From just watching the Livestream I would have bought the game I would have purchased it as it looks like fun and the players seemed to have more fun trying to get their favourite orc to rise up the ranks, even going as far to aggro another competing orc to come fight it (it was killed and they were crushed.) These are people I do trust as I have seen hundreds of hours of content via XCom and ARMA videos on Youtube and watching a base defense mission for XCOM Long War where he won despite it being designed to be unwinnable.

There were negative things mentioned during the live stream and also they talked about Lord of the Rings all the time (mostly about the fact they hadn't watched the movies.) Seems a bit too restrictive not to allow people to talk about things during a live stream.

 

[JohnFei]

It's easy going after targets who produce games you don't like. The true test of ethics is when it involves someone or something you like.

Exactly the problem with Sterling. And he didn't pass the test.

I'm always amused when people try to make Gamergate an AAA vs Indie issue. Many of us have been boycotting AAA for years, we were rooting for the indies. But indies let us down.

 

[Netrigan]

It's easy going after targets who produce games you don't like. The true test of ethics is when it involves someone or something you like.

Exactly the problem with Sterling. And he didn't pass the test.

I'm always amused when people try to make Gamergate an AAA vs Indie issue. Many of us have been boycotting AAA for years, we were rooting for the indies. But indies let us down.

And the test for GG is how are they different. TotalBiscuit has revealed this stuff before to the same kind of response. There's zero consequences for these kinds of deals.

And the twisted part of this. Shadow of Mordor wasn't even on my watch list before this scandal. Everyone reminding us how awesome the game is after criticizing the advertising... probably the best advertising of all. If people bashing your company say its good, you know its good.

And made no mention of Indies. Just been watching the GG thread as various people make their excuses not to boycott the game or here where someone excuses the YouTubers because they're not journalists. People like the game so my prediction is GG will do almost nothing about this.

 

[Something Amyss]

It's pretty shitty, but I feel you are dancing around the real issue here - reviewers shouldn't rely on free or pre-release copies of games. Reviewers should be buying retail copies at release like everybody else.

You're just playing their game by going down this "first to review" path of bullshit.

This is still completely unrealistic and unfeasible. As a result, it's just not going to happen.

 

[Atmos Duality]

What happened with Fallout 3?

That's a long, ugly rant for another topic entirely, and a definite learning experience for me.

Lets just say I learned a fair bit about why some companies would prefer reviewers never mention any glitches or bugs and only emphasize what they tell them to. Never before in my life had I encountered such an overrated, overhyped, buggy piece of shit from an acclaimed studio; it was much worse than fucking Oblivion and I was at least able to say a few nice things about that one.
(...well, this side of EA, but I learned real damn fast not to buy their games WELL before Fallout 3)

So, does this mean it's safe to assume that literally everybody who has a gameplay video on YouTube that hasn't been taken down is in on this bullshit and should no longer be trusted? Or have some people found ways to get around it? This is kind of important.

Depends on their reach.
For a PR company's purposes, Subscribers and Viewership drives EVERYTHING.

Said PR firms, especially for the largest game companies, will always -ALWAYS- attempt to put as many popular critical personalities into their pocket as they can by whatever means are available.
Many will fold, some won't.

That's what happened to game magazines in the 90s, that's what happened to the blogosphere e-mags (like our beloved Escapist) and that's what is happening to the Youtubers because it's these PR firms jobs to SELL their clients' (or parent company's) product no matter what.
If misinformation, collusion and outright lies gets the job done, then that's what will happen.

The truth is: nothing is really changing here.
Advertising is information warfare, and everyone is either a target or a competitor.

 

[JohnFei]

It's easy going after targets who produce games you don't like. The true test of ethics is when it involves someone or something you like.

Exactly the problem with Sterling. And he didn't pass the test.

I'm always amused when people try to make Gamergate an AAA vs Indie issue. Many of us have been boycotting AAA for years, we were rooting for the indies. But indies let us down.

And the test for GG is how are they different. TotalBiscuit has revealed this stuff before to the same kind of response. There's zero consequences for these kinds of deals.

But it has been different. I see youtubers handle the deal by putting up notices or outright rejecting it. Transparency.

Consequence? What, do you expect GG to start boycotting SoM? It took years of provocation and vitriolic clickbait, a dogpile of hate articles and endless censorship to finally get Gamergate burning. Even then, I think most of us would've backed off if the journos had apologized and took that stuff down. The fact is most gamers are pretty lenient and easygoing, we just wanna play games. And as you yourself noted, the bottomline is the game itself is fun. You would need SoM's PR company to pull a Leigh Alexander and Ian Miles Cheong and maybe even Devin Faraci, before anybody would care.

And the twisted part of this. Shadow of Mordor wasn't even on my watch list before this scandal. Everyone reminding us how awesome the game is after criticizing the advertising... probably the best advertising of all. If people bashing your company say its good, you know its good.

I've heard that in Japan there's a PR ploy that does something similar. They'd intentionally stir up some petty controversy around a game, banking on the 'no publicity=bad publicity' mantra.

 

[Wisq]

It's pretty shitty, but I feel you are dancing around the real issue here - reviewers shouldn't rely on free or pre-release copies of games. Reviewers should be buying retail copies at release like everybody else.

You're just playing their game by going down this "first to review" path of bullshit.

Yeah, I'm going to have to disagree strongly with you here. Pre-release copies are a good thing, if they're given out to reviewers without restriction and without trying to control their message.

Having a review out already when a game releases isn't just about generating clicks and money for the reviewers -- it's about being able to inform the public as to whether they'll enjoy the game or not, and thus, whether it's worth buying.

If reviewers had to buy the game at retail like everyone else, do you think we would seriously see a week of almost no sales while only reviewers buy it, and then a bunch of sales when they finally give it the thumbs up? No, we'd just see tons of people buying it on launch day and gambling with their money, because gamers have proven again and again that instant gratification is king.

In fact, I would say that people who buy games blindly without looking at reviews are way more harmful to the industry than these sorts of promo deals could ever be. (That goes doubly for people who pre-order games, particularly in any modern scenario where they're not likely to run out of copies, e.g. digital downloads.) These people are the reason that bad games can still turn a profit if they abuse a beloved franchise name and put enough money into marketing.

Put into more concrete terms, these people are the reason that "Aliens: Colonial Marines" debuted at number one in the UK charts and sold 1.3 million copies in the US. (The embargo only lifted on launch morning, but that's plenty of time to check for some scores and not buy it -- unless you pre-ordered it.)

What I do agree with is that reviewers shouldn't rush to be first; a quality review is better than an early review, but an early review makes more money than a quality review. As such, this is also why review embargoes can be a good thing -- provided they lift before launch.

 

[geldonyetich]

Anyone happen to know who the name of this PR firm is? I think I'd like to go out of my way to avoid buying any products they are hired to promote, to avoid having anything to do with the employees of that company when they move on to do something else, and perhaps to ignore the cries for help from said employees if they are found bleeding to death in the middle of a public street.

These practices should be illegal. Or perhaps these practices are already illegal, but they found a loophole that allows them to propagate them anyway. In any case, these high jinks have gone well beyond "unethical" and into the realm of "garroting our faith in humanity." I am not sure how human beings can attempt to pen such an agreement as was required to get a Shadows of Mordor preview code, as it seems like something I would expect from demon spawn.

 

[Zendariel]

Anyone happen to know who the name of this PR firm is? I think I'd like to go out of my way to avoid buying any products they are hired to promote.

It was mentioned in the video, "Plaid Social" or Plaid Social Labs is what google turned up.

As for the pre-release review copies, as someone already mentioned, they are a good thing for everyone provided that the reviewers get free reign over their review. It creates consumer awareness and provided that the game is actually good, more sales for the companies making and publishing the games. And some revenue for the reviewer.

Of course that is not always the case, just the idealistic scenario...

 

[Netrigan]

Anyone happen to know who the name of this PR firm is? I think I'd like to go out of my way to avoid buying any products they are hired to promote, to avoid having anything to do with the employees of that company when they move on to do something else, and perhaps to ignore the cries for help from said employees if they are found bleeding to death in the middle of a public street.

These practices should be illegal. Or perhaps these practices are already illegal, but they found a loophole that allows them to propagate them anyway. In any case, these high jinks have gone well beyond "unethical" and into the realm of "garroting our faith in humanity." I am not sure how human beings can attempt to pen such an agreement as was required to get a Shadows of Mordor preview code, as it seems like something I would expect from demon spawn.

It's legal so long as they include a disclaimer. From previous bouts of this, I read that said disclaimer is as vague as possible while still being legal. No idea what it says or how big it has to be.

 

[Seracen]

Huh, knowledge of the NDA actually makes me NOT want to buy this game. The NDA is draconian enough, but the lack of review copies without it is offensive!

It also perturbs me, in regards to the YT personalities who agreed to it (didn't care before, but I do now). It reinforces mistrust in a paid sponsored review, even if it is a personality I usually trust.

 

[jimplunder]

That's a long, ugly rant for another topic entirely, and a definite learning experience for me.

Lets just say I learned a fair bit about why some companies would prefer reviewers never mention any glitches or bugs and only emphasize what they tell them to. Never before in my life had I encountered such an overrated, overhyped, buggy piece of shit from an acclaimed studio; it was much worse than fucking Oblivion and I was at least able to say a few nice things about that one.
(...well, this side of EA, but I learned real damn fast not to buy their games WELL before Fallout 3)

It's sensible that a company would want reviewers to highlight the good and gloss over the bad. That's just good business practice. It's wrong to censor criticism, but any company would want to control the media around their product releases, not just Bethesda, EA, or gaming companies. But I personally don't really remember Fallout 3 being too bad. I remember New Vegas having a really bad time... but maybe that's because it was the first (and only) game I've ever gone to a midnight launch for.

 

[Hafnium]

Well I do want to play this game, but I'll be sure to pick it up only when it gets cheap so they don't make a lot of money on me.

Of course we should be more mad at the shitty PR firm and not the devs, but they need to stop working with companies like this if we want decent coverage.

 

[Lapin Logic]

Shadiness of Mordor

The Eye of Sauron is watching, forever watching, and he wants to make sure your YouTube videos are "on message."

Watch Video

nice to see a game invest heavily in cape physics and technology 8)
just a shame they are using a lot of,,, cloak and dagger tactics

i still think i will get middle earth's creed, it looks good, shame i now have less confidence in some youtube producers

 

[jpoon]

Thanks for this Jim. I have to say I'm quite happy I didn't buy this shitbox. Fuck this kind of practice, this is one reason why I no longer preorder games. That shit is long done and over, add to this that there will never again be a lack of discs or downloads for games so there is ZERO reason to preorder. Fuck the corporate mentality, it makes me ill. Advertisers need to just die, they're a fucking poison to my "well adjusted" mind. =P

 

[JohnFei]

Being that the AAA and their publishers are literally who (see what I did there?) keeps gaming journalists afloat, it's safe to say that denouncing them is actually the ballsy thing to do.

Oh I think it's quite courageous of him. Very golfclap worthy.

Question is, why is Jim incapable of turning that courage towards condemning professional journalists who failed at disclosure? Why does he ignore writers who had to add disclosures to their articles sneakily and refuse to apologize? And ultimately, why does he stand with people who abuse and smear their consumers?

And his ad still says "Get Angry". It's probably the funniest thing I've ever seen.

My questions to GG is still the same: who did they try to boycott when Doritosgate happened? where the fuck were they when a journallist from Eurogamer was threathened with legal action and eventually resigned for publishing an article about the gifts games journos receive from the publishers? Did they even know about this? In keeping with that, how can they blacklist a publication that not only has a code of transparency and full disclosure in place, but it has so for 2 years?

The fact that Doritosgate is even a thing is because consumers. Mass Effect 3 ending got BTFO because of consumers. Gamergate, likewise, is exposing hypocrisy, collusion and corruption, because of consumers. My question is, when will journalists realize they need to be part of the coversation? When will they realize they can't cherrypick who to condemn and who to defend, and expect to get away with it? When will they realize that as journalists in a billion dollar industry, they need to take responsibility for their behavior?

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

I wonder if the shitty indie devs who load up Steam with their shite, will start using things like this.