Text Sim Developer's Blog

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Why are we assuming the alleged culprit is Shaun or Markus? Nowhere in Clay's message does it say it was a text-sim company.

Damned scary, me & Solecismic are thinking the same way on this.

Although Jim's "larger publisher" scenario is indeed one possibility, my very first thought was on the opposite end of the spectrum: sounds like something a fanboy would do.

Worth noting too, IMO, is that there didn't seem to be any indication of what level of bribe was offered. I mean, it isn't exactly hard to picture some fanboy with some birthday money from Grandma offering somebody $50 for something like this. Or maybe a free copy of Net Detective. In other words, I don't see any indication that it was a realistic bribe attempt, just that there was an attempt ... and that opens up all sorts of possibilities really.

Having been on Clay's end of a similar "dirty trick," I sympathize, of course.

And right here, you raise the other thing that crossed my mind immediately:
Given that this isn't exactly unheard of, why does another instance seem hard to believe?

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Damned scary, me & Solecismic are thinking the same way on this.

Although Jim's "larger publisher" scenario is indeed one possibility, my very first thought was on the opposite end of the spectrum: sounds like something a fanboy would do.

Worth noting too, IMO, is that there didn't seem to be any indication of what level of bribe was offered. I mean, it isn't exactly hard to picture some fanboy with some birthday money from Grandma offering somebody $50 for something like this. Or maybe a free copy of Net Detective. In other words, I don't see any indication that it was a realistic bribe attempt, just that there was an attempt ... and that opens up all sorts of possibilities really.



And right here, you raise the other thing that crossed my mind immediately:
Given that this isn't exactly unheard of, why does another instance seem hard to believe?

Because I've known Markus and Shaun online for years now, and this would go against not only how they act in public, but what they say in private. Neither ever seems anything other than supportive of the competition.

If this were a fanboy, he wouldn't have good access to a publisher. Maybe a writer directly. Either way, no one would think it worth reporting to Clay, except as a humorous story.

I've been on the reviewer end, too. While reviewers do not make a lot of money, it would take more than anyone not intimately connected with a project would want to spare to even begin to compromise someone's integrity.

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by Draft Dodger

don't forget all the fake press releases someone's been putting out on the behalf of Markus.

There was also this one, come to think about it.

http://fof.sportplanet.gamespy.com//...73#post1172673

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Why are we assuming the alleged culprit is Shaun or Markus? Nowhere in Clay's message does it say it was a text-sim company. It doesn't sound like something either Shaun or Markus would do.

It could be some larger publisher that is trying to break into a wider genre and Clay's position as a small player in the retail market makes him an easy target. I don't know. I haven't heard anything about this.

Having been on Clay's end of a similar "dirty trick," I sympathize, of course. But I did learn that the less people talked about it, the faster it went away.

SkyDog is right. My fellow developers know more about what I'm doing than I can talk about here. The reason? Not necessarily trust. It's that sometimes, changes need to be made late in development, or new distribution opportunities come up. That can change promised features, or even release dates. A fellow developer isn't going to get angry about that - he understands the business end.

It's best not to make promises unless you're wielding a major PR campaign and you need to get as many sales as humanly possible in the first three weeks, or your game is not going to be stocked any more. Without retail and without expensive PR, sales made six months from now count just as much as sales made today. So the negatives of the inevitable broken promises far outweigh the positives of having people look forward to a release date.

So, are you saying you do discuss release dates with Clay?

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

So, are you saying you do discuss release dates with Clay?

Nothing specific. Just saying that I don't need to watch every word when emailing other developers, so as to make sure I don't imply something that might or might not take place.

[Mac Howard]

I'm astonished that you guys think there's anything unusual about this. Do you seriously think that reviews are not influenced in this way? And you think that it's only the independant companies that get up to this?

Here's just one event (amongst many) that I experienced some years ago:

I was contacted by a well known independant reviewer. He was a Phd maths student at Cambridge University and regularly reviewed strategy games for the major magazines. He informed me he was putting together a composite review of three soccer games recently published including my own. The other two games were from major publishers in the UK market.

I sent him a copy for review. It was my chance to get some real publicity.

A couple of months later I received a telephone call from the advertising dept of one of the three relevant magazines for the home computer involved. The magazine was publishing this composite review. Would I like to take out an advert in the magazine? I pointed out that I was developing a new game and would not be advertsing for another three months at least, but thanks. He was somewhat peeved and unpleasant about my refusal.

I was puzzled. This was the smallest of the three magazines and not one that often published game reviews. I had understood the review to be in one of the two larger, games oriented mags.

About a week later I received a call from the reviewer. He seemed nervous and embarrassed. I mentioned the advertising call and asked why that magazine - he normally reviewed for the other two.

He explained that the other two magazines had refused to publish the review. It was the first time they had ever turned down a review from him. They wouldn't say why. The third magazine had insisted on what they called "small changes". On returning the edited review he found that the changes had been far from small. In fact he said that the published review wasn't his review at all. Nevertheless, the only way he was to be paid for the review was to accept the changes.

I asked him to send me a copy of his original review. I received it a couple of days later. From my point of view it was an excellent review. There was an opening comparison stating "(my game) is a far more lucid description of management", then three separate parts for the three games and a conclusion. The part on my game was detailed, fair and complementary. Less complementary for the other two. The conclusion included "The others are simply a mile behind".

Even if they changed this the review had surely to be good for me.

The magazine came out. The review was unrecognisable. The two comments above were removed along with other complementary comments. The section on my game had been butchered. All positive statements removed and all qualifying or negative statements exaggerated. The review quite simply made the game look like absolute rubbish.

The magazine, which normally contained no advertising for games had an unusually large advert for that magazine - a two page colour spread - for one of the other games. The game was not advertised in that magazine either before or after that month's issue.

When I contacted the magazine for an explanation I was accused of trying to influence their policy on reviews

I leave you to judge for yourself what happened here. Why did the other two magazines not publish the review? They'd never turned the guy down before. Was it mere coincidence that the two page colour spread appeared in this issue only along with the butchered review? Or did this publishing company, with a very large advertising budget, interfere with all three magazine review policies?

I could spend the next two or three hours relating such events for you and not all from the distant past or from the UK. My last experience of interference was less than 12 months ago and it was from a USA company.

The games industry is one of the worst industries existing for corruption. Very few games make a profit. Marketing is absolutely crucial to game success. Publishers will do all the can to ensure that their game is one of the successful ones. Reviews can be crucial to that success.

With the Internet it's become even worse.

PS neither of the two games involved were games you would know of. They were not games that are now known as major players in the smg market.

[Franklinnoble]

There you go again. Accusations, but no names.

Please, save us the drama. It's a nice story. Everyone loves a conspiracy theory. But back it up with hard facts.

[Franklinnoble]

FWIW - I'm not saying I don't believe this happens. In fact, I'm sure it does. But I'd rather see someone offer some proof and blow the lid off it, rather than simply sounding like it's sour grapes over a bad review.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

FWIW - I'm not saying I don't believe this happens. In fact, I'm sure it does. But I'd rather see someone offer some proof and blow the lid off it, rather than simply sounding like it's sour grapes over a bad review.

Yes. One problem with complaining is that it will be seen by many as sour grapes. But as the review is not there for readers to see, why would you draw attention to it if the story were not true?

But if a major company is involved then whoever does name names had better have a very large fighting fund to cover the subsequent legal costs no matter how justified or provable the claims. It could cost someone a great deal to satisfy your appetite for more than drama particularly as most of the evidence is inevitably circumstantial in nature

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

But if a major company is involved then whoever does name names had better have a very large fighting fund to cover his legal costs no matter how justified or provable his claims. It could cost someone a great deal to satisfy your appetite for more than drama particularly as most of the evidence is inevitably circumstantial in nature

Word. Even with more concrete evidence, it could be tough. Let's bring it home right here. I often think about using the front page of FOFC to start writing game reviews myself. Let's say that NFL Head Coach 2 and FOF6 come out right around the same time, and I were in the process of reviewing both of them, and someone from EA tried to do some unsavory things to influence that process. I wouldn't let them influence it. However, I certainly wouldn't name them on this board, even if I had pretty concrete evidence. They know good and well that 99.9% of reviewers don't have the resources for a full-blown fight against them.

Like I always do with sensitive information, I'd tell people I trust (most IHOF members and a select few others) here what's going on and name names, but I'd never in a million years post publicly. I haven't even named names publicly about some of the idiotic things that people have done behind the scenes here, but I've certainly told those I trust. I've posted generalities or told specific stories but left out the names.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Word. Even with more concrete evidence, it could be tough. Let's bring it home right here. I often think about using the front page of FOFC to start writing game reviews myself. Let's say that NFL Head Coach 2 and FOF6 come out right around the same time, and I were in the process of reviewing both of them, and someone from EA tried to do some unsavory things to influence that process. I wouldn't let them influence it. However, I certainly wouldn't name them on this board, even if I had pretty concrete evidence. They know good and well that 99.9% of reviewers don't have the resources for a full-blown fight against them.

Yes, you don't stand a cat-in-hell's chance if dealing with a major player.

And there is simply nothing to be gained by a developer complaining let alone naming names. Many will see the complaint as sour grapes as FN has said. Many others will see the review that wouldn't if it were not for the controversy. The evidence is inevitably circumstantial and difficult to prove and the legal costs could be enormous - in the above description I would have faced the legal teams of one major software publisher, two major and one minor magazine publisher had I taken the case further than a complaint to the minor publisher. The reviewer, who was not essentially at fault, would never have worked again.

And, even if successful, nothing gained but a very minor correction notice on page 63 of a magazine 12 months after the event with many concluding the review was probably right anyway

It's infuriating when it happens, and it happens more often than users would like to know. But, while I can understand people's desire to see the dirt, there's simply nothing to be gained for the developer.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

Yes, you don't stand a cat-in-hell's chance if dealing with a major player.

And there is simply nothing to be gained by a developer complaining let alone naming names. Many will see the complaint as sour grapes as FN has said. Many others will see the review that wouldn't if it were not for the controversy. The evidence is inevitably circumstantial and difficult to prove and the legal costs could be enormous - in the above description I would have faced the legal teams of one major software publisher, two major and one minor magazine publisher had I taken the case further than a complaint to the minor publisher. The reviewer, who was not essentially at fault, would never have worked again.

And, even if successful, nothing gained but a very minor correction notice on page 63 of a magazine 12 months after the event with many concluding the review was probably right anyway

It's infuriating when it happens, and it happens more often than users would like to know. But, while I can understand people's desire to see the dirt, there's simply nothing to be gained for the developer.

It's just bad luck to be on the receiving end. And in my case, it was much more minor (just some clown paid to cause a ruckus on FOFC and pump the competition in a review on a minor web site), but still, the guy who allegedly organized it was rewarded with a job at Electronic Arts.

When I worked for CGW as a reviewer, I had discussions with the editors about this issue. One time, I wrote a scathing review about a baseball game. The editor I worked with the most said he took heat for it, but he was proud that it actually cost the magazine some advertising.

A reputable magazine separates its editorial staff from its sales staff, and fosters an almost-hostile relationship between the two. Or at best, indifference.

[VPI97]

It's stuff like this that keeps me from ever writing any serious code when it comes to games.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by VPI97

It's stuff like this that keeps me from ever writing any serious code when it comes to games.

I'd like to encourage you to give it a go if you've a passion for games and think you'd enjoy making one.

There will always be conspiracy theories kicking around about the 'man' keeping people down in all aspects of life, a very small few might even be true - but that is no reason imho not to try.

Its better to attempt something and know you've done your best imho than to always wonder what could have been ....

PS> The first ever Championship Manager game (what FM used to be called) got a whopping great 25% in its first review, people enjoyed it regardless ... make a good enough game and people will find and play it ... not least because people tell their friends about things, heck I promote 'The Battle for Wesnoth' on forums nearly as much as I do games I'm involved in

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by VPI97

It's stuff like this that keeps me from ever writing any serious code when it comes to games.

As Marc suggests, It's not that often that you should let it affect your decision to write code. I've come across half a dozen situations like this but I have been publishing games for 24 years. A lot of garbage can happen in that time in any field of endeavour.