Read http://www.avault.com/editorials

Now read http://www.avault.com/news/displaynews.asp?story=8172001-101059

Hmmm indeed. Great to see unbiased reporting - not. :-)

Wow...they're really good at this kind of crap. Adrenaline Vault takes sneaky self-promotion to new levels daily.

--Dave

Avault also covers and reveals scoops concerning the CPL on a regular basis. The CPL is owned by Angel Munoz, who also owns Avault by way of his ownership in New World. That isn't by itself a problem, Time and Entertainment Weekly cover AOL and Time Warner (which owns them), but they, at least, are fastidious about ALWAYS disclosing the "conflict of interest" involved. Avault almost never does this. I find that even more disconcerting.

(with the notable exception being Bruce Rolston's articles there, but even those dislaimers weren't as obvious as they should have been)

-Andrew

From google's newsgroup cache... who knows if it's 100% legit:

From the archives of Avault:

From: [email protected] (Kimberly V. Vizurraga)
Organization: The Adrenaline Vault
Subject: Feature

Do you have a new product or title to be released before Christmas?

Typically this is the busiest time of year for the gaming industry and we at the Adrenaline Vault are ready to help you get the word out!

Between now and the end of the year for every company the that advertises with us we will run a feature article on their game or hardware. That is like having a seperate site devoted to your product exclusivly ...a site complete with interviews, screenshots, and a preview.

See our our most recent features at:

http://avault.com/featured/the_dark_project/

http://avault.com/featured/turok/

As you can see the " Feature Article" along with an advertising banner is a very effective and informative tool. If you are interested in scheduling it is important that you contact me asap, as these articles are time consuming and require coordinating the times of both our writers and the artist with the necessary personnel from your company.

These Features run for approximately one week and we have had several request from advertisers already...so as you can see time and space is limited.

Also keep in mind that our rates will go up the last quarter of the year, so to lock in today's rates it is important that your insertion order is completed before these changes go into effect.

BTW, it is another record month for the Adrenaline Vault, we are on track to receive approximately 1.7 million unique visitors this month and climbing. We will reach the 2 million mark before years end.

It is a great time to be in the Vault!

Kimberly V. Vizurraga
Vice President of Sales
The Adrenaline Vault - http://avault.com

I think this blows that kerfuffle over feature previews and magazine covers out of the water... I mean, it's already sketchy and weird *before* they even reach this paragraph:

"Also keep in mind that our rates will go up the last quarter of the year, so to lock in today's rates it is important that your insertion order is completed before these changes go into effect."

So, not only are they arranging coverage by bid, but they're also charging for it? Or, I should say, they were doing so? This post is from 1997 or 8, given that the "most recent" examples sited are Turok and Thief.

Ick.

-Andrew

>As you can see the " Feature Article" along with an advertising banner is a very effective and informative tool. If you are interested in scheduling it is important that you contact me asap, as these articles are time consuming and require coordinating the times of both our writers and the artist with the necessary personnel from your company.

Completely offensive, and definitely a real (although old) promotion that Adrenaline Vault ran a few years back -- tying previews and other coverage directly to advertising. I recall that "Critical Bill" attacked that practice on the usenet, but it didn't get as much bad exposure as it deserved.

Oh, and I give "SubstanceTV" a 5% chance of lasting a year. Roll that 20, boys.

Stefan

Yeah, I remember when that Avault email circulated too. At the time, no one from Avault denied it. Later I believe they claimed it was faked.

I'll be surprised if SubstanceTV makes it also. Who wants a magazine on a DVD? I looked at the site and I had trouble even understanding what their focus was.

"So, not only are they arranging coverage by bid, but they're also charging for it?"

Yeah, the idea was that if you bought an ad for your product with them they'd then run an article about said product as well. In other words, their editorial content was for sale. If the email was legit.

Why is this a new low for AV? I still think AV is a good gaming site. AV has a clean viewable layout and imo is the BEST when compared to other "big" game portals...so easy on the eyes. The articles are generally good, and recently the reviews on AV are more on par with my views than other sites. Overall, I hold AV almost up to CG and a little above Gamespot ( i hate those weird numerical ratings on gamespot and ign!) in terms of reviews that is. Features and interviews etc, i prefer CG and Gamespot...

And so what if they are advertising themselves? Big deal. Like Gamespot and IGN never did that!

etc

Mtkafka - i will take your post as a joke.

substance.tv? Looking at their first issue, which doesn't come out until november, i can already find 75% of their content on the web now, for free. I told erik, I am going to start a website, freesubstance.tv and just link to where you can already find the content.

Chet

Yeah I know its a cheap service and all, I think its gonna fail as well... I was just saying that AVault itself isnt a bad site. They have a right to advertise for whatever business ventures they want to do (good or bad). EVEN if they do suck!

I just took a look at that substance.com website... it is kind of gay. But i still like AV!!

etc

"They have a right to advertise for whatever business ventures they want to do (good or bad)."

They have that right only if they're willing to seperate themselves completely from any pretense of journalistic integrity.

It's true that game journalism is often barely "journalism", and that it's often blurry where editorial and sales begin and end, to those not in the know, at the best magazines and sites. But clear lines should *always* be drawn between sales and editorial. Always. And, if this admittedly old story is even half-way true, Avault squandered an awful lot of credibility with this.

Now, maybe we shouldn't blame the editors there, but the sales staff and higher up than that made a major mistake if this story is even half-way true.

I'm not optimistic about Substance either. But that's only because I'm not sure if a DVD based magazine/website is a solid venture right now. But, good luck to them, I say!
-Andrew

"They have a right to advertise for whatever business ventures they want to do (good or bad)."

Yeah, but if I'm reading the equivlant of an infomercial, I'd really like to be told that up front.

>>Yeah, but if I'm reading the equivlant of an infomercial, I'd really like to be told that up front.

I believe it's actually required by law, because while freedom of speech is protected, commercial speech, i.e. advertisements, is not.

>I hold AV a little above Gamespot ( i hate those weird numerical ratings on gamespot and ign!) in terms of reviews that is

Really??
I'm pretty disappointed to hear that. I really don't think they're even in the same league.

>so what if they are advertising themselves? Big deal. Like Gamespot and IGN never did that!

Whoa - you're missing the whole point. There's a huge difference between IGN or GameSpot selling their content to a site like Amazon vs. Avault deciding to run previews and other content only if it's purchased. The informercial analogy is accurate -- the features were presented as coverage of upcoming games the editors felt were promising when, in fact, they may have been games that the editors hated and thought were terrible, but the games were highlighted anyway because the gaming company effectively purchased the feature.

To give some tangible examples, in the Turok "preview", which was purchased, Avault wrote:

- "The detail put into each one of these weapons is excellent. They have awesome sounds and great effects when being fired."
- "the different animations that the enemies use are some of the best to ever be brought to a PC screen" and the game features "Diabolic enemies"

as well as "awesome" analysis such as "During the game, players will use all of the weapons and some more than others", heh.

The Thief feature talks about "wondrous..patented technology" and talks about delivering "the most shadowy, sinister, interactive world yet developed for a computer game". Stay away from those sinister interactive worlds.

In fairness, I don't think Avault offers those featured game opportunities any more, but the practice was incredibly offensive -- far, far worse than anything I've ever heard any major gaming site or magazine do. I can't even think of anything comparable. Oh, other than Avault's current practice to apparently post flowery editorials lionizing the noble efforts of the principals of a failed business venture while being marketed by the new venture of those principals.

Stefan

>>Avault deciding to run previews and other content only if it's purchased.

And this would be more palatable if it was labeled as "advertorial."

I know of one other website that was trading editorial previews for advertising (its initials are I.G.N., but that's the only hint I can offer), and it's a truly distasteful practice when readers aren't informed of the relationship.

Even if David Laprad truly believed in the noble cause of GOD, posting that editorial right before the announcement of that business deal shows a profound lack of concern for the publication's perception with its readers.

Feh.

"Oh, other than Avault's current practice to apparently post flowery editorials lionizing the noble efforts of the principals of a failed business venture while being marketed by the new venture of those principals."

And to make that worse, the same guy (Laprad, the EIC no less) wrote both the flowery editorial and the self-serving news item. I'm not suggesting the editorial led to the "Substance Award", but it certainly looks that way and it wouldn't have been hard to keep things a bit more seperate.

Daily Radar did this about a year ago. They were reporting the news of Looking Glass' demise and because of that they didn't feel comfortable doing a special report praising the company. So, Kramer asked me if I wanted to do a eulogy for them in my regular column. I would have said "no" if I didn't like LG, but since I've loved them since before they even were LG, it wasn't hard to do. That way, they kept a modicum of editorial distance from their "flowery" opinion section.

Hint: This is one of the reasons freelancers are useful. And one of the main reasons freelance writers dominate a newspaper's Opinion section.

-Andrew

---

Quote:

The articles are generally good, and recently the reviews on AV are more on par with my views than other sites.

---

"I believe it's actually required by law, because while freedom of speech is protected, commercial speech, i.e. advertisements, is not."

I'm not sure it's an actual law. But journalism is filled with "rules of conduct" and "ethics", and most people practice them faithfully (we tend toward idealism). which is why some of us find this so galling.

This is why I'm not surprised that "sales" was behind this. I've worked in marketing and I've been a journalist (for lack of a better term). Marketing's goal is to gain coverage, it doesn't have the same traditions and ethics because the goal isn't to inform. From a sales perspective: If coverage can be paid for, why the hell *not* do it? But the editorial dept. should have stopped them cold before this was ever done, because editorial is supposed to inform readers only.
Blah, blah, blah, sacred trust, blah.
Again, this is idealism, but it's also the way things are supposed to be ethically done.

-Andrew

"But based on what you've seen above, that they sell their editorial, how do you know that the review is their opinion or what the company making the game wants you to read?"

Let's not jump ahead here. Nothing suggests Avault's reviews are tainted in any way. I chalk up the "higher than average" review scores to their revolving door/slave wages policy with writers. They don't pay well, they mandate a lot of work per month, they demand exclusivity (you're a "part-time writer" but get no benefits, and you can't work elsewhere), and they have this lovely 3 months unpaid trial period thing going on.

I think they often get the reviewers they pay for. Overworked, underpaid, and foolish enough to accept a bound contract and what we call here in "writer land" a really bad deal. Man, if only the Writer's Union actually had power in the magazine industry. ;-)

-Andrew
(This info is entirely based on the offer they made to me back in 1997 (I refused) when Emil Pagliarulo was the EIC. Some facts may've changed, but I'm inclined to think they haven't, based on conversations I've had with their writers as recently as E3 2001)

---

Quote:

Let's not jump ahead here.

---

"How much more proof do we need before it's clear what the priorities and policies are there?"

I agree, but until we find more current proof (remember they denied the 1998 example posted here - so that might be untrue) everything is a jump. My point is, until we have evidence Avault's *reviews* are tainted (like one of their writers telling us they had no control over the score and conclusions) it's equally suspect to assume they are.

"Should we all just become company mouthpieces for whatever games are out there? It's like saying, "Give me the money for a half-page and I'm alright with writing whatever you want me to.'"

That's your giant leap right there. We have highly suspect "proof" that their previews are "mouthpeices" and even that one editorial. But none at all that suggests their reviews are.

This was Jessica's mistake earlier. She assumed from the E3 awards that magazine/site reviews were tainted. And despite the fact that we have freelancers here from every review site/mag that uses freelancers (and all but Avault and recently IGN do), who all claim none of their reviews were written under editorial/developer score pressure, she still didn't retract her conclusion.

Until we see something beyond "their reviews skew high", which is easily explained by inexperienced critics, I'm not willing to make the jump to include Avault's reviews are under the same taint their editorials/previews might be under.

In short, whenever I see a review I disagree with anywhere I *always* assume the reviewer is at fault (if "fault" is even the right term here). I don't understand why people blame the magazine in question.

"I think Gamespot's review of Game X is bupkiss!"

No, you disagree with Joe Blow's review of Game X at Gamespot.

Just as Chick didn't blast Gamecenter for their Shadow Watch review, he blasted me. And, even though I believe I'm not at fault with that review, he placed the blame and responsibility where it belonged. Gamecenter, after all, paid for MY opinion.

-Andrew

"I'm not sure it's an actual law."

It is.

I see. How encompassing is the law? Aren't they violating it when they don't disclose their CPL ties then? Also, what would it take to make them responsible for violating that law?

For example, I'm doing a story on web-based shopping and I asked my editor if I should disclose that I work for Amazon (as a freelancer). She told me the legal department said I didn't have to disclose it, but I should reign in any idle praise for that company.

I plan on doing more than just "reigning it in", but now I wonder about the law.

-Andrew

>>Aren't they violating it when they don't disclose their CPL ties then?

Probably not, because those aren't advertisements for the CPL. It's an ethical violation not to disclose conflicts of interest, not a legal one.

I got this from a marketing website: "By law, an advertorial must be labeled as a paid advertisement so as not to be confused with an actual editorial."

Since the CPL isn't paying, does that make it okay? Also, if the story is merely reporting CPL events, that's legitimate news. If it was breathlessly detailing how cool the CPL is, how people should join, blah blah, that might cross some sort of legal line.

I personally disagree with your editor's decision re: amazon.com; I think that anytime you mention a company you work for in this kind of context, you're obligated to disclose your ties.

"I think that anytime you mention a company you work for in this kind of context, you're obligated to disclose your ties."

Yeah, I think I'm going to do that. If they then cut it out, that's their call. I also plan on countering any Amazon based information with similar info from B&N and other outlets. I don't want to mislead anyone, so let me add that the article is more about the act of web shopping than it is about the companies themselves. It's a Christmas issue thing.

Now, I assume I'm ok mentioning Chips & Bits even though I work for CGM? And mentioning MySimon, even though I've written for CNet recently? I figure I don't need to explicitly disclose those, since I work for neither directly. My paychecks from Amazon *say* Amazon on them though, that's unavoidable.

Disclosure is fun when you freelance.

-Andrew

"Usually, people sound like mtkafka. They have no idea they're being duped. "

I had a misunderstanding with this Editorial... I only clicked on the second link up top (no really! the one with G.O.D. and the Sites of Substance stuff)! So you guys are right! That first article sounds like JUICE "be excited" advertising! I AM A STUPID IDIOT! Those AV people are pretty tricky. But seriously, you all make a good point... AV doesnt mention anywhere that its a self promotion, it stinks. (but in the general view, nobody will notice because i dont think ppl go to AV for there editorials, i certainly don't. I actually use there cheats and patches links alot, and the review of games of interest.)

But still, I generally like AV's reviews, even if the writers are paid chump change doesnt make a review any worse ( I do like Mandels reviews)!Like for instance... dont know the reviewers names, but off-hand i remember CG giving the new AITD a 4 out of 5 star rating, whereas AV gave it a 3 out of 5. Actually this is getting pointless... I've never read a review on AV that "felt" changed or biased, and i usually just get the darn review summaries on AV (a good idea) unless its a game of interest...

"Really??
I'm pretty disappointed to hear that. I really don't think they're even in the same league. "

Well, the only thing I cant stand about Gamespot as i said, is the numerical rating system (and the site is kinda slow on dial up). Other than that I love the reviews there. Not to be kissing ass Desslock... your part of Gamespot (the rpg stuff) is what keeps me going back there, and the occasional review with people from these boards (Geryk etc.) And Gamespot and IGN seem to have a lock on the general interviews and features with developers more than ANY other game site... which makes it a link i go to...

I like Gamespot, its good of course... I was just saying that AV, besides its shady practices and self promotion, is still a good site. Maybe I'm alone in this... but this reminds me of the GG fiasco with false advertising.

Anyway...I'll stop before i ramble on and on.

etc

"I do like Mandels reviews"

I like Bob Mandel too. He's an old-timer and a refreshing perspective there.

-Andrew
PS: I still think the "GG fiasco" was bullshit (as I understand it). LaPorte doesn't aspire or even pretend to be a serious journalist. He gives us basic info, personal editorials, homespun stuff, and amateur reviews. That's all. He's basically an industry enthusiast (cheerleader) who actually performs a service I've relied on in the past. It's useful to click there and find out if something is indeed Gold. So, who gives a crap if he pushes Compuexpert or whatever to make some extra cash for his family? Sure, if Gamespot did it, that's a scandal, but some likable retired/injured NY cop in Indianapolis doesn't have to be held to any journalistic standards here.

(Note: I'm not implying you took either side on this issue mtkafka. And, you might be referring to some other scandal so far as I really know...)

---

Quote:

Aren't they violating it when they don't disclose their CPL ties then? Also, what would it take to make them responsible for violating that law?

---

---

Quote:

the GG fiasco with false advertising

---

"I don't know to what extent they need to describe their CPL ties, but they do mention it here"

In a couple words "They Do".

Everytime they mention the CPL they need to add "owned by New World, which is also Avault's parent company" or something less awkward.

Just as Entertainment Weekly doesn't interact directly with Time Warner cable, it does mention the shared parent everytime it's discussed.

So far as GG, Rich does do that. But I think he does it in response to the "fiasco".

-Andrew

The whole SubstanceTV thing sounds like
such a golden idea. I'm thinking of starting a
BVD-based [1] magazine, too.

I don't know yet how many vapid pop culture
articles, bad Flash animations, and redundant
website links will *fit* on a pair of men's
underpants...but what fun I'll have finding out,
eh?

Sparky
[1] Now, Fruit-Of-The-Loom-based -- that
would just be silly.

Heh -- I'll buy a BVD magazine/shorts!

Think how convenient that would be on the crapper!

Don't forget, with every subscription, you get a
free pair of our exclusive "American McGee"
Underoos.

We considered doing "CGW's Jeff Green"
Underoos, but I don't think most gamers care
for mauve satin and maribou feathers.

Sparky

"How encompassing is the law? Aren't they violating it when they don't disclose their CPL ties then?"

No. The post in question referred to "infomercials." By law, if you pay for air time (or for editorial space) you must disclose this fact by marking the content as an "advertisement." Conflicts of interest are an ethical issue, not a legal one.

I applaud you for stating your potential conflicts in your submissions and forcing the editor to be the one to remove them if the publication so chooses.

But I wear boxers...harhar!

etc

Sparky--
Have your people call my people. "CGW's Jeff Green" Underoos?!

I think I hear the gravy train rolling in!

I sent a complaint/query to David Laprad about the Substance TV article and he has clarified AVault's position on this matter :

---

Quote:

The two are entirely unrelated. Your seeing connected dots where there are no dots.

Writing the editorial was my choice. No one -- not my publisher, not my CEO, not the Gathering -- had a hand in that being written or published. Since I have nothing to do with the business side of the site (absolutely nothing -- our business and content staff operate exclusively from each other), there's no payoff here for AVault, except for me feeling satisfaction over an editorial about which I feel strongly. SubstanceTV hasn't given AVault even a penny. We admire what they tried to accomplish for gaming and wish them well on their new venture. With hindsight, I can see how the wording of the news item ("With this in mind...") can be interpreted as self-serving, but that wasn't my intention. I thought it would be nice to let the Gathering know, publicly, that we appreciate their choosing us as a site of substance. That's all.

---

A polite response, and for what it's worth, I believe him.

But it's still an irresponsible and mind boggling breach of journalism 101 level ethics. The fact that these dots can be connected so easily and readily is the problem.

Note to Avault:
It's important to avoid impropriety... but also EQUALLY important to avoid the appearance of impropriety!

(Now, assuming the E3 awards equals some review taint is a huge stretch, assuming a connection between a GOD Editorial and that news item (by * the * same * author!) is not.

On that note, I applaud the disclaimer that Mark and Tom put on their front page as well. Since they work for the competition, they must disclose that if they're going to bash their bosses competition.

-Andrew

"Have your people call my people."

Jeff Green has PEOPLE! [1] I'd be impressed,
but heck, I have "people" too.

Well, technically they're called "imaginary
friends". And my therapist says I'm not
supposed to talk to Pixiebelle, Mr. Fufu, and
the ghost of DeForrest Kelly in public. [2]

But this goes to show, kids -- keep up the
game review writin' long enough and
eventually you'll be as big as Jeff Green....and
he's about as big as Marlon Brando now (I
mean in "Dockers waistband circumference",
not "status as a cultural icon").

Sparky
[1] Not to be confused with his weird, loner
cousin "Soylent", who IS people.
[2] But he doesn't know I'm not taking the little
purple pills! Haha!

"The idea is that the SubstanceTV staff will whittle the Internet down to what it considers to be the best of the web. With this in mind, the Adrenaline Vault is honored to be one of the first publications chosen as a Site of Substance. "

In this comment, I think he is telling the truth. Just taking the honors as he says. Though it still sounds cheesy! imo. Rereading the GOD article... I actually dont think GOD was portrayed as a "saviour for all things good!" He justs tells it like he sees it really...

"True, they�re (G.O.D.) being forced out by circumstance, but their complete loss of love for this industry says more about the sad state of PC gaming than the shutdown of another publisher."

Mentioning G.O.D's "complete loss of love" of gaming (or the industry) doesnt exactly exalt G.O.D. as best publisher evar.

I'm a consumer, a gamer, not a game writer... so
maybe i might be missing something. But AV still looks... ok to me.

etc

And to continue about the GOD article (disregarding the tie ins with its self promotion implication...) it actually is a good read on how GOD tried to be an "indie" publisher that tried to "share the wealth" with developers. GOD was a good idea... but again, none of its games did well enough to support its ideals. It reminds me of the Image Comics thing when all the Marvel and DC artists left because of character rights and stuff, sorta.

Of course, GOD had to sell out... they didn't care about games anymore and didnt make enough money from them. just another day in business...

etc

# of times avault has given up banner space on their frontpage for free.

Zero... until now (if you believe anything they say). Nice Site of substance banner.

Here is my take in avault after trading emails with editors after poking fun at some of their writers.

Complete fucking liars. I don't believe anything coming from one of their "editors". They would tell you their site isn't named avault if it served them at that moment.

As for god games, they promoted stuff - just not games. Godgames was as successful as Dwango - another wilson winner. How much rock and roll attitude do you want to push when your biggest selling game was Railroad Tycoon II? Why will god games be missed? Oh yeah, free beer at e3.

Chet

Actually, the GodGames label is likely to get its biggest hits now that Take 2 owns it. Duke Forever, Myth III, the recently released Max Payne, Tropico and whatever Phil Steinmeyer does next...

...kinda makes that sale of PopTop to Take 2 look like a fantastic idea, eh? GOD's biggest problem was not living up to the promises. If you say you're going to make better games because you don't have a publisher interfering, you damn well better come up with something more appealing than Rune and Kiss. And I think Kiss (the band) rocks.

It also helps to have a schedule and meet it. The publisher was doomed to failure if they ever thought they could follow the 3D Realms model of shipping "when it's done". In fact, Duke's constant development figures into their demise ever since it became a GOD release. Get that one out and it's likely they're still alive. Scott Miller's pretty damn shrewd though. You think maybe he knew that and just waited for it to die? 3D Realms never put their name on a box with GOD despite being there from the start.

Their only true success was Railroad Tycoon II which is still generating revenue today. Platinum Edition ships in a week.

--Dave

DWANGO...oh my. A business founded on the idea that people would gladly pay extra to play a limited selection of games with a limited group of people in a limited area, instead of playing more games with more people anywhere in the world, for free. Oh, it was supposed to be faster, but in the pre-broadband days, when Quake worked fine on a 33.6, who cared?

>>it actually is a good read on how GOD tried to be an "indie" publisher that tried to "share the wealth" with developers.

How many games published by GOD resonate with gamers? But the GOD name does; it gives you images of pole dancers, midgets, schoolgirl calendars. What does that tell you?

Wilson marketed himself and GOD at the expense of marketing the actual games. Sharing the wealth with developers was marketing, as only a few got that sweet deal (which is actually how it should be). And the best deal in the world is irrelevant when your game doesn't sell because your company is too busy buying strippers to buy a few ads.

>>GOD was a good idea... but again, none of its games did well enough to support its ideals.

Because the continuously made stupid decisions, like burning up millions on brilliant licenses like KISS, Heavy Metal, and The Blair Witch.

We already have new gatherings of developers. It's id Software babysitting another developer doing Return to Wolfenstein and another game down the road with Nerve Software. It's 3D Realms helping Remedy. It's most companies assigning out add-ons to third-parties.

Let the horrible evil publishers handle the marketing and promotion. Let the developers get together to help each other develop.

As I recall DWANGO was setup originally for DOOM and DOOM2. This was pre internet explosion. By the time Quake came around the writing was on the wall for DWANGO. I never paid for DWANGO but did play DOOM2 on a local BBS system back then. Those were the days!

Also, the only think I think of when I hear SubstanceTV is drugs. Is this just me?

-- Xaroc

Yeah, I'm trying to remember exactly what GOD did (actual actions, not just marketing spin) that was so great for developers, and I'm pretty much drawing a blank. Even that editorial fails to point out what GOD's great contribution to the industry actually *was.* Read it. It boils down to "their heart was in the right place." Whatever.

Maybe if their business and marketing strategies had been in the right place, too, they would have survived. But I can't drum up much pity for their demise merely because "they really liked games." Sorry.

mtkafka: "I'm a consumer, a gamer, not a game writer... so maybe i might be missing something. But AV still looks... ok to me."

The problem is that it LOOKS like Avault wrote that glowing editorial about GODGames so it could be named the first "site of Substance". I'm not saying that's what happened, but having the same guy (the EIC) write both certainly removes all pretense of distance. Now, if that is what happened, that does affect consumers like you.

"GOD was a good idea... but again, none of its games did well enough to support its ideals."

GOD wanted to be Image comics.

"It's id Software babysitting another developer doing Return to Wolfenstein"

Heh, that other developer used to be called Xatrix (Kingpin, Redneck Rampage). But that's incidental to your point. Add Valve and Gearbox to your list.

-Andrew

All GOD did was pick games to publish, buy some ill-advised licenses, and handle the marketing. And as anon. said, GOD chose to market themselves as much as anything. No big surprise there. Mike Wilson did the same thing when he was at Ion Storm. It sure did raise the profile of the developers, but did it sell games? Dominion...Daikatana...Anachronox. Doesn't look like it.

As to Avault, why would they run that "Site of Substance" button ad if they weren't getting paid? SubstanceTV is supposed to refer readers to them, not the other way around. It just makes the whole thing look that much fishier.

From substance.tv bio:
For the last seven years, SubstanceTV Publisher and co-founder Mike Wilson has held executive positions of increasing responsibility in new media development, publishing, and Internet marketing. Widely regarded as a pioneer and leading expert in development and marketing to the $6 billion computer and video game audience...

pioneer? leading expert?

He also directly managed the launch of the megahit Quake series, as well as many products in the best-selling DOOM series.

He also created fire.

No, no, no, Chet, Al Gore invented fire. Mike Wilson invented midgets.

"Mike Wilson has held executive positions of increasing responsibility in new media development, publishing, and Internet marketing"

hehe, this follows the Peter Principle:

"You get promoted to your level of incompetence"

Check out Rich's Roll Call:

Gone Gold - August 23, 2001 Roll Call

-DavidCPA

Wow. Rich sounded pretty ticked, didn't he?

Has anyone reminded him that just because it was said in a forum doesn't necessarily mean that we all think that?

What thread was he talking about, anyway? I've been here a long, long time, and I don't remember that...

I contacted Rich. He was fine with it, but he just wanted to respond I guess. Here's what Rich wrote in his Roll Call:

"It seems on the forums of Quarter to Three, I was called the "cheerleader of the Industry" as well as having no journalistic value and some sort of secretive connection with Compuexpert."

What Rich was referring to was from this thread, it looks like:

"I still think the "GG fiasco" was bullshit (as I understand it). LaPorte doesn't aspire or even pretend to be a serious journalist. He gives us basic info, personal editorials, homespun stuff, and amateur reviews. That's all. He's basically an industry enthusiast (cheerleader) who actually performs a service I've relied on in the past. It's useful to click there and find out if something is indeed Gold. So, who gives a crap if he pushes Compuexpert or whatever to make some extra cash for his family? Sure, if Gamespot did it, that's a scandal, but some likable retired/injured NY cop in Indianapolis doesn't have to be held to any journalistic standards here."

I don't think it's a big deal, but the person who posted this message didn't endear himself to Rich.

Yeah, no kidding. Sure didn't come across very well. If I recall correctly, the guy that posted that was defending Rich and his site, too. How very sad.

I'm just glad that he didn't harbor resentment toward this site altogether. From his roll call, I wasn't sure.

Don't worry, I've fixed it.
He hadn't read my post actually. Some site read that, put two and two together and got 5, was proud of that, and posted it. Rich saw it, figured it was more of the same BS and got mad. It'll get fixed in tomorrow's Rant.

Yeah, I was disturbed because I was defending him completely.

-Andrew

What's your "Rant"?

Scuse me, not "Rant", it'll get fixed in tomorrow's Roll Call.

-Andrew

I see Rich put up a note about it. He calls you "Andrew Denison" though, ha ha. That's what you get for using that confusing email address of yours.

I can't begin to describe the sheer number of annoyances my wife keeping her name has brought me. "Is Mr. Denison there?"

Add to that the fact that we live near where my wife has always lived. And I moved in second. Phone, cable, gas, electric, etc., all in the name Denison.

She kept it because she promised her father she would, her dad died when she was six, but I wouldn't have forced a name like Bub on her anyway.

-Andrew

I always thought Bub was a pen-name of some kind. I don't blame your wife for keeping her maiden name at all.

Of course, for some stupid reason I still get situations like this:

"So what's your name?"
"Bob."
"Really? Bob?"
"Yes, really." (note to self: add this person to ignore list.)

It always surprises me when people think of "Bub" as a pen name. Like I have little imagination or something... If I wanted a fake name I'd have thought of something cool. Like, I dunno, Chick.

Actually the story about my wife and her dad is true. But, I wouldn't demand a spouse take my name even if it was a cool one. I'm stuck with Bub and, thus far, it's worked for me pretty good. People tend not to forget it...

(except Rich Laporte)

-Andrew Bub

My wife's name is Jenny. Not Jennifer, but Jenny. When she took the job where she works now, the HR department kept harassing her:

HR: "I'm sorry, but you need to put your full name on this form."
Jen: "I did."
HR: "No, you didn't. You put Jenny."
Jen: "That is my full name."
HR (no lie): "No, it isn't."
Jen: "Yes, it is."
HR: "Your first name is Jenny?"
Jen: "Yes."
HR: "Not Jennifer?"
Jen: "No, Jenny. Not Jennifer."
HR (seriously): "Are you sure?"
Jen: "Yes. Very."

It's so sad...

So, Bob, I think it's safe to say that my wife knows how you feel...