He is probably the only one that would give a really disappointing game like Ryse for example something like a 3/10. I can see why they are scared.
It's exactly this. Too honest for his own good.
He is probably the only one that would give a really disappointing game like Ryse for example something like a 3/10. I can see why they are scared.
I don't think you're describing immaturity, you're just mentioning bad moments people have had. I really think that a lot of those folks you mentioned (Cliff, Crecente, Sessler, Garnett) are real stand up people who represent the industry well. But to each their own.
I've always viewed Jim as someone who takes an enormous pleasure in being SEEN as so counter-industry and goes to lengths to rock the boat. That can be a huge liability for any company. I imagine that nothing sucks more than working your butt off on a release only to have Jim go off on it for doing something that every other game also does. That said, Microsoft is sending him games and that's what matters. My guess is they aren't giving him the same level of access as some other outlets (interviews, quotes, etc), but that's the price you pay for wanting to be the hero of gaming.
Won't he give it a 3 without needing to talk to MS PR? I don't get tinfoil hat theories.
You can't be serious
formulaic, quicktime event ridden AAA ungame gets a 3.5, that is exactly what it should be scoring
I swear you're like 2 different posters on one account
Half of the time you bemoan poor gameplay and AAA games, on the other hand you get mad when a game that symbolises everything wrong with AAA gaming gets a 3.5
Such hypocricy
ot: more light is shed on how this gross industry works and how much of a bitch the games press is to publishers
if they act unpredictable they get cut off and get no material to do their job with
that's why polygon/ign/kotaku and the likes all defend MS and sony and try to damage control for them, they either act as an extention of PR or they don't get to play along.
Clarification:
Sony's reaction to the Escapist hiring me was to congratulate the site.
MS' PR department's reaction was to hope the Escapist puts a leash on me.
Clarification:
Sony's reaction to the Escapist hiring me was to congratulate the site.
MS' PR department's reaction was to hope the Escapist puts a leash on me.
Clarification:
Sony's reaction to the Escapist hiring me was to congratulate the site.
MS' PR department's reaction was to hope the Escapist puts a leash on me.
Clarification:
Sony's reaction to the Escapist hiring me was to congratulate the site.
MS' PR department's reaction was to hope the Escapist puts a leash on me.
Clarification:
Sony's reaction to the Escapist hiring me was to congratulate the site.
MS' PR department's reaction was to hope the Escapist puts a leash on me.
Why even give him the game if the goal is to somehow stop or slow his poor review? I don't think that is "dealing with him" in any way.
No. In fact, you kind of don't know what you're on about. There's no actual conversation, and that is the thing I am talking about. MS' PR wing has been doing a lot of talking ABOUT me, and no talking TO me.You made this big a deal out of someone not being nice to you in a casual conversation? I wonder why they think of you as a PR liability.
You made this big a deal out of someone not being nice to you in a casual conversation? I wonder why they think of you as a PR liability.
No. In fact, you kind of don't know what you're on about. There's no actual conversation, and that is the thing I am talking about. MS' PR wing has been doing a lot of talking ABOUT me, and no talking TO me.
Usually, publishers are actually very accepting of my opinions and coverage, even if it's harsh, and even if they don't agree. Very rarely, a company pulls the kind of stunt where it strings someone along and talks vaguely to them without having the stones to actually tell that person what the problem is, and then they hear about it from friends and colleagues.
And then they make smarmy little tweets one morning for no reason other than to highlight the problem with not actually telling someone directly what the problem is.
You have such nice opinions!You made this big a deal out of someone not being nice to you in a casual conversation? I wonder why they think of you as a PR liability.
No. In fact, you kind of don't know what you're on about. There's no actual conversation, and that is the thing I am talking about. MS' PR wing has been doing a lot of talking ABOUT me, and no talking TO me.
Usually, publishers are actually very accepting of my opinions and coverage, even if it's harsh, and even if they don't agree. Very rarely, a company pulls the kind of stunt where it strings someone along and talks vaguely to them without having the stones to actually tell that person what the problem is, and then they hear about it from friends and colleagues.
And then they make smarmy little tweets one morning for no reason other than to highlight the problem with not actually telling someone directly what the problem is.
You're a loose cannon, Sterling! Turn in your gun and your badge.Apologies to those of you who thought my comments today were making a "big deal" out of something. For my part, I was merely trying to make some sort of lightheartedness out of a situation I actually find quite troubling (PR attempting to make the media complicit in the dampening of a person's opinion). I felt people would want to know that and tried to communicate it in a comedic way, if only for the fact that I *don't* like throwing tantrums.
But a tantrum is what some people are apparently seeing. My bad.
Sorry to say, but MS PR sounds like teenagers in a highschool.
Apologies to those of you who thought my comments today were making a "big deal" out of something. For my part, I was merely trying to make some sort of lightheartedness out of a situation I actually find quite troubling (PR attempting to make the media complicit in the dampening of a person's opinion). I felt people would want to know that and tried to communicate it in a comedic way, if only for the fact that I *don't* like throwing tantrums.
But a tantrum is what some people are apparently seeing. My bad.
Apologies to those of you who thought my comments today were making a "big deal" out of something. For my part, I was merely trying to make some sort of lightheartedness out of a situation I actually find quite troubling (PR attempting to make the media complicit in the dampening of a person's opinion). I felt people would want to know that and tried to communicate it in a comedic way, if only for the fact that I *don't* like throwing tantrums.
But a tantrum is what some people are apparently seeing. My bad.
Don't apologize to them. It's not a tantrum to inform your potential readership about facts like this. It's good shit. The industry needs more willing to out companies and their PR wings when they do things like this. It allows us ALL to understand what's really going on behind the scenes.
Apologies to those of you who thought my comments today were making a "big deal" out of something. For my part, I was merely trying to make some sort of lightheartedness out of a situation I actually find quite troubling (PR attempting to make the media complicit in the dampening of a person's opinion). I felt people would want to know that and tried to communicate it in a comedic way, if only for the fact that I *don't* like throwing tantrums.
But a tantrum is what some people are apparently seeing. My bad.
Hilariously, few people have said what you just said MORE than I have. The reason I am pointing this out is *because* it is so unusual as to prove anomalous.You're making it seem like there's this massive, veiled underground PR/press interplay in gaming when there isn't.
Their job is to send you copies of the game, which you then review. That's all there is. What could the problem in question possibly be? For someone who doesn't seem to care about the establishment, you just seem to care a lot what some communications major at a PR agency thinks of you.
Your tweets about their perceived passive aggression make people bust out the pitchforks and start speculating that all positive reviews are paid for and that all positive coverage is some sort of quid pro quo, which just isn't true in my opinion.
Fuck it if he doesn't know the embargo I assumed he didn't sign any sort of NDA.
Fuck them publish them "early" if you didn't sign anything.
Clarification:
Sony's reaction to the Escapist hiring me was to congratulate the site.
MS' PR department's reaction was to hope the Escapist puts a leash on me.
I really don't know how much I can blame a company's PR for being reluctant to talk to someone who is very likely to take whatever he was told and speak very negatively about it. Sony of course is willing to talk to anybody because consumer sentiment is very positive.
It may not be the most ethical option but I have a hard time faulting the PR arm of a company dealing with rather negative consumer sentiment trying to avoid any further and especially unneeded bad PR.
And I get the frustration but I'm not sure shaming them for doing their jobs is the best option. It's likely to reinforce their beliefs that not talking when the expected result is bad PR no matter what they say is the right one. A belief which is quite arguably correct, we all know what PR is for.
You're making it seem like there's this massive, veiled underground PR/press interplay in gaming when there isn't.
Their job is to send you copies of the game, which you then review. That's all there is. What could the problem in question possibly be? For someone who doesn't seem to care about the establishment, you just seem to care a lot what some communications major at a PR agency thinks of you.
Your tweets about their perceived passive aggression make people bust out the pitchforks and start speculating that all positive reviews are paid for and that all positive coverage is some sort of quid pro quo, which just isn't true in my opinion.
Here are my grievances:I really don't know how much I can blame a company's PR for being reluctant to talk to someone who is very likely to take whatever he was told and speak very negatively about it. Sony of course is willing to talk to anybody because consumer sentiment is very positive.
It may not be the most ethical option but I have a hard time faulting the PR arm of a company dealing with rather negative consumer sentiment trying to avoid any further and especially unneeded bad PR.
And I get the frustration but I'm not sure shaming them for doing their jobs is the best option. It's likely to reinforce their beliefs that not talking when the expected result is bad PR no matter what they say is the right one. A belief which is quite arguably correct, we all know what PR is for.
Apologies to those of you who thought my comments today were making a "big deal" out of something. For my part, I was merely trying to make some sort of lightheartedness out of a situation I actually find quite troubling (PR attempting to make the media complicit in the dampening of a person's opinion). I felt people would want to know that and tried to communicate it in a comedic way, if only for the fact that I *don't* like throwing tantrums.
But a tantrum is what some people are apparently seeing. My bad.
This isn't about the embargo dates/reviews. It's about MS PR ignoring Jim.I've read this entire thread and i still don't get whats going on.
In another thread i says when the embargo's for reviews are lifted.
Is Jim Sterling able to release his reviews on these dates or not?
We've been hearing for weeks that the embargo dates for MS stuff were, themselves, embargoed. Many sites had no idea what the embargo actually was. Maybe MS's PR gave different dates to different sites hoping to massage the best scores out of them? Just a guess.Press copies always, always, ALWAYS come with a nice letter extolling the game's qualities and reiterating the embargo dates.
Seems to me that the week before they launch their multi-billion dollar new device in countries around the world that the Microsoft PR department has more important things on their plate than to deal with someone who might be considered "trouble." This isn't a high school mentality, just a simple cost-benefit analysis.
Clarification:
Sony's reaction to the Escapist hiring me was to congratulate the site.
MS' PR department's reaction was to hope the Escapist puts a leash on me.
Seems to me that the week before they launch their multi-billion dollar new device in countries around the world that the Microsoft PR department has more important things on their plate than to deal with someone who might be considered "trouble." This isn't a high school mentality, just a simple cost-benefit analysis.