Support NeoGAF

[Orochinagis]

Remember where Battlefield BC mocks COD every trailer they made? good times

 

[Cutwolf]

The marketing team comes back and says "we cut the quote down to this because of length" and the reviewer signs off on it. I already posted a podcast with the Giant Bomb staff saying this a stating that their opinion was never misrepresented. There is nothing illegal or malicious being done here.

Unfortunately, they don't determine what the law is.

 

[benny_a]

The marketing team comes back and says "we cut the quote down to this because of length" and the reviewer signs off on it. I already posted a podcast with the Giant Bomb staff saying this a stating that their opinion was never misrepresented. There is nothing illegal or malicious being done here.

This very exact quote's context was not approved. Stop saying it was when the article says the very opposite.

 

[Jest Chillin]

That's the thing: they already have. New Jersey (where I practice) outlaws any "unconscionable commercial practice, deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, or the knowing, concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact." This covers false advertising.

But the problem remains in enforcement. How do you enforce even a broadly written law if you can't prove who actually was "damaged" by the false ad? If you dispense with the "actually saw the ad" requirement altogether, you run into constitutional concerns. Also, if you try to list the penalties in the statute (called "statutory damages"), even if you could get past the aforementioned hurdle, it's a fine line to walk. If you make the hammer too big ($1,000 per violation no matter if someone actually saw it), you're going to clog the courts with frivolous lawsuits reaching to try and make anything a violation, or at least that's what companies will say. If you make it too small, the practice runs rampant.

Example: I often sue companies under a law known as the "Telephone Consumer Protection Act," which, broadly speaking (and among other things), prohibits calls to cellular telephones without consent. The statute makes it $500 per unsolicited call no matter what. Strict liability. $1,500 per call if the company acted willfully. Naturally, every single time someone sues under this law, or whenever the FCC even blinks in the direction of this law, industry trade groups cry/yell/scream/lobby/sue to get it changed. For example, the FCC has recently confirmed that this applies to wrong number calls (e.g. a debt collector trying to call someone else, but the number has been reassigned to you), and the industry trade group went ballistic and sued to overturn the order immediately.

Eventually, when the stars align (conservative president, conservative supreme court), they'll win, because they have the money, time, and clients to fight this for years.

Same would happen with a similar expansion of false ad laws.

Class actions really are the best tool to hold deceptive companies accountable, but they've been under attack from the Supreme Court, the GOP, and business groups who want to paint class actions as bad for consumers, when really, class actions are the only real way most companies are held accountable (except when they go full Enron). It is much more difficult to bring and certify class today than it was just 4 or 5 years ago.

It seems to me that regulation would be the best way to combat this issue in advertisement/marketing (though I'm aware how negative some view regulation in general). Making it about prevention to begin with should limit the court cases by nature. That will be a battle all it's own but would be the far more effective way to go about getting change as it's not as easily shut down. I mean just because things can be changed "when the stars align" as you put it, doesn't mean it's a fruitless endeavor as many important issues are effected when that happens. It's the nature of a Gov't that allows for adaptation.

I do understand what you're saying but Class Action being the most efficient tactic definitely strikes as "for now" when there are more permanent ways to go about effecting this change.

 

[finalflame]

I have, including on this very page. Try fact checking before you speak rather than spewing nonsense and hoping it's true.

Except I didn't spew any nonsense, all I said was companies do this all the time. Maybe check who you're replying to.

Hadn't seen your previous post, though.

 

[bud23]

amazing, this marketing deceitful is the worst thing ever.

it's the end of the world.

Shit man, I'm with you, I don't approve this, but maybe you're being a bit hyperbolic here

 

[Alebrije]

I bet some people are doing investigations about the map of The Divisions vs WatchDogs.

 

[FX-GMC]

How is this at all relevant to their adversity campaign? Do I need to enjoy the game to think their deceitful advertising is wrong? Because that's basically what your saying and frankly it's absurd. How about addressing their underhanded deceitful marketing tactics instead instead of launching ad hominem attacks.

How about addressing the issue as a whole rather than singling out The Division for taking part in a common practice. It's much better for discussion to title this "Deceitful Ad campaigns in media". What you went with along with your past remarks of the game make it clear you have an axe to grind.

 

[vidgmes]

 

[Unstable]

Advertisers want to show their game in best light, gaf poster who hated the beta takes offense and has to save the public from this deceitful game, news at 11!

Best Light? It's straight up lying. Like seriously? The OP is right, anyone the defending false advertising here deserve to be lied too. Also, what's with the ad hominem attacks going on here? Who cares if the OP didn't like the beta, that has no barring on the content of the post.

 

[MyleMan1010]

This very exact quote's context was not approved. Stop saying it was when the article says the very opposite.

In the podcast I posted Jeff said some publications let quotes get out very early and it seems shady. But if these publications quotes were misrepresented all they have to do is tell the marketing team to remove the quote or citation. If they refuse that is illegal. That's false advertising.

 

[kpaadet]

Couldn't Gamezone contact Ubisoft and have the quote pulled? Though they are probably loving this attention.

But hey, it happens all the time so why should we care /s

 

[Animator]

Best Light? It's straight up lying. Like seriously? The OP is right, anyone the defending false advertising here deserve to be lied too. Also, what's with the ad hominem attacks going on here? Who cares if the OP didn't like the beta, that has no barring on the content of the post.

Oh yea it has lots of "barring" on the content of his post.


Honestly this would matter if they did not have three betas so far with 6.5 million playing them. You don't need some out of context IGN quote to make up your mind about a game, you could have played the beta like millions did.

And yes it is the oldest trick in the marketing book. Did you guys just now realize this is a thing?

 

[MyleMan1010]

Couldn't Gamezone contact Ubisoft and have the quote pulled? Though they are probably loving this attention.

But hey, it happens all the time so why should we care /s

Of course they love the attention. This world is run by clicks. Any publication that wants to be taken seriously wouldn't put quotes out there for a game that they haven't reviewed yet. That's just begging for trouble. Well trouble and clicks.....

 

[MatrixMan.EXE]

Except for the fact that the lawyers in the thread say that it does?

You could at least link me to a post in this 10 page thread to back up your point.

As far as I'm aware, while underhand, it doesn't technically break any regulations in marketing that I'm personally aware of or have been trained in.

I'm not saying there's nothing wrong with it. I'm just saying they've been "clever" about how they've used the quote.

 

[theWB27]

That is really bad and dishonest to say the least.




So?



Different topic altogether.



And?



Again, and?
We should call them on that every-time we see it and not gloss over and downplay it because "it's a common thing", this is even more or a reason we should point it out and fight these kind of deceiving tactics.

You guys are part of the problem, I find this attitude awful and it applies to any field of our everyday life.



Sorry but this is ridiculous. Are you only concerned when matters concern you and only you in particular? This ad is not targeting "us", the vast majority of buyers will be casual players. There's a reason there are advertising regulations, this is false advertising.

Geez...nothing is stopping a casual from knowing what they're buying.

How do you get that I'm only concerned about myself when my argument is for people to know what they're buying? Why is it so hard for people to put the onus on the buyer?

That's the consumer thing though. Don't fault me for buying this product with my own money. Fault the advertisement that somehow forced me to buy it without knowing what it is. Despite me having the ability to research it.

These ads are targeting everyone who comes across the ad. Everyone. Ads target everyone.

There are ad regulations. So what. You're also free to know what you're buying. I'm going to keep regurgitating this.

The onus is on the buyer to know what they're buying with their own money. Because they're making that choice. They have a choice in the matter. They aren't being kept from learning more about what they're buying.

So no matter how many times people keep taking about the less informed, the casual or whatever. They have access to the same information we do when it comes to choosing to buy a game. If they choose, if they make the choice to buy a game based off a one liner that it's better than destiny then that's all that buyer needed to make their choice on spending their money on that game.

But let's keep pretending consumers shouldn't have any fault on what they spend their money on.

 

[B_Spooky13]

Yes this is a shitty practice but really it's nothing new. This has been with movies and games for a long time. Once I see the ellipsis in front or behind a quote. I take it with a grain of salt. I mean while this is the omitting of a section of a quote to make the hype of the game better than what they actually said.. But they do this crap all the time one way or another. MGS2.. Thought we were playing as Snake but didn't. Titanfall was supposed to be the "killer of COD". Mass Effect was promised to have great diverse endings.

I think everyone's gripe on here with OP is while this was a shitty thing to do why get pissed off at just Ubisoft. Why not make it about everyone that does this shitty practice and bring that Ubisoft just recently did it. It just seemed like he was pinning this whole practice on Ubisoft to get people's jimmies rustled.

 

[benny_a]

I think everyone's gripe on here with OP is while this was a shitty thing to do why get pissed off at just Ubisoft. Why not make it about everyone that does this shitty practice and bring that Ubisoft just recently did it. It just seemed like he was pinning this whole practice on Ubisoft to get people's jimmies rustled.

Because not every thread has to be about a full history of the industry.

Kotaku noticed an interesting quote was not even about The Division game and is used to promote said game against Destiny.

Just saying false advertisement is happening all the time stop killing the hype is not some awesome retort. There is some nuance that seemingly is lost on 80% of the people that think this is common place.

 

[Kikujiro]

The OP in this case sure fits the bill.

And you sure fit the corporate shill part. Leave Ubisoft alone!

 

[Unstable]

Oh yea it has lots of "barring" on the content of his post.


Honestly this would matter if they did not have three betas so far with 6.5 million playing them. You don't need some out of context IGN quote to make up your mind about a game, you could have played the beta like millions did.

And yes it is the oldest trick in the marketing book. Did you guys just now realize this is a thing?

No, the OP's opinion about the Division means literally zero to the actual content of his post. I could've made this post given the opportunity, tell me, would you read the OP and discuss the post based on it's merit, or would you go through my post history looking for any post that hints at a supposed "agenda", attacking me, instead of discussing the actual content of the OP? (That's what happened here)

 

[sora87]

Ubisoft gonna Ubisoft. Nothing surprises me about them anymore, even bullshit like this.

 

[killroy87]

How has this created such a big topic? It's literally just marketing. This has been going on for literal decades, it's what marketing is. It's not specific to The Division, or Ubisoft, or video games

 

[Jest Chillin]

No, the OP's opinion about the Division means literally zero to the actual content of his post. I could've made this post given the opportunity, tell me, would you read the OP and discuss the post based on it's merit, or would you go through my post history looking for any post that hints at a supposed "agenda", attacking me, instead of discussing the actual content of the OP? (That's what happened here)

If the subject was about misleading advertising in general, then the OP should've (and most likely would've) sourced multiple instances. However, the title of the thread and the examples in the OP focus specifically on one game, which will automatically make some wonder, "Well what about this specific situation with this specific game warrants that it be spotlit moreso than others?" The answer, inevitably, is nothing. Nothing warrants that this game be made an example of over others that do the same.

I also don't believe anyone went digging through post history looking for a reason to discredit the OP as much as the OP was recognized as being vocally negative about the game in multiple threads of differing topics and it went from there.

 

[Saint of Killers]

Isn't this common practice? Not that it's a good thing, but I don't get why they are being singled out here. I remember this happening quite a bit some years back.

And that's why this shit has become all but acceptable.

 

[amar212]

How has this created such a big topic? It's literally just marketing. This has been going on for literal decades, it's what marketing is. It's not specific to The Division, or Ubisoft, or video games

"Downgrade" will soon be here, do not worry.

 

[benny_a]

However, the title of the thread and the examples in the OP focus specifically on one game, which will automatically make some wonder, "Well what about this specific situation with this specific game warrants that it be spotlit moreso than others?" The answer, inevitably, is nothing. Nothing warrants that this game be made an example of over others that do the same.

By just proving examples of this case, you will shut everyone up that say this is unusual.

Bring examples where the quotes being used aren't even about the game that the quotes are used for.

Edit: Actually fuck it. I just remembered where I recognize your name from. You also did the defense force when Bungie lied about Destiny at E3.

 

[The Lone Courier]

Well, yes, that would be a start.

Though I would change "ask for" to "demand", and actually make it a violation of the law to blatantly mislead in advertising. This is the case in Austria (and Germany too as far as I know).

Good luck with that.

 

[SirMossyBloke]

How has this created such a big topic? It's literally just marketing. This has been going on for literal decades, it's what marketing is. It's not specific to The Division, or Ubisoft, or video games

Because some people aren't happy unless they have something to complain about.

This issue is so minor.

 

[Kyonashi]

Brazen Divison is that new Bravely Default sequel, right?

 

[Jest Chillin]

By just proving examples of this case, you will shut everyone up that say this is unusual.

Bring examples where the quotes being used aren't even about the game that the quotes are used for.

I'm sorry but I'm not exactly sure what your point is here. Can you reword for clarification?

 

[piratepwnsninja]

An out of context quote from Rex should really be the OT title.

The Division [OT] - "it's unreal" - RexNovis

 

[Unstable]

If the subject was about misleading advertising in general, then the OP should've (and most likely would've) sourced multiple instances. However, the title of the thread and the examples in the OP focus specifically on one game, which will automatically make some wonder, "Well what about this specific situation with this specific game warrants that it be spotlit moreso than others?" The answer, inevitably, is nothing. Nothing warrants that this game be made an example of over others that do the same.

I also don't believe anyone went digging through post history looking for a reason to discredit the OP as much as the OP was recognized as being vocally negative about the game in multiple threads of differing topics and it went from there.

First off, lets ignore the fact that the OP's post is discussing a Kotaku article and pretend he sourced this all himself. His post would still be completely valid. The part I'm struggling with, is this supposed fairness.

"Well what about this specific situation with this specific game warrants that it be spotlit moreso than others?"

So what's you're solution? We just ignore Division's egregious use of out of context quotes, until what? We diligently go through every other similar use of out of context quotes in video gaming advertising? All for a semblance of what? Fairness? That's utterly impractical, and ridiculous.

Also, someone indeed went digging through his post history.

This was your post in the Beta thread
You clearly don't like the game. Are you so pissed off you need other people to not like it too?

This was the turning point where people started attacking the OP not the post.

 

[ShadowkillXNA]

No.

Just because in your head you've justified the opposition to shitty deceiving marketing tactics as being a hater of Ubisoft doesn't mean that is actually the case.

There is a shitload of Ubi-haters here, just look at the Farcryrimal map thread, most of it unjustified since they do nothing that most other publishers dont also do. And yet Ubisoft are the ones who get dogpiled on the most, by far.
They get far more crap than any other publisher and it baffles me considering the overall quality of their output this gen. Apart from Assassins Creed:Unity and Watch Dogs which was just average their games have been quite good.
Especially when people continually bitch about game companies doing nothing new while Ubisoft puts out stuff like Rainbow Six:Siege (no other first-person shooter like it on consoles so far this gen), Farcryrimal (removed guns, new setting) and For Honor.

 

[Parapraxis]

The quote from IGN comes from their E3 2013 awards and was in reference to the best new franchise shown at the show.

Sounds fine to me.

 

[Jest Chillin]

First off, lets ignore the fact that the OP's post is discussing a Kotaku article and pretend he sourced this all himself. His post would still be completely valid. The part I'm struggling with, is this supposed fairness.
So what's you're solution? We just ignore Division's egregious use of out of context quotes, until what? We diligently go through every other similar use of out of context quotes in video gaming advertising? All for a semblance of what? Fairness? That's utterly impractical, and ridiculous.

The solution is to make an OP that points out multiple cases. It need not be every single case and your suggestion that it must be so is a counter made in very poor taste. It's almost as if you're intentionally taking my words out of context to strengthen your stance!

As an example, here would be the correct way to make a topic discussing misleading advertisement in gaming in general. http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1194115

Note how that OP lists The Division but also lists a myriad of other examples because the point isn't to specifically shit on The Division but to discuss misleading advertisement in general.

Also, someone indeed went digging through his post history.

This was the turning point where people started attacking the OP not the post.

Actually.. the OP was called out previous to that with this post that was made nearly 15 minutes earlier.

This guy has something against this game. This the second time he re posted a topic that has all ready had a topic.

This has been happening for years.

So to make the assumption that the OP's quote was pulled because someone was looking for any reason to attack him is disingenuous. He'd already been recognized as having a pattern of attacking the game.

 

[Animator]

"Downgrade" will soon be here, do not worry.

I am waiting for the "did division really deserve it's success?" thread.

 

[Silver Arrows]

And you sure fit the corporate shill part. Leave Ubisoft alone!

lol fuck it i'm out

 

[GobFather]

So to make the assumption that the OP's quote was pulled because someone was looking for any reason to attack him is disingenuous. He'd already been recognized as having a pattern of attacking the game.

But, why not stay on topic and discuss about the topic? Even if OP had an agenda, the truth about the situation doesn't change it. Instead we got derails with attacks and "who cares" and etc.

 

[Pandy]

And that's why this shit has become all but acceptable.

This shit became all but acceptable before video-games were even a thing. How old is everyone in this thread?

Attacking Ubisoft for this because you have a hard-on for anything that paints The Division in a bad light is just going to make you look very silly.

I watched the trailer and enjoyed it. Laughed at the quotes.

 

[-tetsuo-]

The Division has released a new advertising campaign targeting Destiny players. Nothing wrong with that as I think we all saw the push for the same audience. The problem is the quotes that they are using in their campaign.

Kotaku looked into some of the quotes from the ad. Specifically the following quotes




What they discovered is that both are being used completely out of context.

The quote from Gamezone comes from an article talking about the beta population and is talking specifically about the number of people who played The Divisions beta in comparison to Destiny's beta. Blows out of the water was specifically talking about players numbers and not the games themselves.

The quote from IGN comes from their E3 2013 awards and was in reference to the best new franchise shown at the show.

To say this is "deceptive" would be an understatement. It is far beyond the infamous "Biogamer Girl review" we saw during Destiny's ad campaign. That was simply scraping the bottom of the barrel. What we have here for The Division is an orchestrated attempt to mislead customers using quotes completely out of context. And this is after the recent reveal that they did not release any copies of the game for review prior to the game's release.

How many red flags is it going to take before people smell the smoke here? This sort of targeted deception is not something we should ignore.

Do you not know how advertising works?

 

[Unstable]

The solution is to make an OP that points out multiple cases. It need not be every single case and your suggestion that it must be so is a counter made in very poor taste. It's almost as if you're intentionally taking my words out of context to strengthen your stance!

As an example, here would be the correct way to make a topic discussing misleading advertisement in gaming in general. http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1194115

Note how that OP lists The Division but also lists a myriad of other examples because the point isn't to specifically shit on The Division but to discuss misleading advertisement in general.



Actually.. the OP was called out previous to that with this post that was made nearly 15 minutes earlier.



So to make the assumption that the OP's quote was pulled because someone was looking for any reason to attack him is disingenuous. He'd already been recognized as having a pattern of attacking the game.

My point was this, his post was about a Kotaku article, a Kotaku article specifically about the Division's use of out of context quotes. If you want a broader discussion about false advertising in games, that's a different thread (like the one you posted). Pretending it's a matter of fairness to talk about one case when there's many other like it. Simply seems like a way to pull attention away from the Division. "Hey guys, it's not that big of deal! Everyone does it! Besides the OP hates the game anyways!" Does not a good argument make.

 

[GobFather]

This shit became all but acceptable before video-games were even a thing. How old is everyone in this thread?

Attacking Ubisoft for this because you have a hard-on for anything that paints The Division in a bad light is just going to make you look very silly.

I watched the trailer and enjoyed it. Laughed at the quotes.

Why are you assuming anyone complaining is against Ubisoft? I have nothing against Ubisoft and I like division But I still think that's a bad pratice. We can't point out these bad pratices because grown ups like YOU are used to it? Please...

 

[Pandy]

The Division [OT] - "it's unreal" - RexNovis

LOL

 

[DeepEnigma]

Why are you assuming anyone complaining is against Ubisoft? I have nothing against Ubisoft and I like division But I still think that's a bad pratice. We can't point out these bad pratices because grown ups like YOU are used to it? Please...

.

 

[Forsaken82]

Welcome to Marketing 101.

 

[Jest Chillin]

But, why not stay on topic and discuss about the topic? Even if OP had an agenda, the truth about the situation doesn't change it. Instead we got derails with attacks and "who cares" and etc.

Because the topic itself focuses only on The Division and many who agreed that the pull quotes were misleading marketing felt uncomfortable with the bias. The OP could have also edited to include the other examples once they were mentioned in the thread but declined to do so. This was why the other thread was created. Because while the OP touched on a valid topic, the bias taints the conversation (in both directions tbh).

Understand that I'm not advocating attacks. I'm saying the bias is noticeable and appears to be genuine. FWIW, I did have a short discussion with another poster about misleading advertising and why it's so prevalent.

My point was this, his post was about a Kotaku article, a Kotaku article specifically about the Division's use of out of context quotes. If you want a broader discussion about false advertising in games, that's a different thread (like the one you posted). Pretending it's a matter of fairness to talk about one case when there's many other like it. Simply seems like a way to pull attention away from the Division. "Hey guys, it's not that big of deal! Everyone does it! Besides the OP hates the game anyways!" Does not a good argument make.

His final two paragraphs make it clear that it really wasn't about the Kotaku article. He was just using the Kotaku article as a source for his opinion that something is wrong with The Division.

To say this is "deceptive" would be an understatement. It is far beyond the infamous "Biogamer Girl review" we saw during Destiny's ad campaign. That was simply scraping the bottom of the barrel. What we have here for The Division is an orchestrated attempt to mislead customers using quotes completely out of context. And this is after the recent reveal that they did not release any copies of the game for review prior to the game's release.

How many red flags is it going to take before people smell the smoke here? This sort of targeted deception is not something we should ignore.

Questioning why one specific thing gets called out or made an example of when others get a pass is not bad. It's the kind of thinking that is necessary to avoid scapegoating. And to be clear, most replies were either (paraphrasing) "This is common, nothing to see here" or they were "This happens all the time. Here's other examples. Why is it worse in this situation? Wouldn't it be better to call it out in all cases instead of just one?" The bias accusations were an attempt by people to give context as to why the focus was on The Division specifically instead of misleading advertisement in general.

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

I read the OP a bunch of times and I just don't understand what's so bad about it? While it's deceptive.... I just don't see what part of it actually affects the end user?

For the journalist and media, I would say this is a big deal for them, but I doubt this is really causing more people to actively purchase the game? Unless I'm confused on why this is such a big deal.

Ok, I can see this from another angle in which carriers do this all the time with their bogus claims about "The fastest 4G speeds in the country"... And people do sign up to those services thinking they are receiving these"speeds" but they aren't. At the same time.. That example may be different because people are buying phones and services rather than a game for their system.

With that in mind, I guess the only thing this is hurting is ubisoft reputation amongst the media who feel like their words are being taken out of context. The end user who has a choice to purchase this game or not, I don't think are putting that much investment into quotes that may be used in ads. word of mouth and playing it themselves is still an option...

Idk..

 

[Messofanego]

I'm remember Jeff Gertsmann talking about this on the Bombcast. The condensed blurbs are approved by the reviewers. Not only do they make the game look good but they are free advertising for the review site/publication. Don't blame the games marketing, the review publications are just as much to blame.

http://v.giantbomb.com/podcast/Giant_Bombcast_04_14_2015-04-14-2015-4843367792.mp3

2:34:55

Thanks, that was enlightening as usual from Jeff Gerstmann who has let out industry secrets before like the business of mock reviews. One correction: From what he said on that Bombcast, it seems they don't make the game look good if it means editing the quote to change intent rather than for length in terms of being approved (they might just do that behind your back). But some outlets like IGN have sent out reviews to publishers before review day, which seems suspicious.

Jeff: "I've had quotes edited for space and stuff like that but not in cases where I clearly meant this game was dogshit. Not to change intent. The proper procedure is for people to contact us and ask. A lot of companies do.

Brad: "Yeah I can't think of a major incidence of a company not asking permission first."

Jeff: "There was a while where EA was including numbers of 'Winner Of [X] number of awards'"-

Brad: "And stretching the definition of awards."

Jeff: "Yeah. And including E3 awards which are kind of not awards for the quality of the final product. But yeah, nothing like editing a quote. Nothing like a 'I want her sweet can' moment."

Jason: "So, explain to me when you're buying a game. It's Day 1. You'll see review quotes on the back of the box. Explain how that works."

Jeff: "Print magazines have a lead time. I've never done this but there might be cases where outlets are sending reviews over to publishers and saying like 'If you want to quote it, here's the review'. I've never done that. That seems crazy. I know there were cases like IGN quotes from reviews showing up on game boxes and the review's not running til launch day and you're like 'wait a minute' and we're checking that against when we got a review copy of a game and going like 'something fucking crazy is happening here'! That'd be a good question for them [IGN].

I've definitely had companies say like 'hey what you thinking of the game so far?' after they've sent out a review build before the review has gone up. Cause they're trying to manage expectations. So if you write back that 'it's fucking garbage!' they can tell people internally like 'well...we'll see how the scores end up being' or like 'hey I'm gonna take a vacation cause all these reviews are gonna hit and I'm going to be fired so I gotta be out of here on launch day'."

 

[ElephantShell]

Advertising at all levels is a nasty business, but does this really reflect poorly on the developers or on the game?

Don't publishers hire companies to do their advertising campaigns? Find out who actually made the ad if you want to be outraged at something.

Or just don't buy the game and move on. If the game succeeds it won't be because of that shitty ad so I don't really see the point in being upset about it anyway.

 

[Pandy]

Why are you assuming anyone complaining is against Ubisoft? I have nothing against Ubisoft and I like division But I still think that's a bad pratice. We can't point out these bad pratices because grown ups like YOU are used to it? Please...

"Thread: The Division's new brazenly deceitful ad campaign"

I look forward to The Division being Zero Hour for a new Kotaku & GAF stance on all advertising in the games industry, and indeed in general.