It really is a pity when good games come from companies with sleazy practices. It's almost like watching a nice kid get smacked by an abusive foster parent.
Jimquisition: Shadiness of Mordor
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I can't see how this is bad by itself. You make a product - you sell it for what you want. If you want to sell your game for a price of a good review - you do that. I say it's fair enough with one big "BUT": all such reviews should be marked as advertisment, because that's what they are.
If you hire a designer to make a picture of how awesome youre product is and why the audience should buy it right now - such picture is called advertisment. It is marked as advertisment and is placed in slots for advertisment.
If you hire a film\clip-maker to make a video of how awesome youre product is and why the audience should buy it right now - such video is called advertisment. It is marked as advertisment and is placed in slots for advertisment.
Naturaly, if you hire a critic to make a video\article of how awesome youre product is and why the audience should buy it right now - such video\article shpuld be called advertisment. It should be marked as advertisment and placed in slots for advertisment.
Then it'll be ok. There's a russian game site called Riot-Pixels. They have an awesome practice - they simply sell a place on their main page, so publisher would place their a review-like advertisment of their game. Such material is always marked as "advertisment". I haven't see anyone being angry about it. Works like a charm for everyone.
If you hire a designer to make a picture of how awesome youre product is and why the audience should buy it right now - such picture is called advertisment. It is marked as advertisment and is placed in slots for advertisment.
If you hire a film\clip-maker to make a video of how awesome youre product is and why the audience should buy it right now - such video is called advertisment. It is marked as advertisment and is placed in slots for advertisment.
Naturaly, if you hire a critic to make a video\article of how awesome youre product is and why the audience should buy it right now - such video\article shpuld be called advertisment. It should be marked as advertisment and placed in slots for advertisment.
Then it'll be ok. There's a russian game site called Riot-Pixels. They have an awesome practice - they simply sell a place on their main page, so publisher would place their a review-like advertisment of their game. Such material is always marked as "advertisment". I haven't see anyone being angry about it. Works like a charm for everyone.
So you have to be an established business to be the press? Funny cause I have the Pax Press List and I'm pretty damn sure about 200 Youtubers are on that list. Some of those guys makes a ton of money each year, and they are putting print sites out of business, but their just a buncha hobbyists.hermes200 said:
And the History Channel is accountable for its terrible unscholarly depictions of history, as much as a professor should be. Its just that no one has any standards for TV so no one does anything. That doesn't make it a ok.
Well, this actually explains why I've been unable to find ANY pages on the internet that address some game-breaking bugs in SoM (such as the inability to move faster than slow-walk pace, or Graugs that have the ability to ignore cliff faces and telport to the top like they're using DOOM's 'noclip' cheat. So not only is WB's information restriction making them look shady as fuck, it also means that things like significant amounts of game progress - I had already completed about 2/3rds of the game - have to be erased in order to fix bugs (like the movement speed issue).
If I was the developer I would be sort of offended that WB assumed you were putting out a game that needed this much protection from the glaring eyes of the public. I mean the particular bit about not mentioning the movies is there because (I assume) so that your game wouldn't hurt the larger LoTR brand. I agree with jim that that much protection only shows that they had no confidence in the product and wanted to pull a fast one before anyone knew what their game really was.... which was apparently good anyway so this move only hurt the brand and would always of hurt the brand not to mention the brand of the reviewers themselves. There is not an ounce of brains behind this at all just fear.
Unfortunately I think I see where it's coming from. It had occurred to me long ago that graphical power in a game is usually directly proportional with how much money was pumped into it. Add on top of that the huge brand name of LotR, as you said, and we have an enormous investment that WB cannot afford to risk in any way. But brainless it is, because WB, and by extension possibly Monolith, are going about protecting their investment as stupidly as possible.Scorpid said:
This makes me think: in which other games has this happened too? (more specifically AAA games). I doubt this game is the first one on doing this kind of shady publicity control / censorship (suppressing informative videos because they are inconvenient for a company is censorship).
You see I'm genuinely confused, Jim calls himself a consumer advocate and makes videos + statements that go after and decry these big faceless companies that don't really give a shit about him. However when it comes to important stuff like GamerGate and the controversy surrounding it he is silent and refused to take a side. So much for being a consumer advocate right.
Thanks for covering this. I listened to and read what Jim Sterling, Angryjoe, Boogie 2988 and TB had to say about this game. And about Warners highly selective and heavy handed way in doling out copies. This game seems to be good to great, but now I will pass on it. I dislike how Warner tries to force youtubers into unethical ways of covering new games. Perhaps in the future, a disclosure stating the exact date when a youtuber received his or her copy or review code would be interesting to gamers.
He may have an episode squared away somewhere. I know Jim's mentioned before about having videos like his Silent Hill review that are sitting there rotting, unused because other things required more attention at the time, and now the decrepit video is irrelevant because too much time has passed since the original event happened. Besides, one man can't reliably cover every fleck of dung that happens in this shite-orchestra of an industry.Toilet said:
That being said, there are definitely a few videos I would like to see from Jim, but I'm not going to bring them up because of the shit he kicked up about people hassling him to do certain subjects before, e.g. "I'm going to tear the XBO a new asshole now. But not because you want me to, because I want to."
Just because you see something as important doesn't mean everyone does, the fact that he isn't focusing on your desired issues as much as you would like doesn't disqualify him from being a consumer advocate.Toilet said:
An advocate cannot advocate for every single viewpoint that exists within an industry, he is advocating for consumers on issues he thinks are important, it is up to the consumers themselves to support the voices that match their views on the ideas and changes they wish to see. Jim refusing to take a side on GG has no impact on his other views, and it supports the views of those who agree with him, he advocates against big businesses because he sees them as a greater harm and a bigger problem to the industry, a view point I agree with him on, so if he takes your advice and starts covering more GG related issues, then he may be a better consumer advocate for your desires, but he becomes a less desirable advocate for the issues I see as important.
Jim has explained why he refused to take sides, and has said that he will do a video on it once the dust settles. I don't really see why his refusal to take a side for or against the GamerGate... community? Movement? Whatever... I don't see how his abstaining from taking sides in a tussle where there is plenty of blame to go around on both sides goes against his usual consumer advocacy stance.Toilet said:
If anything it just looks like common sense.
So, are we boycotting this game? Or are we going to let the shady practices slide on account of its quality?
It's too late to boycott the game at this point, it's already out and sold quite well. The most effective thing would be to organize a letter campaign to the WB to let them know that the you are unhappy with the PR firm that the company hired to represent the game, and that you no longer wish to purchase products advertised by that company or advertised in such a manner. Depending on how receptive the PR company is, it might also be effective to contact them to voice your displeasure for how the contract was written.Slayer4472 said:
That's why you have to think for yourself, make choices for yourself (and be open and honest with yourself regarding the TRUE reasons you make the choices that you do), and carry a Bullshit Meter (TM). One need not give in to pessimistic cynism; only accept the truth of the motivations of people, including yourself, and learn to navigate and conduct yourself accordingly, staying true to your own course, sense of self, and personal integrity.VoiceOfTheVoiceless said:
OT: That is sad to learn that the publisher felt that it had to institute such a policy. Generally, you can tell well ahead of time that a company has little faith in their own game (usually they try to hard to distract you with a lot of sexy imagery). This seems to be a case of the lack of faith showing afterwards. Personally, I'm still interested in the game, but the experience will be a bit tainted knowing this went on in the background. In my opinion, it'll actually make the little issues stand out even more, which is a shame because there are plenty of games that, for some gamers, are truly fantastic and memorable despite their many flaws (Remember Me is one such game, for me).
all very well n good, but can we not focus on the real thing hurting the industry, people having a different opinion than us, and primarily focus on how we can silence them/put them out of business.Jimothy Sterling said:
Ignoring your ridiculous misrepresentation...Who brought this issue to light? Was it the noble gaming journalists (who are never involved in "legitimate corruption", presumably)? No, of course not. It was a youtuber, as usual, actually caring about the consumer.Grace_Omega said:
Oh, and then of course Jim Sterling hops on the bandwagon, likely after he's checked with his journalist and dev pals to make sure no one will be upset with him if he does. He's happy to stand up for the consumer as long as his ass isn't on the line when he does it.
We expect PR companies and publishers to be scummy. It's what they do. Gaming press is supposed to be the consumer's first line of defense against this type of thing but they've decided to actively work against the consumer instead. They take deals and favors for positive coverage, they censor criticism, they carry on unprofessional relationships, they allow ideological agendas to interfere with objectivity, they pressure other journalists to do the same, they bury stories that contradict their narrative, and they value click baiting over informing.
Do you know why publishers and PR firms do the sketchy things they do? Because they can get away with it. Because games journalists are complicit in their behavior.
Do you know of any actual journalism sites that abided by their terms?Grace_Omega said:
Gamergate isn't generally talking about one-off bloggers or youtubers but rather the general official journalism groups. Agencies that promote themselves as legitimate reporters.
FYI, I have shown numerous quotes of gamergaters in the Escapist, day 1-3 trying to distance the conversation from the sex lives talk to the actual components of corruption. That people on the outside is still focusing on that and claiming that that's the core of the argument and situation is ridiculous. Likely the same corrupt journalists that we're trying to combat.
Oh, great. Thanks for saying it was good, Jim. Now we can't even trust your opinion anymore.Jimothy Sterling said:
After all, you just gave a thumbs-up to a game that was so desperate to deceive everybody into thinking it was good that its deceptive marketing practices are a bigger story than the actual game's release.
When I'm thanking god for you, am I allowed to make mention of a book written in 1937, or are you a wholly-owned subsidiary of Plaid Social now?