• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

EA gives Journalists $200 as Dante's Inferno Promo

I think it was a good package. It went with the game very well. What better way to display greed than that? They aren't tied to giving the game a great review because EA is sponsoring them or anything. The check came with no attachments, but I guess it can probably somehow make them want more gifts* and give a good score. It's no Halo bag (360 console, and other stuff) though. It fit the game.
 
Cost to EA: 41 cents to mail check.

Result: Front page news at game outlets, large post on GAF, and "Dantes Inferno" featured on the GAF threads page for a couple of days.
 
jamesinclair said:
Cost to EA: 41 cents to mail check.

Result: Front page news at game outlets, large post on GAF, and "Dantes Inferno" featured on the GAF threads page for a couple of days.
Click to expand...
Exactly--it's awesome publicity and if it gives a games reviewer a couple extra bucks to buy some deodorant and a new pair of jeans, isn't it a gift to humanity? Just wish they had sent the checks out before E3. :lol
 
ClosingADoor said:
It's product reviews, not journalism. Same as with movies and music.
Click to expand...

Do you see anything even comparable when it comes to freebies, whether we're talking about music or movies? I'm sure it does happen, but I doubt it does to the same extent. I think this was brought up earlier in the thread even?

But yeah, it's not journalism in the same vein as news or politics obviously, and I don't expect it to be. When it comes to reviews it's essentially consumer advice, which is why it annoys me that these reviewers sometimes get gifts worth hundreds of dollars. There's no way you can argue that there isn't a conflict of interest there.
 
Yeah I'm sure he would have cashed it if it were a higher amount, but I would have cashed it and given it to charity.
 
Stumpokapow said:
Shouldn't they take the money, donate it, play the game, and review it fairly?

I mean, I suspect it'll be a turd, but I don't think people should preemptively be writing up bad reviews.
Click to expand...

Yes that would be the ideal situation, but I just wanted to see my statement come true. And the possibility of that happening might be quite good.
 
dantes-inferno-avarice-6-580.jpg


The bank number has "666" in it, leading me to believe that it isn't a legitimate cheque. But I don't know anything about this stuff, I've never used a real cheque in my life. Don't you get stylised cheques with pictures on them and stuff? I seem to remember a joke in the Simpsons with a Hindernburg flip-book cheque book, so maybe it is real... I don't know.

Anyway doesn't really matter, it's still a cool marketing move for a game that not a lot of people were talking about. Also brings up the whole good/evil choice mechanic in the game, which I guess was the point.
 
The whole EA should give the check to charity is such a bullshit excuse. They sent the checks for publicity, they get that no matter if you cash that in or not and it ends there for them. Kotaku on the other hand could either feint integrity with some showy shenanigans with their "rebellion" against press packs, or actually commit an action of integrity and donate the cash to charity. I'm guessing the former came to their mind first because burning things is a much more obvious publicity stunt. They were offered clean money and threw it away when they could of given it to a worth cause.

Though as others have said it's a great marketing ploy, it's good to see a team actually monitor press reaction to freebies before reviews.
 
Spirit of Jazz said:
The whole EA should give the check to charity is such a bullshit excuse. They sent the checks for publicity, they get that no matter if you cash that in or not and it ends there for them. Kotaku on the other hand could either feint integrity with some showy shenanigans with their "rebellion" against press packs, or actually commit an action of integrity and donate the cash to charity. I'm guessing the former came to their mind first because burning things is a much more obvious publicity stunt. They were offered clean money and threw it away when they could of given it to a worth cause.

Though as others have said it's a great marketing ploy, it's good to see a team actually monitor press reaction to freebies before reviews.
Click to expand...

If they don't cash it in or to charity, then that means EA will get free publicity.
 
As long as EA isn't killing anything to hang it's guts on display to promote a game I'm alright with any sort of promotion.
 
billy.sea said:
If they don't cash it in or to charity, then that means EA will get free publicity.
Click to expand...

Exactly, if EA were raising the majority of their fund from Baltimore's drug trade I could appreciate them turning down the check. Throwing away clean money though is just a clear show of how you value the perception of principles rather than their substance.
 
cashing it looks bad for any journalist. a good review after cashing it would look tainted. a bad review after cashing would look deliberately douchey. burning it was a good move
 
jamesinclair said:
Cost to EA: 41 cents to mail check.

Result: Front page news at game outlets, large post on GAF, and "Dantes Inferno" featured on the GAF threads page for a couple of days.
Click to expand...
Precisely. It's such smart PR really. It also gives the press the opportunity to ostentatiously promote their ethics even as they act as advertisers.
 
I would cash it, give the game a 10.0 and say "No other game straight up gave me 200 dollars. Best fucking game ever. The only way this game would be topped if they made a game that gave me more money."
 
AlternativeUlster said:
I would cash it, give the game a 10.0 and say "No other game straight up gave me 200 dollars. Best fucking game ever. The only way this game would be topped if they made a game that gave me more money."
Click to expand...

...and EA can move this a step further and include in every retail copy of Dante's Inferno a check just like this. I'm sure their costumers will enjoy the subtlety and fully understand the true meaning of the gesture.
 
Kotaku is trippin'..hard.

Send me a $200 a check and say it's up to me to cash it? Shit try me. I'd cash that shit, and then review your game and if shit game is shit oh well.

But to burn $200?

Hell no.

But then again I'm black.
 
I would have cashed the check.

Then I would have used it to preorder several copies of God of War III and Darksiders.
 
Nice to see Acclaim's marketing department is still hard at work.

Yeah, someone undoubtedly made that joke two Dante's Inferno marketing scandals ago. But still, seeing this shit combined with the standard "we're going to take something beloved AND GRIMDARK THE SHIT OUT OF IT" does not make me remotely interested in the game.
 
Oh, really? So "Dante's Inferno" is the hot new game from EA? Wow, cool. Without this promotion, I wouldn't have known.

Now to continue not buying it.
 
Pretty sure I would cash the check, then send a money order right back at them for the same amount. Prob with a memo saying "come release date you will need the money more than I will''
 
For a while I was confused about a lot of the replies in this thread, but now I get it. Some of you actually think that this check is supposed to be a bribe for a better score, which is funny. If it was, they would have to agree to giving a high score before receiving the check. Also, EA isn't so stupid that they would be so obvious about bribing people for review scores. But then again, maybe EA was stupid for thinking that everyone was smart enough to understand their message.

It's supposed to give journalists a test of weather to succumb for the sin of greed, because the 7 deadly sins are one of the primary themes of their game/advertising campaign. Maybe there is a consequence to cashing it? Like, maybe EA will donate money that was never cashed to a charity, so those that passed the test helped contribute and those that didn't pass feel greedy for taking the money away from charity (ie, facing the consequences). Yeah, that's a bit dark for an ad campaign, but they are advertising a dark game after all. That's mostly wishful thinking though, I think the real "consequence" will be far less interesting (if there is one). Either way, it's a fun topic to talk about, so mission accomplished.

I also think that it could be a real check since it has what appears to be potentially real routing/account numbers. And as far as I know, you don't need a valid address and phone number on a check to make it legit, so the fake address might not mean anything.
 
evilchicken said:
For a while I was confused about a lot of the replies in this thread, but now I get it. Some of you actually think that this check is supposed to be a bribe for a better score, which is funny. If it was, they would have to agree to giving a high score before receiving the check. Also, EA isn't so stupid that they would be so obvious about bribing people for review scores for obvious reasons. But then again, maybe EA was stupid for thinking that everyone was smart enough to understand their message.

It's supposed to give journalists a test of weather to succumb for the sin of greed, because the 7 deadly sins are one of the primary themes of their game/advertising campaign. Maybe there is a consequence to cashing it? Like, they will donate uncashed checks to a chairty, so those that passed the test helped contribute and those that didn't pass feel greedy for taking the money away from charity (ie, facing the consequences). Yeah, that's a bit dark for an ad campaign, but they are advertising a dark game after all. That's mostly wishful thinking though, I think the real "consequence" will be far less interesting (if there is one). Either way, it's a fun topic to talk about, so mission accomplished.

I also think that it could be a real check since it has what appears to be potentially real routing/account numbers. And as far as I know, you don't need a valid address and phone number on a check to make it legit, so the fake address might not mean anything.
Click to expand...

The consequence is looking like a total dick for taking $200 from EA for the promotion of a game. I honestly don't think it's clever at all. The way it's written is beautiful and dark but the matter of the fact is that it's idiotic.
 
Xenomorph said:
The consequence is looking like a total dick for taking $200 from EA for the promotion of a game. I honestly don't think it's clever at all. The way it's written is beautiful and dark but the matter of the fact is that it's idiotic.
Click to expand...

How would you look like a total dick? You cash the check, put it in your wallet, and don't tell the internet that you did. *bam* You don't look like a dick to anyone, no consequences. Now if EA published a list of everyone who did cash the check, then that would be a consequence, and it would be funny. So as a journalist would you cash the check at the risk of being exposed? Or possibly some other unforeseen consequence? These are the kinds of questions they want people to be talking about.
 
Any journalistic ethics class would teach you to just dispose of it.

Kotaku did the right thing here.

You benefit from charity - if Kotaku burned it and donated $200 of their own to charity, that would be okay. But if the source is from EA, then it's not okay.
 
Hillarious!

Stumpokapow said:
Shouldn't they take the money, donate it, play the game, and review it fairly?

I mean, I suspect it'll be a turd, but I don't think people should preemptively be writing up bad reviews.
Click to expand...
No. Acting in a professional manner means not accepting gifts that would put you in a conflict of interest, or even appear to do so (even if they don't). It does not mean accepting gifts, then regifting them off to someone else, charity or not.
 
evilchicken said:
For a while I was confused about a lot of the replies in this thread, but now I get it. Some of you actually think that this check is supposed to be a bribe for a better score, which is funny. If it was, they would have to agree to giving a high score before receiving the check.
Click to expand...
What? No.

The rule is simple: you can not accept anything more expensive than a cup of coffee. No ifs, ands, or buts.
 
A personalised and fairly interesting piece of 9.9.9 (okay 6.6.6) related memrobelia seems a pretty cool thing to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Dante's Inferno Turns 15 - A Look at Dante’s Purgatorio, the Cancelled Sequel to EA’s Dante’s Inferno
39
1K
yansolo replied
  • Locked
Fake AI journalists
5
299
Toots replied
Let It Die : Inferno
26
2K
Revolutionary replied
Minimo: A 200 person cooperative roguelite...
0
84
Men_in_Boxes replied
Eurogamer gives Arc Raiders a 2/5. Concord received a 3/5. Why do we care about game journalists again?
2 3
111
1K
MMaRsu replied
Top Bottom