Sony: PR is where we only interact with uncritical people, right?

[alexlitel]

http://fidgit.com/archives/2009/05/may_26_2009_wallet_threat_leve.php

Infamous comes out this week. I had hoped to post an interview with one of the developers from Sucker Punch today, but I got stood up. Sony later informed me that an interview wasn't appropriate considering last week's coverage of the game here (http://fidgit.com/archives/2009/05/top_ten_cool_things_about_infa.php)and specifically here (http://fidgit.com/archives/2009/05/top_ten_stupid_things_about_in.php). So rather than reading my conversation with designer Nate Fox about how they came up with the various powers, what lessons they were able to carry over from their excellent Sly Cooper games, and what they're thinking about for DLC, I can only leave you with a middling recommendation that it's pretty good as an open-world action game.

Also, I recommend you make back-up plans next time Sony offers to meet you somewhere. Or at least don't say anything bad about them.

[Bahimiron]

I wish I knew why Fidgit and my work computer didn't get along. I go there and it just slows me down like crazy.

Also, that's too bad, but it's hardly surprising.

It does make me wonder if Sony Defense Force has their review up, though!

[Hunty]

I wish I knew why Fidgit and my work computer didn't get along. I go there and it just slows me down like crazy.

I have a very similar issue - it chugs something fierce when the page first loads and nearly locks the browser. It seems to be something to do with the digg buttons.

On topic, obviously they're free to talk to whoever they want, whenever they want (though standing Tom up and then telling him after the fact that it was pre-meditated seems a bit rude, to say the least). Enough companies have done it before. That said, I do sometimes think that this sort of thing kind of misses the wood for the trees. Tom's look at inFamous had a lot of positives, and a chat with him might have cast them in an even better light and maybe allowed the designer to address the "stupid" stuff. It wasn't like he outright savaged it, he just raised some concerns.

It'd be the sort of interesting discussion that would drive what I'd tentatively call the Qt3 demographic towards the game more, whilst probably being ignored by the clamouring teenage morons who can't string a sentence together. So what harm could it really do? Conversely, by doing this, the kids and the fanboys are saved from reading an interview that they wouldn't give a shit about in terms of influencing their purchase either way, whereas the guys like us just think, wow, way to be unprofessional and domineering asshats, guys. Saying no seems to play worse in every way.

[RickH]

This is far from the first example of Sony's corporate pettiness.

Oddly, it seems to be getting worse the further they fall from the number one place they thought they owned for life.

[Aeon221]

You're all missing the steaming refuse pile for the hovels. This could be the big one. This could finally knock the Killzone review off the top of the heap. I await with bated breath the response of internets.

[FoRmaT]

Edit: Never mind.

[BDGE]

As someone whom is still on the fence regarding Infamous, even after playing the demo, an interview such as this could have had potential to win me over. A real chance to engage criticisms and possibly bring a perspective that may even earn some unexpected appeal.

Shameful on behalf of Sony.

[MSUSteve]

I can somewhat understand them not wanting to do an interview with Tom if they were stung by his criticisms of the game. It seems cowardly, but at a human level, I can understand them not feeling particularly interested in spending time with Tom. It's total horseshit that no one called to cancel the interview and that Tom wasted his time going to an appointment that no one meant to keep. That's absolutely classless and shameful.

[Prodigy]

I thought these childish tactics were a thing of the past...

[checkers]

So exactly how common practice is this? I still remember that Gamespot dude getting fired over the Kayne & Lynch review.

[Bahimiron]

So exactly how common practice is this? I still remember that Gamespot dude getting fired over the Kayne & Lynch review.

This isn't on quite the same level as that.

Anyway, if that had never happened, we wouldn't have Giantbomb.com now.

[Royal Fool]

Lame.

[Prodigy]

So exactly how common practice is this?

"You trashed our game, we won't allow the ad campaign we had planned"...

[Naeblis]

The funny thing is this is being done for a very low score in a formal review, it was just some impressions written with 10 good points and 10 bad points about the game. is that so unacceptable in Sony's eyes to cancel an interview?

[Jazar]

I can somewhat understand them not wanting to do an interview with Tom if they were stung by his criticisms of the game. It seems cowardly, but at a human level, I can understand them not feeling particularly interested in spending time with Tom. It's total horseshit that no one called to cancel the interview and that Tom wasted his time going to an appointment that no one meant to keep. That's absolutely classless and shameful.

The article wasn't 100% clear. Tom, did you already have the interview completed and ready to post or were you really turned away from the door?

[Aeon221]

It implies that the game is 50% good and 50% bad, ergo a score of 50%. That is soooo unacceptable.

[Lynxara]

So exactly how common practice is this? I still remember that Gamespot dude getting fired over the Kayne & Lynch review.

My experience is that most companies who up and decide they don't like you for whatever reason will just decline to schedule time with you in the first place. If time is somehow scheduled, you'll usually be treated professionally. Getting blown off like this is unusual enough that this is the first time I've ever heard of it happening.

[BDGE]

I can somewhat understand them not wanting to do an interview with Tom if they were stung by his criticisms of the game. It seems cowardly, but at a human level, I can understand them not feeling particularly interested in spending time with Tom. It's total horseshit that no one called to cancel the interview and that Tom wasted his time going to an appointment that no one meant to keep. That's absolutely classless and shameful.

Difference being that Tom didn't outright disparage the game, Sony, or Sucker Punch in his analysis. Gleaming a list of notes that held true in his eyes of what worked and didn't work should have been a pure invitation for Sony PR to make light of his critique, to provide perspective.

[checkers]

This isn't on quite the same level as that.
Sure, but it still seems unusual compared to other industries. If a your local paper's movie reviewer pans Star Trek, they still get to see the studio's next blockbuster early.

My knee-jerk reaction is that this means gamers pay more attention to gamer journalism than cinema-goers to to cinema journalism. Or maybe the industry is just young enough / has low enough barriers to entry / has been like this long enough that the attitude of game studios is just different.

[Brian Seiler]

My knee-jerk reaction is that this means gamers pay more attention to gamer journalism than cinema-goers to to cinema journalism.

Sort of. I would rephrase this to read:

"There are more people who go to the movies and do not care about cinema journalism than there are people who buy games and do not care about game journalism."

Then I would rephrase it again so as not to offend all of my literary sensibilities. But you get the point - the situation you're pointing at is more indicative of the fact that a lot of people watch movies than that gamers are a particular kind of elitist jerk.




That said, Sony, in this case, seems to be mostly acting like a jerk. I might have reversed the order in which those Top 10 lists went up if I were Tom (I can conceive of a person who would think that he was mostly preemptively taking a dump on the game because the Bad List went up first), but even assuming a misunderstanding, it's not a very good reason to refuse to do an interview. I've actually defended some of these decisions on a theoretical basis (the UbiSoft decision to blockade Ziff access to pre-release stuff, for example), but putting the kaibash on a post-release interview fails every one of my logical tests. I just can't grasp why anybody would want to do a thing like that.

[Mike Pugliese]

Sure, but it still seems unusual compared to other industries. If a your local paper's movie reviewer pans Star Trek, they still get to see the studio's next blockbuster early.

My knee-jerk reaction is that this means gamers pay more attention to gamer journalism than cinema-goers to to cinema journalism. Or maybe the industry is just young enough / has low enough barriers to entry / has been like this long enough that the attitude of game studios is just different.

It's some of that. But it's also the fact that if you want to get anywhere as press entity, you need to have that arrangement with the appropriate PR. They are the only ones who can provide you with anything remotely pre-release as well as interviews, early media, and more - and they know it. Depending on your status in the industry, they may have no qualms withholding content if you have previously provided unfavorable coverage. It's childish and unprofessional, but it's the nature of the beast.

This situation is different, though. I don't think I've ever heard of a publisher flat-out stand someone up after agreeing to an interview. That's just a whole new level of dickishness.

[forgeforsaken]

I'd just like to thank Matt for posting this at GAF, it sure has been interesting to watch!

[MSUSteve]

Difference being that Tom didn't outright disparage the game, Sony, or Sucker Punch in his analysis. Gleaming a list of notes that held true in his eyes of what worked and didn't work should have been a pure invitation for Sony PR to make light of his critique, to provide perspective.
I wasn't really commenting on whether or not Tom's 10 bad points were out of line in my mind. I don't think they were, though I expect the use of the word stupid to describe the negative aspects probably rankled some at Sucker Punch and/or Sony. I can understand why someone that was invested in the game on the developer side might not view Tom's article as objectively as someone like me would and why such a person might want to flip Tom the bird in terms of providing an interview. It's just total garbage to stand the guy up and more than a little cowardly to avoid an interviewer who had some legitimate criticisms of the game.

[Bahimiron]

That thread contains a lot of real boggling statements, but I think this one is the boggliest.

The press doesn't have a right to coverage, the publishers are doing them a favor. Publishers don't need the press as much as the press need the publishers.

[MSUSteve]

That is indeed boggly. Obviously the press does rely on the publishers for access, but these days, with a deluge of games hitting all year round and the cost of development being so high, I have to think the publishers need the press more in order to effectively market their games, especially a first party Sony title. They need to get as many PS3 owners as possible to buy this thing.

[Hunty]

I'd just like to thank Matt for posting this at GAF, it sure has been interesting to watch!

Man, this has reminded me why I don't go over there. Check out this pearl:

Sorry dude, but I give a damn if it was SONY, or Nintendo, or MS! If such a f+cker would write one of these shit-coverages about my game I would do the same. F++k this f+cker

Kind of illustrates my point - lots of people wouldn't care about the interview for whatever reason, whether they be rabid teen fans or whatever, and the people who are wavering might find it interesting and influential towards a purchase. Nonsensical really.

[Miramon]

Which is worse:

A. Sony turning down a request for an interview due to a review they perceive as less than ideal?

B. Any other publisher hosting a fete at a vacation destination with paid airfare and hotel, with the tacit understanding that these affairs will only be offered to those who give good reviews?

I mean, both are pretty lousy, but A is at least honest and direct, if stupid and thuggish. B seems even worse to me somehow. I haven't been connected to the industry for a couple of years, but I know B happened at least before the economy went south. Is it still a practice today?

[Prodigy]

That thread contains a lot of real boggling statements, but I think this one is the boggliest.

Let me guess : Sony fanboy ?

[Brian Seiler]

Let me guess : Sony fanboy ?

Being incredibly generous and not assuming outright that the guy is just a fanboy (note here that I am probably wrong to do this), GAF guy isn't wrong so much as he is blindingly out of context. His argument would make a lot of sense if we were talking about, say, a reporter teeing off on some pre-release code that he saw behind closed doors and screwing up the PR campaign before it has a chance to get off the ground. In that case, I wouldn't be shocked at all if the publisher got pissed off and told the reporter he was never getting into pre-release stuff ever again, though my attitude might be colored by the fact that I possess enough common sense to figure that MOST pre-release coverage will spin positive for precisely this reason, among other things (i.e. enthusiastic members of the enthusiast press naturally being enthusiastic about whatever they're talking about).

What he doesn't seem to realize is that that's, you know, not what happened here at all. Here a reviewer made some legitimate critical observations about a finished product a couple of steps into the review cycle with a snarky headline (and later some other positive observations under a different, not-snarky headline) and the publisher decided to stop that reviewer from then doing reporting on the game by way of an interview. The former case (which didn't happen) is defensible because it would involve a publisher acting in something that could be construed as his best interest. The latter case (what actually happened) is stupid with a bowler hat on because it involves a publisher stifling potentially positive publicity on the basis of what my ENTIRELY UNQUALIFIED AND UNEDUCATED ASS would guess is probably a misunderstanding based on:

1. The order in which the articles were released (bad before good, with the good article having a link back to the bad one at the end because the bad one came first); and

2) Failure to read both articles (the journalistic equivalent of RTFM failure, I guess).

[MSUSteve]

B. Any other publisher hosting a fete at a vacation destination with paid airfare and hotel, with the tacit understanding that these affairs will only be offered to those who give good reviews?

I mean, both are pretty lousy, but A is at least honest and direct, if stupid and thuggish. B seems even worse to me somehow. I haven't been connected to the industry for a couple of years, but I know B happened at least before the economy went south. Is it still a practice today?

To take a recent Tom Chick quote regarding inFamous completely out of context:

Fair enough, but I have one word for the fine folks reading this thread: GTA4.
-Tom

[Tom Ohle]

Difference being that Tom didn't outright disparage the game, Sony, or Sucker Punch in his analysis. Gleaming a list of notes that held true in his eyes of what worked and didn't work should have been a pure invitation for Sony PR to make light of his critique, to provide perspective.

And further, PR reps have a responsibility to get coverage. Blacklisting an outlet or a writer -- even if it's a one-time thing -- means that you're not very likely to get coverage there again. Poor practice.

[Bahimiron]

I donno who Tormentoso is, but I want to invite him to post here.

[Royal Fool]

Two things we've learned from this thread (that we knew already):

1. Sony's PR is wacky.
2. GAF is [insert derogatory term here, they all fit].

[Lynxara]

A. Sony turning down a request for an interview due to a review they perceive as less than ideal?

It's important to remember, though, that the issue here isn't that Sony turned down an interview request.

The issue is that Sony agreed to do an interview, arranged a meeting, did not meet with Tom as agreed, and then told him after the fact that it was essentially punishment for "bad things" he had written about the game.

Companies are well within their rights to turn down any interview request, but Sony agreed to participate and then failed to do so. That behavior actively dicks over a journalist far more than just saying "No thanks" to begin with.

[Mike Pugliese]

I had forgotten how painful GAF can be to read.

[Telefrog]

Regardless of whether or not you agree with Tom's criticsim of the game, boning out on a scheduled interview is BS of the highest order. I'm surprised even the GAF mouth-breathers can't see that.

[schild]

I agree that going out of your way to actively screw an interviewer is a shit practice.

But Tom's coverage of the game was was just lazy crap. He phoned it in and made no effort whatsoever to even make it entertaining. Sure, like every journalist, Tom is proficient at trolling. But this wasn't even trolling, it was just Bad.

That said, I would've canceled the interviews too, but I would have made it clear that it was because it was lazy coverage and not because it was negative.

That behavior actively dicks over a journalist far more than just saying "No thanks" to begin with.Interviews in gaming journalism aren't journalism. They're Hype and PR. Particularly Pre-Release interviews. I'm not sure what you were expecting.

Edit: And by expecting I mean - they weren't going to get hype or PR out of the interview, so why even have it when the journalist can't even put forth the effort to make, at the very least, something entertaining even if not an altogether positive review. /shrug Games Industry does something amateurish, sky is blue.

And further, PR reps have a responsibility to get coverage. Blacklisting an outlet or a writer -- even if it's a one-time thing -- means that you're not very likely to get coverage there again. Poor practice.

Hi Tom!

I've been blacklisted by lots of places and still provide coverage, on my own dime no less. Our responsibility isn't to the companies involved, it's to the readers. On top of that, going through PR for anything is just a waste of time. PR at gaming companies is nearly universally terrible and unless you want to hype something up or provide a service to them, they're best ignored. There's a good reason I get 99% of my access from actually developers and not the PR people involved. The PR is too slow to respond, to quick to anger, and doesn't often know enough about any given game to be worth spending time with. This includes massive companies like Sony as well.

[Naeblis]

Heh heh heh, in GAF most people seem to think that Tom Chick is a "professional troll", so Sony shouldn't waste their time with him. Others remember him like the dude who nitpicked Killzone 2, and others believe is a random semi-proffesional blogger.

[Lynxara]

I'm surprised even the GAF mouth-breathers can't see that.

Aside from people not understanding the details of the situation clearly, I imagine a lot of people don't know how much work can go into preparing for an interview. I don't know what Tom's style is but I probably would've spent a couple hours at least preparing for something like what he describes.

A couple hours can be a lot of time for a working journalist-- time that could've been spent doing something more profitable or pursing interview opportunities that are going to actually show up.

[Tom Ohle]

But Tom's coverage of the game was was just lazy crap. He phoned it in and made no effort whatsoever to even make it entertaining. Sure, like every journalist, Tom is proficient at trolling. But this wasn't even trolling, it was just Bad.

That said, I would've canceled the interviews too, but I would have made it clear that it was because it was lazy coverage and not because it was negative.


Tom wrote a pair of posts for his blog, not a big insightful Wall Street Journal feature. To call it lazy coverage is to be completely ignorant of the medium.

[schild]

Tom wrote a pair of posts for his blog, not a big insightful Wall Street Journal feature. To call it lazy coverage is to be completely ignorant of the medium.

Don't just call it a blog. Tom is pretty well known and that's one of his platforms for voicing opinion. Opinion that's known to be fairly well informed regardless of whether he's good at gaming or not. That is to say, it's respected.

And the pair of posts were fucking Top Ten lists. To not call it lazy coverage is to be completely ignorant of the cancer that is killing gaming journalism.

[Brakara]

I never thought Sony would stoop down to the level of some of its most fanatic fanboys, but here we are.

[Cubit]

And the pair of posts were fucking Top Ten lists. To not call it lazy coverage is to be completely ignorant of the cancer that is killing gaming journalism.

I yield to those more articulate than myself for an appropriate response to this.

[Telefrog]

Aside from people not understanding the details of the situation clearly, I imagine a lot of people don't know how much work can go into preparing for an interview. I don't know what Tom's style is but I probably would've spent a couple hours at least preparing for something like what he describes.

A couple hours can be a lot of time for a working journalist-- time that could've been spent doing something more profitable or pursing interview opportunities that are going to actually show up.

Sure, but even if you believe that Tom just looked at his Sidekick while texting to Perez Hilton and realized that he had an interview scheduled, smacked his head and hopped into his Porsche bought with money from his Office acting gig, and got there two seconds ahead of time amid a flurry of Post-Its and Microsoft moneyhats, you should realize that not telling him beforehand about the cancellation is incredibly unprofessional on the PR rep's part. It really boggles my mind that this basic common courtesy is apparently completely alien to many of the people on GAF.

To go one step further and say that the Sony PR folks are completely justified because Tom Chick's article was unflattering is really weird. Like Asperger's weird.

[Bahimiron]

That said, I would've canceled the interviews too, but I would have made it clear that it was because it was lazy coverage and not because it was negative.

Presumably you would have called Tom and let him know ahead of time that the interview was off. Which is my problem with the whole thing. Letting Tom show up and then telling him after he'd wasted his time is, as the people on GAF are saying, 'a dick move'.

As for the merits of Tom's article, I don't agree with some of the stuff he's saying, but it's also a blog he runs where he's tasked with doing occasional top ten lists. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I don't. Given his posts in the Star Trek threads, I don't think that Tom is beyond doing a little trolling for fun.

I would expect a well-written, thoughful article from Tom. However, I wouldn't expect that well-written, thoughtful article to be the one he posts to Fidgit.

And the pair of posts were fucking Top Ten lists. To not call it lazy coverage is to be completely ignorant of the cancer that is killing gaming journalism.

Tom's been pretty up front before that he does a certain number of top ten lists because they're easy clicks and Sci Fi expects clicks.

Go to fidgit.com and look at the current popular articles. Three of the four are top ten lists and the last was a top ten list until Matthew's post on GAF. Presumably GAF mention of Tom's Killzone 2 review has caused a resurgence of interest in that post.

[schild]

Presumably you would have called Tom and let him know ahead of time that the interview was off. Which is my problem with the whole thing. Letting Tom show up and then telling him after he'd wasted his time is, as the people on GAF are saying, 'a dick move'.

That's fine. It's a dick move. But let's not build a fucking straw man over it. Tom has a lesson to learn here too.

Tom's been pretty up front before that he does a certain number of top ten lists because they're easy clicks and Sci Fi expects clicks.
You know that thread about the continuing plunge of gaming journalism? It's about shit like that.

[Cubit]

That's fine. It's a dick move. But let's not build a fucking straw man over it. Tom has a lesson to learn here too.

What is that lesson, specifically?

[Bahimiron]

That's fine. It's a dick move. But let's not build a fucking straw man over it. Tom has a lesson to learn here too.

Yeah, he mentioned that already. His lesson was that if you're scheduled to interview someone from Sony, make backup plans just in case.

You know that thread about the continuing plunge of gaming journalism? It's about shit like that.

We get the press we ask for.

[frank austin]

I would expect a well-written, thoughful article from Tom. However, I wouldn't expect that well-written, thoughtful article to be the one he posts to Fidgit.

Tom's been pretty up front before that he does a certain number of top ten lists because they're easy clicks and Sci Fi expects clicks.

Go to fidgit.com and look at the current popular articles. Three of the four are top ten lists and the last was a top ten list until Matthew's post on GAF. Presumably GAF mention of Tom's Killzone 2 review has caused a resurgence of interest in that post.

This is all pretty relevant, imo. I agree that the article wasn't great coverage for the game (not just that it made iNfAmOUS look bad, but it wasn't like, deep, man), but it's definitely par for the course with gaming blogs (I know, don't just call it that) these days. In fact, I'd say it's notably above average quality for those types of sites.

I wonder how the folks at Sucker Punch feel about the missed PR opportunity.

[Tim James]

I'm blaming this all on the recent tapir word-replacement issue, since Sony was developing a game that featured the remarkable animal.

[Telefrog]

What is that lesson, specifically?

Apparently, journalists must write the way schild wants or suffer the consequences.

[schild]

What is that lesson, specifically?

If you want to cover a game, don't be a lazy jackass or you can, and should, get totally boned on exclusive coverage.

Honestly, I'd really like PR everywhere to start doing this shit to any journalist that phones in coverage. MAYBE THEN, we might see at least prior to interviews being published, a lower amount of totally bleh coverage.

This thread seems to forget that gaming journalism only exists because it's an excellent extension of PR that requires minimal effort on the developer or publishers part. Gaming sites need exclusive coverage to drive clicks and more views. InFamous was not hurt by this little debacle, Tom was. If Tom's goal is to get clicks at Fidget or wherever, he should know better.

Also, if he had an interview coming up, he REALLY should've known better.

Edit:
Apparently, journalists must write the way schild wants or suffer the consequences.
Man, I don't even want that. I'm a dick. And I only write when there's a point to be made, and I don't even do that much anymore. And I'm pretty sure I was the first one in line about 4 years ago saying that Gaming Journalism is like Dead, Man. And I was blaming Kotaku for it back then too.

[Telefrog]

If you want to cover a game, don't be a lazy jackass or you can, and should, get totally boned on exclusive coverage.

Honestly, I'd really like PR everywhere to start doing this shit to any journalist that phones in coverage. MAYBE THEN, we might see at least prior to interviews being published, a lower amount of totally bleh coverage.

Wow. Here's a great example of the kind of professional courtesy disconnect I'm talking about.

If Sony PR had an issue with Tom's coverage of inFAMouS, they should've addressed that in the actual interview. "Hey, this is why we did this. This is why we didn't do that." If they just didn't want to "waste their time" on him because his coverage was "lazy" then they should've said so before and canceled the interview. Not blow off a scheduled meeting.

[frank austin]

This thread's already going in circles. Very small, very silly circles.

[Tom Ohle]

If you want to cover a game, don't be a lazy jackass or you can, and should, get totally boned on exclusive coverage.

Honestly, I'd really like PR everywhere to start doing this shit to any journalist that phones in coverage. MAYBE THEN, we might see at least prior to interviews being published, a lower amount of totally bleh coverage.

And had Tom only posted the "10 cool things" list, Sony would have been his best friend. No publisher is ever going to complain about "lazy coverage" if it's positive.

[schild]

If Sony PR had an issue with Tom's coverage of inFAMouS, they should've addressed that in the actual interview. "Hey, this is why we did this. This is why we didn't do that."
I agree. But that's not how the gaming industry works, unfortunately. As such, never gonna happen with a company as big as Sony.

If they just didn't want to "waste their time" on him because his coverage was "lazy" then they should've said so before and canceled the interview. Not blow off a scheduled meeting.
Agreed. In fact, I said that - like 5 posts up.

Where's the disconnect?

Edit:
And had Tom only posted the "10 cool things" list, Sony would have been his best friend. No publisher is ever going to complain about "lazy coverage" if it's positive.

Possibly.

1) "You are powerful. As Infamous progresses, you get more powerful." Those ten words are Infamous in a nutshell. Never mind the godawful story, bad writing, shallow characterization, and mostly uninspired world building. The bottom line is that Infamous is a game about wielding superpowers (I never once wished I had a gun). It accomplishes this goal admirably, gradually scaling up your power in gratifying increments until, finally and literally, the sky is the limit.

But there's no way to be sure. What I don't understand is that if he had an interview coming up, why he even had to post the two lists when he could've talked to the developer about every single point in both during the interview. I think that would've possibly made for an interesting interview. If it was Just For Clicks and Post Count then we're back to the whole "Continuing Plunge" thing. If the interview wasn't yet scheduled, that's another thing completely. But I'm getting dangerously close to derailing the thread, so I'll back off of the "hypotheticals."

[Pogue Mahone]

I think the kicker for this whole affair is that Tom wrote two articles -- one critical, certainly, but in the end he came down in favor of the game, even if only slightly. And he still catches all kinds of grief for it. I think what Tom may have proven, unfortunately, is that criticism just doesn't pay.

I will never understand the drama underlying all the back and forth over a game's 'quality.' Fans carry on as if their entire self worth is riding on the composite score their game of the week holds at Metacritics.

[frank austin]

And had Tom only posted the "10 cool things" list, Sony would have been his best friend. No publisher is ever going to complain about "lazy coverage" if it's positive.

Good point, here.

[Jeff Green]

If you want to cover a game, don't be a lazy jackass or you can, and should, get totally boned on exclusive coverage.

Honestly, I'd really like PR everywhere to start doing this shit to any journalist that phones in coverage. MAYBE THEN, we might see at least prior to interviews being published, a lower amount of totally bleh coverage.

So what if a "lazy jackass" "phones in" a positive-spinning Top 10? Should gaming PR start punish them, too, for being lazy jackasses?

[EDIT: DAMN YOU FASTER TYPISTS. YEAH. WHAT THEY SAID.]

[MrAnderson]

Wow. I must not be a good judge of authorship, since I actually enjoyed the two infamous top-ten list posts. *shrug*

[Lynxara]

As such, never gonna happen with a company as big as Sony.

I've been treated very professionally by gaming companies doing a hell of a lot better than Sony is right now after writing criticism. I'm not even close to being a writer of Tom's stature, either.

Sony PR just has a very entitled, childish attitude coming out of the PS1 and PS2 eras. It's not just toward the press, either.

[schild]

So what if a "lazy jackass" "phones in" a positive-spinning Top 10? Should gaming PR start punish them, too, for being lazy jackasses?

[EDIT: DAMN YOU FASTER TYPISTS. YEAH. WHAT THEY SAID.]

What if? Sure, they should.

But they never, ever, ever will since criticism is what is most often punished in gaming journalism, rather than free press. So it's sort of a moot point.

Edit: Lynxara, so have I. But there's usefulness in knowing which companies will treat you with a certain amount of professional respect and which won't. But that's really an entirely different discussion.

[Telefrog]

Agreed. In fact, I said that - like 5 posts up.

Where's the disconnect?

The disconnect comes from

If you want to cover a game, don't be a lazy jackass or you can, and should, get totally boned on exclusive coverage.

Honestly, I'd really like PR everywhere to start doing this shit to any journalist that phones in coverage. MAYBE THEN, we might see at least prior to interviews being published, a lower amount of totally bleh coverage.

Even though you said, it's a "dick move" earlier, these later posts sound like you approve and encourage others to do the same "dick move" to anyone that writes "lazy" articles.

[schild]

What's wrong with encouraging "a dick move?" Anyway, I'm not encouraging they do it the same way as Sony, which was Just Not Showing Up, I'm encouraging the cutting off of coverage when people write "lazy" articles. It's not like there aren't enough press outlets to get the press you need. On top of that, we're talking about Sony here.

If Tom just stops covering Sony stuff, he's cutting off roughly 25% of the industry. More like 50% though since they're more in the press as being crazy than any other company. If Sony cuts of Tom they've done what, cut off 1% of 1% of the gaming press? I'm sure that thought makes them just shiver in their boots. Not like it matters though, they rolled over on the Kotaku Home debacle after a few posts of bitching and moaning also.

[Angrycoder]

What is that lesson, specifically?

You act like a blogger, you get treated like a blogger. You act like a professional journalist, you get treated as such.

I've been a huge fan of Tom's since reading his articles in Next Generation. I really dug how he championed games I'd never heard of and his writing style was unusually thoughtful and entertaining. Lately, the stuff I see from him on fidgit just comes across as standard Kotaku snark with better grammar. I understand everyone needs to make a buck and journalism as whole is shifting, but it makes me kind of sad.

[Telefrog]

What's wrong with encouraging "a dick move?" Anyway, I'm not encouraging they do it the same way as Sony, which was Just Not Showing Up, I'm encouraging the cutting off of coverage when people write "lazy" articles. It's not like there aren't enough press outlets to get the press you need. On top of that, we're talking about Sony here.

The flaw in that plan is that as a PR person at Sony (or whatever publishing company) the last thing you'd ever want to encourage is real, honest-to-goodness journalism. What you really want is the "Top Ten Reasons Why inFamaous Totally Rocked My Balls Off" from every site.

[Destarius]

I understand not wanting to run an interview with a journalist who was perceived to be negative - that's just placing neck out there if you have other journalists lined up in your pocket who are more likely to say nice things.

One of the key reasons for PR is not to generate fair press - it's to generate favourable press, and that to me, justifies cherry-picking journalists from their perspective. If you find a PR department who believes in playing fairly to all journalists, that's great from an ethical perspective, but commercially I'm afraid that's not what I would be paying a PR department for.

However, the two issues I had were: (1) not showing up - that is very unprofessional, and (2) communicating that the grounds for declining the interview was criticism - that is just a failure of diplomacy. Call Tom up, apologise profusely, say that everyone's tied up and cancel, thereby saving everyone some dignity.

[Shadarr]

You act like a blogger, you get treated like a blogger. You act like a professional journalist, you get treated as such.

No. Even though I think Tom is weakening the Tom Chick™ brand with these half-assed blogposts, that is not the lesson. As was noted, Sony was upset by the negative content, not by the informal tone. If he had just run a list of 10 things that are great about Infamous, he would've got the interview. If he'd fleshed his points out into a proper review and kept all the negatives in, they would've acted like petulent children.

[Mike Pugliese]

I don't get why some people get so enraged over more casual game writing (that's on a blog no less). Why does everything ever written about games have to consist of some flawless article that fits within the constraints of absolute professionalism? Unless the site in question has an unwavering focus on this type of professional writing, I fail to see what the problem is.

Tom's articles have always struck me as his humorous take on games. Just because it's different or not the most professional thing ever doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. Those who get all pissy about it are clearly reading it for the wrong reasons.

[Prodigy]

And had Tom only posted the "10 cool things" list, Sony would have been his best friend. No publisher is ever going to complain about "lazy coverage" if it's positive.

Exactly.

Apparently good journalism is telling people what they wanna hear.

[schild]

Exactly.

Apparently good journalism is telling people what they wanna hear.

This is Living.™

[Angrycoder]

I don't get why some people get so enraged over more casual game writing (that's on a blog no less). Why does everything ever written about games have to consist of some flawless article that fits within the constraints of absolute professionalism? Unless the site in question has an unwavering focus on this type of professional writing, I fail to see what the problem is.


It matters to me because its Tom. Its kinda like seeing Shakespeare at a Ren Faire doing dirty limericks featuring 'your name here' for 5 bucks.

[pyjamarama]

I think this is appropriate http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/01/20/

According to Sony PR only the first panel interviewers are allowed to talk to their developers.

[Prodigy]

I'm encouraging the cutting off of coverage when people write "lazy" articles.

And who decides what is lazy writing and what is not ?

[schild]

And who decides what is lazy writing and what is not ?
The Thought Police.

Do you have any other questions I can answer and look like more of an asshole? Really though, I mean, can't ANYONE recognize lazy writing a mile away? Don't we have enough training between Kotaku and Joystiq?

[Lynxara]

But there's usefulness in knowing which companies will treat you with a certain amount of professional respect and which won't.

So because Sony PR is known to treat people very poorly, journalists should deploy kid gloves when discussing Sony product?

I don't think this is what you want to be saying, but you are coming dangerously close to making this argument.

[Prodigy]

Really though, I mean, can't ANYONE recognize lazy writing a mile away?

Whether Tom's top 10 lists were lazy or not is not the issue here (at least for me). He should be able to write pretty much what he wants, provided it is not abusive or totally moronic of course (which was not the case) without any kind of judgement from PR people who are only here to get good coverage, great quotes for the boxes, and do not care in the least if we do our jobs right or not.

This is like a journalist saying to a PR person, "sorry, I can't interview your guy, I did not like the way you did your job" (please remember, I suck at analogies).

Who are they to judge ?

[schild]

So because Sony PR is known to treat people very poorly, journalists should deploy kid gloves when discussing Sony product?

I don't think this is what you want to be saying, but you are coming dangerously close to making this argument.
Oh, god not at all - I'm the first one in line to champion critical thought in gaming "journalism." But if Tom knew he had a Sony interview coming up - and just by understanding Sony's past behavior - he could've waited until the day after the interview to post all that stuff. Look, Sony PR and Marketing is basically the worst in the industry. Everyone knows this. Everyone.

It's not even an "open secret" in game journalist circles (or even AT Sony), it's just common knowledge. Knowing that, Tom should've treated it as such.

And now I'm depressed because they're bringing me the best games this gen between stuff like Uncharted, Gran Turismo, and Demon's Souls.

Fake Edit: By Sony I mean SCEA. Not necessarily SCEI, SCEE, SOE, or many fo the people representing some of their first party companies. Though, SCEE can probably be clumped in with SCEA. Or, at least, they're well on their way to being clumped in with them.

Edit: Prodigy, it's best not to assume that any part of how the gaming journalism/PR relationship works has anything to do with how reality should function or what life would be like in an ideal society. It's a terrible relationship and a big fucking mess on all fronts. Seriously, it's just depressing to think about, no matter what company or journalist is involved. Respect doesn't even enter into the equation and both sides can judge the other side (even on silly shit) simply because there's nothing stopping them from doing so.

[Tom Ohle]

There also seems to be this constant idea floating around that games journalism has to change. Like we have to be as great as the amazing film industry or as completely unbiased as the music industry. Games are doing well -- better than most other industries -- despite this rampant lazy writing. Why change it? Oh, intellectual high ground? Games are fun, and there's nothing wrong with light writing on the subject. I welcome top 10 lists, pre-release hype interviews and more. If I object to the coverage, I can skip to the next post.

[Lynxara]

But if Tom knew he had a Sony interview coming up - and just by understanding Sony's past behavior - he could've waited until the day after the interview to post all that stuff.

This is essentially Tom modifying his behavior to suit Sony PR's needs. It would in particular mean withholding a feature containing a list of criticisms of a major release until well after the point where early adopters -- the most voracious readers of games journalism -- would have made their purchase decisions.

I fail to see how it is in the service of journalism in any way not to inform your audience of what you perceive to be flaws and shortcomings during a product's release window. That is when such information, regardless of delivery format, is going to be most useful to your readership.

[schild]

Hey, I didn't say it was a perfect solution.

[Glycerine]

While I do agree that Tom's lists looked like they took all of 20 minutes to put together, this doesn't excuse Sony for being completely unprofessional. Regardless of what he wrote, Sony should have at least let him know the interview was canceled. Tom is entitled to his opinion, even though it's usually ass-backwards.

I wouldn't consider myself one of Tom's supporters or detractors, but let's be honest and admit that he's made quite a name for himself by shitting all over blockbuster titles that most people liked. Chances are if it's a big-name title that the other review sites are raving about, Tom will certainly find something to hate. That's the main reason I quit reading his reviews; he's just too damn concerned about bucking the trend and inserting half-assed humor to be taken seriously.

It's hard for me to say that, because much of his earlier work was so good it had me rolling. Let me clarify my stance and note that I think Tom is a fantastic writer, when he wants to be. His ShootClub, Tom Vs. Bruce, and Game Diaries were almost always funny and well-written. That's when I think Tom was truly at his best, these days not so much.

[Mordrak]

So what was lazy about Tom's Top Ten Lists? Would you prefer the same content in essay form? Is that what makes it lazy?

[pyjamarama]

Also is funny that the PR person responsible for this incident, besides having an unethical end unprofessional attitude also completely failed is intended purpose. I mean the purpose of the cancellation was I suppose to avoid attracting more attention to Tom's not 100% positive impressions on the game, but positive none the less, and by creating this unnecessary incident attracted even more attention to it reaching to people that don't normally read his work, how ironic.

[Jazar]

I gotta feel bad for the developers of the game who after working on the product for 3 years, on the day of release, the news of the day isn't the game but how Sony PR stood up Tom Chick.

[Rock8man]

the news of the day isn't the game but how Sony PR stood up Tom Chick.

Is it? I don't see that reported on Kotaku, Joystiq, 1UP, BluesNews, ShackNews, Evil Avatar, or any of the other places that EvoTab monitors. It might be "the news of the day" here, and maybe some messageboards, but I bet the vast majority of gamers will never even hear about it.

[madkevin]

I wouldn't consider myself one of Tom's supporters or detractors, but let's be honest and admit that he's made quite a name for himself by shitting all over blockbuster titles that most people liked.

Hey, let's be really honest and admit that the only people who think that are PS3 fanboys for whom the slightest word against whatever game is supposed to save that wreck of a game system this week is cause for internet jihad.

See, here's the part about criticism you're not getting: it's supposed to be critical, backed up with cogent arguments and thought. That's the job of a critic. What isn't the job of a critic is to automatically write opinions that you (or anybody else) agree with all the time.

[forgeforsaken]

Is it? I don't see that reported on Kotaku, Joystiq, 1UP, BluesNews, ShackNews, Evil Avatar, or any of the other places that EvoTab monitors. It might be "the news of the day" here, and maybe some messageboards, but I bet the vast majority of gamers will never even hear about it.

The GAF thread is at 23,792 views.

[Cubit]

The GAF thread is at 23,792 views.

i'm tempted to read some of the replies, but i'm too worried my head would explode.

[Lynxara]

The GAF thread is at 23,792 views.

While that's impressive, this still isn't quite Gamespot-firing-Gerstmann levels of drama.

It seems to be turning a lot of my friends on to Tom's writing, though, which is funny as hell.

[Matthew Gallant]

Is it? I don't see that reported on Kotaku, Joystiq, 1UP, BluesNews, ShackNews, Evil Avatar, or any of the other places that EvoTab monitors.
You have to give them a few hours; they read and type very slowly.

[Harkonis]

Which is worse:

A. Sony turning down a request for an interview due to a review they perceive as less than ideal?

B. Any other publisher hosting a fete at a vacation destination with paid airfare and hotel, with the tacit understanding that these affairs will only be offered to those who give good reviews?

I mean, both are pretty lousy, but A is at least honest and direct, if stupid and thuggish. B seems even worse to me somehow. I haven't been connected to the industry for a couple of years, but I know B happened at least before the economy went south. Is it still a practice today?

A would only be honest and direct if they had done it before he went to meet them.

[Cubit]

oh, i almost forgot: dugg

[Miramon]

A would only be honest and direct if they had done it before he went to meet them.

Right, as you and someone else said, that is a pretty scummy thing to do. I didn't read closely enough to see that Tom had actually showed up to be turned away, which is just low.

[Tim James]

I feel like using the Christian Bale apology joke here, but even I'm running out of steam with it.

[Adam B]

Someday, we'll have a thread in which schild posts and yet does not turn into a three-page cock-waving snark fest primarily about schild.

It will be a glorious day.

[schild]

Someday, we'll have a thread in which schild posts and yet does not turn into a three-page cock-waving snark fest primarily about schild.

It will be a glorious day.
We can go for four pages if you feel like turning it into a thread about me, which it wasn't.

Though, I'm not sure at what point any of it was actually about *me* as I was posting about Tom and Sony.

Way to fail at making a point though.

[Tim James]

I know Tom's sooooo lazy he won't even crack a game manual, but has Sony implied that it was his shallow coverage or his negative coverage that did him in, or is this all schild stating what he would do as CEO?

[schild]

I know Tom's sooooo lazy he won't even crack a game manual, but has Sony implied that it was his shallow coverage or his negative coverage that did him in, or is this all schild stating what he would do as CEO?

From the article today:
Infamous comes out this week. I had hoped to post an interview with one of the developers from Sucker Punch today, but I got stood up. Sony later informed me that an interview wasn't appropriate considering last week's coverage of the game here (http://fidgit.com/archives/2009/05/top_ten_cool_things_about_infa.php)and specifically here (http://fidgit.com/archives/2009/05/top_ten_stupid_things_about_in.php).

[Tim James]

That does nothing to narrow down whether it was one or the other.

Re-reading my post, I guess I wasn't clear what I was getting at. Has Sony implied that it was lazy and shallow or just you?

[MSUSteve]

That does nothing to narrow down whether it was one or the other.

Re-reading my post, I guess I wasn't clear what I was getting at. Has Sony implied that it was lazy and shallow or just you?
I think schild is the one saying Tom's "shallow" (he said lazy) coverage was why Sony ditched the interview. My reading of Sony's response to Tom is that they were upset by the list of "stupid" things in inFamous.

[Lynxara]

Re-reading my post, I guess I wasn't clear what I was getting at. Has Sony implied that it was lazy and shallow or just you?

That is schild's criticism.

All that's clear about Sony's feelings on the piece is that they disliked Tom's negativity toward the game in print.

(That he likes the game is going to be irrelevant in a situation like this-- I once saw a PR rep try to get a dude fired based on "negative text" in a 5/5 review.)

[schild]

Reading comprehension plz.

That said, I would've canceled the interviews too, but I would have made it clear that it was because it was lazy coverage and not because it was negative.

I, too, think they canceled it because of the list of stupid things. I'm saying that was a bad tact for cancellation. Honestly, at this point, I'd like more information about the cancellation from Tom. Like, an exact word for word about what was said and exactly how "getting stood up" went in this situation.

Edit: That quote is from my first post on the subject on page 2.

[Tim James]

I failed reading comprehension in school. Thanks for the summary; these silly threads are hard to follow.

[steve]

Apparently good journalism is telling people what they wanna hear.
Positive press doesn't have the same perceived impact on sales like negative press can, so it's kind of dumb to flip this around. Yeah, there's been little correlation between negative press and sales, but I think for a high-profile title on a struggling platform... well, maybe it's different, or changing. I dunno. And as is usual, Sony was being dumb for turning a non-story into a story.

If they were pissed, they should just cancel. That's totally within their right; whether it's a good idea or not is an entirely different issue. I had this happen a number of times over the years, but I never felt compelled to call companies out in public over it; I usually let them cool off, then resumed working with them. Is it better to call them out in public? I'd argue that it's only worth doing it if it becomes a long-term problem. Calling them out over a snit is more likely to cause long-term problems. And it's not like the press doesn't throw the occasional public or private tantrum; of course companies don't have the luxury of calling out the press when it acts like little babies behind the scenes.

Anyway, this all comes back to an issue I have with blogging in general, the idea that it's somehow different than a formal article. I get why people believe that, but criticism is criticism when you have an audience. Calling the game out in this format was asking for more attention than a standard essay. It's the way you get hits as a blogger.

And like Angrycoder, I'm disappointed that blogging, even by people who can do more, is mostly just snark. Maybe I'm overly sensitive because I'm the one being snarked at---lord knows, no one ever made fun of the game press!---but blogging was supposed to improve the state of game writing, not become Old Man Murray 2.0. I realize it's hard to write X articles per day that generate X amount of traffic, but maybe someone should consider whether that approach is actually worth it in the long run.

[Glycerine]

Hey, let's be really honest and admit that the only people who think that are PS3 fanboys for whom the slightest word against whatever game is supposed to save that wreck of a game system this week is cause for internet jihad.

Usually the first jackass to bring up "fanboy" bullshit like this is just another idiot from the opposing side. I own all three consoles, the 360 being the first one I bought and still the one I love most. If anyone is a rabid fanboy who's pissed about system exclusivity, it certainly wouldn't be me.

See, here's the part about criticism you're not getting: it's supposed to be critical, backed up with cogent arguments and thought. That's the job of a critic. What isn't the job of a critic is to automatically write opinions that you (or anybody else) agree with all the time.

I'm all for criticism, when it's actually well-written and thought out. Tom's top ten lists were neither, both reeking of a rush job to satisfy some deadline or obligation. The first three things on Tom's "suck" list have absolutely nothing to do with playing the game and are just pathetic attempts to be funny. If that's good writing to you, great, but don't go all "QT3 FANBOI ATTACK!" on me just because I have a dissenting view. Tom is entitled to his opinion, and I am just as entitled to completely trash said opinion.

[Tim James]

...but blogging was supposed to improve the state of game writing, not become Old Man Murray 2.0.God, if only.

[madkevin]

Usually the first jackass to bring up "fanboy" bullshit like this is just another idiot from the opposing side. I own all three consoles, the 360 being the first one I bought and still the one I love most. If anyone is a rabid fanboy who's pissed about system exclusivity, it certainly wouldn't be me.

Speaking of dishonest, I'd like to see a list of these blockbusters Tom Chick is supposedly shitting on. Because the impression I received from the Infamous articles is that he thought it was a good, if flawed, game. At what point does the shitting commence?

Tom is entitled to his opinion, and I am just as entitled to completely trash said opinion.

Just as I'm entitled to trash your opinion. Honestly.

[Matthew Gallant]

The thread on GAF got locked, but not before this gem was released:

"Why is Tom Chick the last few good writers left ?"

[LesJarvis]

Speaking of dishonest, I'd like to see a list of these blockbusters Tom Chick is supposedly shitting on. Because the impression I received from the Infamous articles is that he thought it was a good, if flawed, game. At what point does the shitting commence?

I don't know that I'd agree with the characterization of Tom "shitting on blockbusters," but clearly Tom enjoys (or just enjoys the traffic generated by) being a bit of a contrarian and sacred cow tipper. Cf. Far Cry 2 as best game of 2008, GTA 4 as most overrated game of 2008, Monster Madness is a better zombie game than Left 4 Dead, exclusive, high-profile shooters (Halo 3, Killzone 2) kind of suck, etc. Don't get me wrong, I agree with more than half of those, but they're the kind of thing that get people riled up and drive traffic. Even the way the inFamous articles were released, with the "Sucks" one going up first, was pretty clearly designed to be controversial and/or attention getting. And it worked - that article has 49 comments, significantly more than anything else on the frong page of Fidgit right now. There's nothing wrong with that exactly (though I tend to find the "controversial" articles on Fidgit to be the least interesting), but there's nothing wrong with acknowledging it either, even if I don't agree with Glycerine's exact characterization.

[Gunmetal]

The thread on GAF got locked, but not before this gem was released:

"Why is Tom Chick the last few good writers left ?"

It's weird that the thread would have been locked when it started so well. I mean, how can you go wrong with a statement like

"It's harder because now everyone knows that Infamous is not a good enough game to allow any sort of critical writing to go unpunished."

[sinfony]

And now I'm depressed because they're bringing me the best games this gen between stuff like Uncharted, Gran Turismo, and Demon's Souls.
Fuck off, you pathetic troll. Gran Turismo? Gran Turismo has barely even been announced, nobody knows when it's coming out, and it's the fifth game in one of the most overrated series of all time. Unless you are arguing that GT5: Prologue is one of the best games this generation, which madness I would not put past you.

[Kevan]

Oh, god not at all - I'm the first one in line to champion critical thought in gaming "journalism." But if Tom knew he had a Sony interview coming up - and just by understanding Sony's past behavior - he could've waited until the day after the interview to post all that stuff. Look, Sony PR and Marketing is basically the worst in the industry. Everyone knows this. Everyone.

Schild, in all your condescending and hyperbole in this thread, I think you've inadvertently started arguing both sides of this, and shown everyone that you lack a fundamental understanding of the relationship between PR and journalists. In one breath, you say that journos should be more independent and professional, while in the next (quoted above), you say that Tom should have played by Sony's rules.

As someone who has worked professionally in both industries (though not related to gaming), I can say without a doubt that it is bad practice for PR to "punish" journalists. You are not encouraging favorable coverage of your product by engaging in blacklisting, standing up meetings, or using other revenge tactics. Your perception that PR should be punishing journos to encourage better coverage is completely illogical, as well.

Also, it is not journalists place to pander to PR in order to get access for obvious ethical reasons. While those things do happen, it is not considered professional conduct from either side in either situation.

You are correct that it is the PR side that needs journalists, not the other way around. But the idea that Tom deserved the treatment he got for his article is a perverted view on the professional relationship between these two groups. Your entire arguement revolves around the arrogant notion that Tom's writing was indisputably "lazy", which has nothing to do with the reason why Sony didn't show up, and leads me to believe that all your rhetoric here only serves the purpose of passively-aggressively manifesting your contempt for the his negative review of the game. If that's the case, just come out and say it. Otherwise, you're just setting up a straw man for the sake of arguing. Either way, we know you don't like Tom's review, which is fine, but you're wrong about justifying the actions of Sony PR.

[Adam B]

Schild, in all your condescending and hyperbole in this thread, I think you've inadvertently started arguing both sides of this, and shown everyone that you lack a fundamental understanding of the relationship between PR and journalists. In one breath, you say that journos should be more independent and professional, while in the next (quoted above), you say that Tom should have played by Sony's rules.

As someone who has worked professionally in both industries (though not related to gaming), I can say without a doubt that it is bad practice for PR to "punish" journalists. You are not encouraging favorable coverage of your product by engaging in blacklisting, standing up meetings, or using other revenge tactics. Your perception that PR should be punishing journos to encourage better coverage is completely illogical, as well.

Also, it is not journalists place to pander to PR in order to get access for obvious ethical reasons. While those things do happen, it is not considered professional conduct from either side in either situation.

You are correct that it is the PR side that needs journalists, not the other way around. But the idea that Tom deserved the treatment he got for his article is a perverted view on the professional relationship between these two groups. Your entire arguement revolves around the arrogant notion that Tom's writing was indisputably "lazy", which has nothing to do with the reason why Sony didn't show up, and leads me to believe that all your rhetoric here only serves the purpose of passively-aggressively manifesting your contempt for the his negative review of the game. If that's the case, just come out and say it. Otherwise, you're just setting up a straw man for the sake of arguing. Either way, we know you don't like Tom's review, which is fine, but you're wrong about justifying the actions of Sony PR.

I just wanted to quote this because it's a fantastic post. Professionalism is a huge issue, and one that lots of people lose track of while they're burning their latest witch.

[madkevin]

I think the only reason Tom Chick can be considered a contrarian is because there are so few attempts at actual criticism in the gaming press.

Take a look at the end of the year lists from decent movie critics - there might be one or two movies that stand out from the pack and are in everybody's list (aka last year's The Dark Knight), but generally Ebert will not pick the same movies as, say, The Village Voice. Ditto with music. It's only in the gaming industry that people seem to require a consistency of voice across the spectrum, so much so that if somebody presents an argument or opinion that differs just enough from the average gamer's perception, that person is called out for it.

I don't doubt that Chick gets a little thrill out of calling Far Cry 2 the best game of 2008, but to use that example, he's not saying it just to be contrarian. In his review, and in the threads here, he presents a clear, understandable argument for the quality of that game. Ditto his Deus Ex review. I couldn't disagree more with his assessment of Deus Ex, a game I love to little bitty pieces, but that doesn't take away from the quality of his argument.

When it comes to games, I feel that people have a higher emotional investment in them then they do in other forms of media. There's the sheer amount of time spent on them, for one thing, and there's the economic reality that most of us can't afford to keep up with every game on every system. So we have to make choices, and we like to think that our choices are the right ones. I'll use Fallout 3 as an example, here: I'm about 40 hours into my second playthrough. My first one was about 70 hours. That's 110 hours so far I've spent crawling around the wreckage of DC, so clearly I think this game is worth my time. But does that mean I don't see the flaws in the game? Does it mean there aren't worthy things to criticize? Not at all - it just means that, for me, the enjoyment I get out of it is greater than the problems I perceive.

I really, truly believe that too many gamers think a "good" critic is synonymous with "a critic who always agrees with everything I think, all the time". But my favourite critics, in all art forms, are the ones that can put forth an interesting, well-thought-out discussion about the work in question, the ones that can engage me in thinking about the work in ways I may not have thought about. That's the work of a critic.

[schild]

Schild, in all your condescending and hyperbole in this thread, I think you've inadvertently started arguing both sides of this, and shown everyone that you lack a fundamental understanding of the relationship between PR and journalists. In one breath, you say that journos should be more independent and professional, while in the next (quoted above), you say that Tom should have played by Sony's rules.

No. I'm not saying he should've played by Sony's rules. I'm said if he didn't want the outcome he got he should've known better. Posting your lists and then getting an interview canceled on you knowing full well that Sony might cancel it (as they've done such childish things in the past) isn't a very good reason to go ahead and create a situation where non-news turns into news.

If Tom doesn't want to "Play by Sony's Rules," fine, but don't go create a situation by saying that you got "stood up" and then not offering, in detail, the way you got stood up. We're speculating that he didn't make it to homecoming or some shit when in reality we really don't know. We just know that after they didn't show, they explained why they didn't show.

Doing something dumb, getting attacked for it, and then going back and making a scene out of it is Kotaku territory. On that note, I'm pretty confident Tom wasn't looking to make a scene but as someone who writes for games, he should know that nearly everything gets blown out of proportion, just like a few sentences in his post did. But feel free to tell me what I was doing more often, that's fun.

Your entire arguement revolves around the arrogant notion that Tom's writing was indisputably "lazy", which has nothing to do with the reason why Sony didn't show up, and leads me to believe that all your rhetoric here only serves the purpose of passively-aggressively manifesting your contempt for the his negative review of the game.

You could not be more wrong. I haven't even played Infamous or downloaded the demo and I don't care if all he wrote was a scathing article calling it the worst game in the last 10 years using nothing but pictograms.

Either way, we know you don't like Tom's review, which is fine, but you're wrong about justifying the actions of Sony PR.

Once again, fucking reading comprehension. I have *not* justified them going about it the way they SEEMINGLY went about it (once again, we need Tom's clarification), I'm merely endorsing their ability to totally cockblock reviewers and critics on access - which they have done before, and Tom (and every single other active journalist) - should know about. Like I said in another post, SCEA probably has the worst PR and marketing in the industry. Sky is blue.

tl;dr:
I attack a game.
I had an interview set up for said game but the company canceled it.

I now have two options:
I make the intarwebs froth angrily about it and alert the blogosphere.
/OR/
I ignore it and just deal with the fact Sony's PR is totally busted, even if what they did is totally within their right.

Until he clarifies something, that's the entire situation.

[Kevan]

tl;dr:
I attack a game.
I had an interview set up for said game but the company canceled it.

I now have two options:
I make the intarwebs froth angrily about it and alert the blogosphere.
/OR/
I ignore it and just deal with the fact Sony's PR is totally busted, even if what they did is totally within their right.

Until he clarifies something, that's the entire situation.

Speaking of reading comprehension, I think you missed my point completely. Tom should be doing his job with the expectation of professionalism on all sides, and shouldn't be plying his craft at the behest of the subject of his writings. You're scapegoating Tom for Sony's fault.

By the way, I think we have enough information here to draw the basic conclusion that he was stood up. Tom went to do an interview. No one showed up. Later, they said the interview was off because they didn't like something he did. That's standing someone up, and it's rude and unprofessional.

[Edit] Did you really call Tom's articles "attacking" the game?

[sinfony]

If Tom Chick, or any other games writer, goes with your second option (which seems to be your preferred option), then Sony's PR never gets better because it has no incentive to get any better.

[schild]

I've already said the way Sony handled it was piss poor. But I'm not sure what else you want, is there something worse I can say than calling them the "worst PR & marketing in the industry?"

Should I have used the word worstest? worstiest?

Edit:
If Tom Chick, or any other games writer, goes with your second option (which seems to be your preferred option), then Sony's PR never gets better because it has no incentive to get any better.

I agree, but I really don't see any change in Sony PR and Marketing until every single on of them is replaced with different people. They're just abysmal.

[Robert Sharp]

Wow, madkevin. I think you nailed it. Personally, I only read the first three items on Tom's negative list and realized that he wasn't looking at the kind of things I would even care about in a game like this. They may all be valid criticisms, but I thought they were nitpicky (again, I only read the first three, so as to avoid potential gameplay spoilers). I haven't played the game yet, but comments about the story in a game like this don't matter to me in the slightest. I want cool superpowers and an open city. I think the game will provide that, so I'm good.

But Tom usually gives good reasons for his views, even when I disagree with them. That's what I want in a review. I'm actually glad that he's been clearer and less cutesy lately. I used to think Tom was a bit too affected in his writing, trying more to amuse than to inform. That's fine. It wasn't bad writing (in fact, it was good, for entertaining); just not what I wanted. Now, even when I disagree with him, I feel like I'm getting information that will help me decide whether to buy the game, and I want to know the flaws he sees in it. I may not think those are bad things. I may think they ruin the game. What matters is that he exposes the warts in games he loves and shows the positives in games he doesn't like. Then I can make a decision.

But too many places are going either all praise or all insult with reviews. The numbers can be all over the place, but the text seems to be either completely negative or completely positive, and I find a lot of reviews today completely useless. In fact, I base my purchases far more on posts here than reviews (which I seldom read anymore).

[FoRmaT]

I've already said the way Sony handled it was piss poor. But I'm not sure what else you want, is there something worse I can say than calling them the "worst PR & marketing in the industry?"

Should I have used the word worstest? worstiest?

Edit:


I agree, but I really don't see any change in Sony PR and Marketing until every single on of them is replaced with different people. They're just abysmal.

How do you know so much about Sony's PR dep?

[Staff Sergeant]

I'm in the same boat as Mr. Sharp. All of my purchases are now based on peer recommendation from Qt3 or friends rather than reviews. If I want to read a game being praised as the second coming of God or a game being totally blown out of the water (I don't), I'll visit 1up or IGN.

[LesJarvis]

I think the only reason Tom Chick can be considered a contrarian is because there are so few attempts at actual criticism in the gaming press.

Can't quite agree, but understand, it's not because I think Tom is being disingenuous, and the specific criticism of Tom being a contrarian is mostly intended to apply to Fidgit. It's really more a matter of presentation than criticism, though. On the day when the press embargo lifted for inFamous and everyone posted their reviews, here's Tom with a single article talking about things that suck in it. Even if Tom ultimately thinks the game is fine, that creates a strong impression, it drove traffic to the site, and more power to Tom for that fact. It's also a contrarian thing to do (a single article entitled "inFamous is Pretty Good" would not have garnered the same level of attention).

As for the rest of your post, all good points, and I enjoy reading Tom's long form reviews for precisely the reasons you detail. It's the same reason I enjoy critics like Roger Ebert -- even when I vehemently disagree with him, I almost always learn something from his reviews, or they make me consider a viewpoint I hadn't previously. Hell, even when I agree with Tom about a given game the underlying reasons why are often quite different, but his views are nearly always informative.

[Jon_Danger]

I do think that Tom, and plenty of other people in the gaming press can be a tad bit contrarian, but it doesn't bother me too much. When you know people that do this, you just take that into account when listening to them. Tom usually isn't a jerk about his things when he writes, so it doesn't bug me. Sometimes it is good to have a cynical view of games to contrast with some of the overly popular "your game is awesome, how awesome is it?" stuff out there. If those two top 10 lists were in one post, I think that things would be a bit different here. But a top ten list dedicated to why a game is bad would make anyone angry, even if a top 10 of how it is good is around.

That being said, Sony PR are kinda being douches about this. But, at least they are not Ubisoft. (Or whatever company decided to blacklist 1up)

[sinfony]

Let's not kid ourselves: games writing tends to be sensationalist and contrarian because the primary audience for it is teenage boys. It's hard to fault somebody for trying to compete in a competitive industry by playing to the audience, and it's not as though a gaming blog is on par with The Economist.

[Doug Erickson]

Folks, Tom's lists are written tongue-in-cheek. Did you notice that most if not all of the "cool" items have caveats, and that all of the "bad" items that are not just winking personal complaints also contain praise? In case you missed the overall theme: it's a good game with as many brilliant moments as it has serious nitpicks. He's attempting to convey his conflicted take on the game through dueling lists; lists that ultimately come to the same conclusion. If this approach baffles you, please go to the Qt3 front page -- it's in digest form as "Thumbs up. Thumbs down." This wasn't a lazy effort, near as I can tell; it's just Tom overshooting his audience's low expectations. inFAMOUS, to him, really *is* the sum of its moments, for good AND ill.

Or maybe he really WAS being lazy. It's NGJ -- who can tell?

[Prodigy]

I really, truly believe that too many gamers think a "good" critic is synonymous with "a critic who always agrees with everything I think, all the time". But my favourite critics, in all art forms, are the ones that can put forth an interesting, well-thought-out discussion about the work in question, the ones that can engage me in thinking about the work in ways I may not have thought about. That's the work of a critic.

I agree.

Being fed your own pre-digested opinion or feeling validated in some teen fantasy land where what you like equals what you are is one thing, but imho a great review is something you can find interesting and agree with even if you don't like the piece, game, movie or album that's being reviewed. Something that calls for a passionate but civil argument, and sometimes challenges your way of thinking. A film critic actually converted me to Paul Verhoeven's movies when I had nothing but contempt for his work.

As for Tom's top 10 lists, I think people are way to serious about it. Yes, game journalists should do their job thoroughly, passionately, with care and as much objectivity as possible (I think we debated this on the journalism thread). But come on, we're talking about video games, not cancer cure nor nuclear physics.

[Damien Neil]

As someone who has worked professionally in both industries (though not related to gaming), I can say without a doubt that it is bad practice for PR to "punish" journalists. You are not encouraging favorable coverage of your product by engaging in blacklisting, standing up meetings, or using other revenge tactics. Your perception that PR should be punishing journos to encourage better coverage is completely illogical, as well.

For example: Tom's two top ten lists had me somewhat interested in Infamous, but Sony PR has successfully convinced me that I should probably ignore it.

[FoRmaT]

I think that these lists are actually quite enough. I often don't want a further hundred words of witty prosa to tell me "the story is bad". I don't want the story spoiled, and if it's a bad story I don't want to hear it. I'm kinda tired of five page-reviews that are full of...filler.

[tim edwards]

Most importantly. Who is Schild and why is he so angry?

[schild]

Most importantly. Who is Shild and why is he so angry?

I'm a spokesperson for Starkist Tuna.

[tim edwards]

That puts you in a weird place to comment on the PR/journalist relationship.

But you would still smell.

[merryprankster]

I'm surprised that Sony PR didn't want to have the interview with Tom to address the criticisms.

[Bahimiron]

I do think that Matt's initial post could have been phrased better. Rather than 'now we know inFamous isn't good enough', it would have been more accurate to say 'now we know Sony's faith in inFamous isn't solid enough'. We can't take anything about inFamous' quality away from their response to Tom, but we can definitely get an impression of Sony's concerns their own product.

Who is Schild and why is he so angry?

He's the guy who convinced Atlus to bring Demon's Souls to America, duh.

[Andrew Mayer]

I'm a spokesperson for Starkist Tuna.

You're certainly the spokesperson for "talking out of their ass".

I don't know why Sony "really did" what they did, but neither do you.

It's fun to speculate, but you've been acting like you have some direct connect to Sony PR. but all you're actually doing is grinding an axe.

You want to trash Tom, fine. But doing it under cover of Sony is silly, and you should stop.

[StGabe]

Ahh, schild.

Did the f13 echo chamber get too quiet? Are you clamoring for a new audience to tell you how clever you are or just looking to troll a bit and then smugly retreat?

[Enidigm]

Sony lost 1b last quarter. inFamous cost tens of millions to make.

[schild]

Ahh, schild.

Did the f13 echo chamber get too quiet? Are you clamoring for a new audience to tell you how clever you are or just looking to troll a bit and then smugly retreat?

When have I ever smugly retreated? I don't smug anything.

Now excuse me, need to get my smoker's jacket dry-cleaned.

[FoRmaT]

Since when do you need a jacket to smoke weed?

Kids these days, tsk tsk tsk.

[GregB]

Then I don't need a jacket.

[Bill Dungsroman]

When have I ever smugly retreated? I don't smug anything.

Now excuse me, need to get my smoker's jacket dry-cleaned.

Be sure to get your momma and bring her back with you, boy.

[MattKeil]

Then I don't need a jacket.

Thanks, Arthur.

[Brad Grenz]

Folks, Tom's lists are written tongue-in-cheek. Did you notice that most if not all of the "cool" items have caveats, and that all of the "bad" items that are not just winking personal complaints also contain praise? In case you missed the overall theme: it's a good game with as many brilliant moments as it has serious nitpicks. He's attempting to convey his conflicted take on the game through dueling lists; lists that ultimately come to the same conclusion. If this approach baffles you, please go to the Qt3 front page -- it's in digest form as "Thumbs up. Thumbs down." This wasn't a lazy effort, near as I can tell; it's just Tom overshooting his audience's low expectations. inFAMOUS, to him, really *is* the sum of its moments, for good AND ill.

Or maybe he really WAS being lazy. It's NGJ -- who can tell?

You know, I think there's a lot of truth to this. I also think Tom intentionally courts controversy with the Fidgit blog. I think something as simple as reversing the order in which he posted these lists, or at least publishing them on the same day could have avoided a lot of the reaction. Personally, I would prefer a proper review which integrated both positive and negative impressions and offered a better sense of how they add up. But a run of the mill, mostly positive review of a game doesn't spawn threads on GAF and drive traffic to your site, does it?

[Adree]

You know, I think there's a lot of truth to this. I also think Tom intentionally courts controversy with the Fidgit blog. I think something as simple as reversing the order in which he posted these lists, or at least publishing them on the same day could have avoided a lot of the reaction. Personally, I would prefer a proper review which integrated both positive and negative impressions and offered a better sense of how they add up. But a run of the mill, mostly positive review of a game doesn't spawn threads on GAF and drive traffic to your site, does it?

Tom needs to give BobJustBob a weekly blog post.

[Thoro]

I had an interview set up for said game but the company canceled it.


They didn't, though.

They failed to show up at the scheduled meeting, then only afterwards informed him that an interview was 'not appropriate', which I think is the crux of the matter -- it's unprofessional.

[foogla]

it's like schild is acting like a shield for sony HMMMMMMMM

[MSUSteve]

Is Tom abstaining from this thread on purpose, or has he disappeared to an opium den somewhere? It's clearly one or the other.

[Bahimiron]

Tom needs to give BobJustBob a weekly blog post.

He did that. It was his extended review of Noby Noby Boy.

[Cubit]

I'm about 5 min in to the new flash of steel podcast. Maybe I'm imaging things, but it seems like Tom is indirectly referencing this thread and schild's accusation of laziness. for anyone else who has listened, am i reading too far into this?

[Tim James]

I'm about 5 min in to the new flash of steel podcast. Maybe I'm imaging things, but it seems like Tom is indirectly referencing this thread and schild's accusation of laziness. for anyone else who has listened, am i reading too far into this?I'm not listening, but never underestimate Tom Chick.

[Desslock]

I mean, can't ANYONE recognize lazy writing a mile away? Don't we have enough training between Kotaku and Joystiq?

Aren't you the same imbecile who thought Eurogamer's 2 hours of playing an MMO was plenty fine for a review? Now you're complaining about lazy gaming media? WAT?

Edit: you also directed me to demon's souls, so all is forgiven, friend.

[Brendan]

This is Living.™

What is your pen name and what magazines do you write for so that I know to avoid your writing? Tom seems to write for his audience, not for the publisher's PR department.

[Podunk]

schild = K0NY?

[Guido Jones]

schild = K0NY?

If it's really schild, no. The real schild is an admin at F13

[Brendan]

If it's really schild, no. The real schild is an admin at F13

What is F13?

[Bahimiron]

Gaming blog that offers no lazy shit and only does good, hard-hitting reporting.

Like this review of the Grey's Anatomy game (http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=17016).

All joking aside (ha ha) we who love Demon's Souls can probably think schild for bringing it to our attention.

[frank austin]

To be fair, I think schild's position is more "What did you expect?" rather than "Do it this way, idiot!"

[Guido Jones]

What is F13?

A forum where people used to say interesting things about MMO's.

[schild]

A forum where people used to say interesting things about MMO's.

Hey, be fair now, all the interesting things were said years ago. There's lots to rag on, but don't rag on that. The industry hasn't changed in the last half-decade.

To be fair, I think schild's position is more "What did you expect?" rather than "Do it this way, idiot!"
This.

Like this review of the Grey's Anatomy game (http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=17016).

All joking aside (ha ha) we who love Demon's Souls can probably think schild for bringing it to our attention.
Also, this. The Grey's Anatomy review was a joke and god help you if you couldn't tell.

schild = K0NY?
I don't know who this is.

Aren't you the same imbecile who thought Eurogamer's 2 hours of playing an MMO was plenty fine for a review? Now you're complaining about lazy gaming media? WAT?
You do know that these two events have fuckall to do with eachother, right?

Edit: you also directed me to demon's souls, so all is forgiven, friend.
It's true! I don't give a rat's ass what anyone thinks about me as long as they play good games. And I'm not talking about readers either, I'm talking about companies, PR, etc. I can confidently say I've never pimped a game I didn't want to pimp. So, play on, and such.

[Bahimiron]

Also, this. The Grey's Anatomy review was a joke and god help you if you couldn't tell.

Whereas Tom pitches his top ten lists as hardcore journalism.

[schild]

Whereas Tom pitches his top ten lists as hardcore journalism.
What's your point? If there is some comparison to be made between fidgit and a site with no goals, advertising, or editorial obligations - by all means, make it.

[forgeforsaken]

What's your point? If there is some comparison to be made between fidgit and a site with no goals, advertising, or editorial obligations - by all means, make it.


Dude seriously, shut up already.

[Podunk]

I don't know who this is.

Yeah, it was just a stupid forum in-joke, anyway.

[quatoria]

What's your point? If there is some comparison to be made between fidgit and a site with no goals, advertising, or editorial obligations - by all means, make it.

So, Fidgit shouldn't make jokes because there are commercials for it on syfy?

[Coca Cola Zero]

Syfy still looks like a horribly stupid name. I keep waiting for it to just sink in like Wii eventually did, but so far no luck.

[schild]

So, Fidgit shouldn't make jokes because there are commercials for it on syfy?

Were the lists that led to this situation a joke? Sure didn't seem like it. Sony sent him a review copy of a game and he phoned it in. Where's the joke? Is it like, british humoUr or something?

Also, heh, Syfy. Still makes me laugh.

Edit: Anyway, I don't want to go in circles, I'd really like Tom to clarify the situation. Until then it's all speculation anyway.

[mkozlows]

Were the lists that led to this situation a joke? Sure didn't seem like it. Sony sent him a review copy of a game and he phoned it in. Where's the joke? Is it like, british humoUr or something?

There is more humour, nuance, and insight in those top ten lists than in all 99 of your posts to this forum.

[Jose Liz]

If they were pissed, they should just cancel. That's totally within their right; whether it's a good idea or not is an entirely different issue. I had this happen a number of times over the years, but I never felt compelled to call companies out in public over it; I usually let them cool off, then resumed working with them. Is it better to call them out in public? I'd argue that it's only worth doing it if it becomes a long-term problem.

This wraps up what I was writing nicely. Same thing that happened with Kotaku a few years back.

Sony is within their right to spend their developer PR time with whoever they want, especially if the game is a highly rated game with (probably) tons of people fighting for that time.

However, this thread needs more Tom Chick.

[russellmz00]

http://www.ukresistance.co.uk/2009/05/momentous-sony-moment.html

[sinfony]

This wraps up what I was writing nicely. Same thing that happened with Kotaku a few years back.

Sony is within their right to spend their developer PR time with whoever they want, especially if the game is a highly rated game with (probably) tons of people fighting for that time.

However, this thread needs more Tom Chick.
"X is within their rights to do Y" is among the most overused and irritating phrases on teh intarwebs. Nobody has ever contended that people don't have the right to do whatever stupid shit they've done.

[Sarkus]

An interesting angle to this is the appearance (or so he claimed) of one of the writers of inFamous in the thread here on QT3 discussing Tom's "review". I wonder if that happened before or after "the snubbing" or if it had any effect. I was surprised at Tom's reaction in that thread to the writer's appearance and it does make me wonder if it was because he was upset by what happened with the PR folks.

[Supersport]

Some peeps just get it wrong. Schild a prime example is your hellgate London review.



Sent from blackberry

[alexlitel]

I learned through a Fidgit comment (http://fidgit.com/archives/2009/05/ballad_of_gay_tony_used_to_giv.php#comments) that Tom is a member of the PIVGVV - pseudo intellectual video game vaginas vanguard.

I think this should be discussed.

[checker]

Schild is clearly the best troll currently going on qt3. He is able to magically transform the focus of any thread from its original topic to him within two or three posts. It's pretty impressive to watch, actually. I would like to see him step up his game and try it on some less game-journalist-y threads to see how powerful his trolling really is.

Chris

[RickH]

Syfy still looks like a horribly stupid name. I keep waiting for it to just sink in like Wii eventually did, but so far no luck.

Sounds like a slang reference to a venereal disease to me.

[skedastic]

"X is within their rights to do Y" is among the most overused and irritating phrases on teh intarwebs. Nobody has ever contended that people don't have the right to do whatever stupid shit they've done.

Seriously.


Everybody who uses Steam should already know this, since it's in the Terms of Service that you have to agree to roughly every ten fucking minutes. I can't stand internet anger over companies occasionally doing things that the customers expressly agreed to.

[sinfony]

Seriously.
Different points. My point in the Steam thread is that it drives me crazy when people have internet rage over things that are in a contract that they agreed to and their only defense when that point is raised is "TL;DR." On the other hand, saying that a company is "within their rights to do X" is stupid and obvious.

[Kevan]

Different points. My point in the Steam thread is that it drives me crazy when people have internet rage over things that are in a contract that they agreed to and their only defense when that point is raised is "TL;DR." On the other hand, saying that a company is "within their rights to do X" is stupid and obvious.

I think most EULAs are ridiculous enough that people are "within their rights" to rage at them. And it also doesn't mean that a consumer can't contest what they agreed to in court for a variety of reasons, something else we are "within our rights to do."