Support NeoGAF

[VibratingDonkey]

i wonder if the mad men episode tonight will feature viral marketing and produce as much drama as this.

edit: also, saw master lee's response on n4g comments:


:lol

Wow. That's rather pathetic. Just do the walk and crawl back into the hole you came from Mister Master.

 

[Firestorm]

Yeah, the last thing I would do is decide not to buy Assassin's Creed 2 because they're allegedly trying to bribe reviewers with a 10 day retreat in Italy. That's just stupid. Then again, I don't determine my game purchases by the Metacritic score.

i c wat they did there

 

[LaserBuddha]

The worst thing in this thread (and the worst point made on GAF in recent memory) was the OP's assertion that SMB was somewhat of an RPG.

Even worse, I saw at least one person agree.

I mean, no joking around here, how stupid can a person be before it is considered a medical condition?

 

[APF]

You might be mixing up Gearbox's potential involvement with that of its publisher, 2K Games (itself a subsidiary of Take-Two Interactive).

No. Origin makes no difference to me, and shouldn't make a difference to anyone else, really. As I said, there are so many good games coming out right now that if you're on the fence (like I was) about a couple, it's perfectly reasonable to have boneheaded actions like this influence your purchasing decisions. My life will not end if I choose not to buy a game I hadn't already decided to get (or for that matter, one I had decided to get). By making it clear that this marketing tactic has negatively influenced my buying decision, I am not only punishing the actors responsible, I am also sending a message that these tactics will help influence my purchasing decisions in the future. The argument that I should have no right as a consumer to do this is absurd.

 

[Corto]

Fun thread! First I laughed, then I cried, then I finally laughed again... A true roller coaster of emotions!

The game is still under my radar though...

 

[Scrow]

wow, GAF can be brutal. i love it! :lol

 

[Barrett2]

IMO, the sign of a viral marketer is when they are being ridiculed like crazy, yet they manage to keep calm and posting their nonsense even while people call them out. Most normal dudes would get angry after people mocking them.

Private Hoffman always came across like this. People would openly mock him, yet he would just continue to hump Sony's leg in the thread. I don't know if he, in particular, was paid, but I always get suspicious when some posters remain undeterred in their ability to robotically post the same lavish praise, even when they are heavily criticized or made fun of.

 

[thebaroness]

The worst thing in this thread (and the worst point made on GAF in recent memory) was the OP's assertion that SMB was somewhat of an RPG.

Even worse, I saw at least one person agree.

I mean, no joking around here, how stupid can a person be before it is considered a medical condition?

Aren't we forgetting something?

(I realize these weren't the SMB in question, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate.)

 

[elrechazado]

Instead of spreading hype of your product like an infection; you break it down, eat away at it, and cause it to decay? Like reverse psychology? By golly George, I think you're onto something!

Brilliant. I'll pm you about starting our new company.

 

[Hawkian]

Borderlands didn't pay for the article. There's never even been any contact with the developer or publisher of the game.

Sigh. Damage done nonetheless, eh asshole?

Ultimately, the issue I take with that stance is that when the publisher does a great job marketing the game, the developer benefits. You argue that when the publisher does a bad job, that it's unfair that the developer does not do as well as they could have with better marketing.

We're obviously on totally different pages here. Here are my four main points on this topic:

1. If both the developer and marketing team do a shitty job, no one will buy it and the universe takes care of itself
2. If the developer does a shitty job and the marketing team does a great job, it becomes Gamespot's "worst game everyone played" at the end of the year. I attempt to go out of my way to NOT buy games that fit this description, i.e. voting with my wallet, because it selling like hotcakes suggests to the developer that they can and should just churn out more of the same.
3. If the developer does a great job and the marketing sucks, I attempt to go out of my way in the opposite direction and buy it without hesitation, because developers of these games ("best game no one played") can easily fall below their publisher's projected sales numbers without proper marketing, but the developer deserves to have their work rewarded.
4. If the development and marketing are great, it will sell like gangbusters and the universe again takes care of itself (I think Halo 3: ODST would be a good recent example).

To me it seems like you're arguing that you'd rather play game 2 than game 3, and that game 2 actually deserves your money more than 3 because its marketing was better. What am I missing?

 

[How About No]

Instead of spreading hype of your product like an infection; you break it down, eat away at it, and cause it to decay? Like reverse psychology? By golly George, I think you're onto something!

That's kinda what this thread did, didn't it?

 

[Dark Stalkers]

Instead of spreading hype of your product like an infection; you break it down, eat away at it, and cause it to decay? Like reverse psychology? By golly George, I think you're onto something!

Isn't that kind of like what Bioware did with Dragon Age?

 

[Wario64]

I'm not going to buy this game now thanks to this thread.


Actually I had no interest in this game whatsoever, but I felt like saying that for the people data mining this thread

 

[Durante]

Origin makes no difference to me, and shouldn't make a difference to anyone else, really. As I said, there are so many good games coming out right now that if you're on the fence (like I was) about a couple, it's perfectly reasonable to have boneheaded actions like this influence your purchasing decisions. My life will not end if I choose not to buy a game I hadn't already decided to get (or for that matter, one I had decided to get). By making it clear that this marketing tactic has negatively influenced my buying decision, I am not only punishing the actors responsible, I am also sending a message that these tactics will help influence my purchasing decisions in the future. The argument that I should have no right as a consumer to do this is absurd.

Well said, that's almost exactly my stance as well.

To me it seems like you're arguing that you'd rather play game 2 than game 3, and that game 2 actually deserves your money more than 3 because its marketing was better. What am I missing?

The difference between bad marketing and deceptive marketing.

 

[gregor7777]

I'm not going to buy this game now thanks to this thread.


Actually I had no interest in this game whatsoever, but I felt like saying that for the people data mining this thread

Noted, sir. Thank you for your co-operation.

 

[Slavik81]

You're conflating review practice and principle with deciding not to purchase a game because of the way in which it was marketed. Will the existence of this thread detract from your enjoyment of the game to the same extent that it being a "bug-riddled mess" would?

A good point. I think this thread is hilarious and was therefore of net benefit to me. I suppose I should hope that for their next game they make an equally terrible attempt at marketing.

Actually, I think your conclusions are correct. It's just that your argument is invalid. You made an emotional appeal to think about the person who worked hard on the game. I wanted to point out that such an emotional appeal is inconsistent with your philosophy in other areas.

A boycott or some other such campaign is likely to be ineffective at making them switch publishers or renegotiating a contract for more control over marketing. Depending on the kind of company Gearbox is, simply writing them a letter to let them know how awful the marketing is might be more useful.

2. If the developer does a shitty job and the marketing team does a great job, it becomes Gamespot's "worst game everyone played" at the end of the year. I attempt to go out of my way to NOT buy games that fit this description, i.e. voting with my wallet, because it selling like hotcakes suggests to the developer that they can and should just churn out more of the same.

But what about the poor marketing team that worked long and hard on this game, only for the developer to fuck it up?

Do you see now why I think that such an emotional appeal is a poor argument?

 

[Blizzard]

I didn't read much of this thread, but I'm going to (in true GAF fashion) draw my own mostly arbitrary conclusions:

1. This guy wasn't paid by Borderlands or their marketers.
2. I decided I was interested in Borderlands by reading about it, asking questions, and watching videos.
3. As a result of this thread, I will do nothing, i.e. continue with what I planned before, i.e. get the game. Apathy! Take THAT, threadmongers!

 

[Calcaneus]

If he wanted to do a better job, he should have just taken a look at common thread on GAF, the OP reads so unnaturally. And, dude should have waited until the game actually came out before he started going on about the 4 player co-op "orgy".

 

[Hawkian]

I didn't read much of this thread, but I'm going to (in true GAF fashion) draw my own mostly arbitrary conclusions:

1. This guy wasn't paid by Borderlands or their marketers.
2. I decided I was interested in Borderlands by reading about it, asking questions, and watching videos.
3. As a result of this thread, I will do nothing, i.e. continue with what I planned before, i.e. get the game. Apathy! Take THAT, threadmongers!

BLIZZARD YOU ARE FAR TOO REASONABLE FOR THIS FORUM GET OUT OF HERE

 

[rohlfinator]

But what about the poor marketing team that worked long and hard on this game, only for the developer to fuck it up?

Do you see now why I think that such an emotional appeal is a poor argument?

That's not his argument; he's arguing that we should base purchasing decisions based on game quality.

A successful marketing team doesn't make a good game, but a successful development team does.

 

[Hawkian]

That's not his argument; he's arguing that we should base purchasing decisions based on game quality.

A successful marketing team doesn't make a good game, but a successful development team does.

Wow. Could not have put it more succinctly. Thank you!

I need to start going for simplicity rather than depth in my debates :lol

EDIT: And just to clarify, it was never an emotional appeal even when I used phrases like "hard work"- it's a pragmatic one. More sales = encouragement of the development team to make more games like their previous ones, for better or worse.

 

[Bitmap Frogs]

Less viral marketers, more communnity reps.

But noooo it has to be the virals.

Sigh.

 

[Brannon]

Y'all better hope they never make another Ranger-X or Street Fighter 2010, cuz I will evade bans like all hell and viral the motherfuck out of them.

They're really good games of awesome.

 

[ViolentP]

Good times.

 

[SolidusDave]

man, I also want to get paid for my forum posts :/

Spoiler

Sony, PM me <3

 

[Slavik81]

That's not his argument; he's arguing that we should base purchasing decisions based on game quality.
A successful marketing team doesn't make a good game, but a successful development team does.

Let's go back to the original post I was responding to.

It doesn't. Also, imagine you're in a band that has spent 5 years recording an album. Then the week before it's released someone in marketing (which you likely have no say in at all) hooks something like this up. Then fools say they'll never buy your record.

That is most definitely an emotional appeal to the plight of the game developer. This is clearly
'Imagine how you'd feel if you were the developer...'

 

[APF]

That's not his argument; he's arguing that we should base purchasing decisions based on game quality.

Which is fine if you're a non-sentient automaton forced to purchase something and have to base that purchase on what is ultimately an insubstantial and subjective quality whose assignment is always entirely debatable and largely inconclusive until after you're allowed to evaluate the item yourself as a user. Unfortunately I'm a sentient human being who is far more inclined to save his money given the current state of the economy (and/or the fact of many high-quality releases that are dropping now) than spend it on things marketed with tactics I have a moral and intellectual objection to.

 

[Dr. Kitty Muffins]

I'm getting 30 bucks off of Borderlands so I don't much care if its really an 8 or a 9 overall. its going to be good either way.

 

[permutated]

I really wish this mindset never took off. :|

Why? Would you rather we have every FPS game be completely void of individual personality or customization?

I like when I get into a game and it gives me options.

 

[RSLAEV]

Welp I'll try this with a friend of mine. Were so desperate for a good co-op game we finished Both Watchmen beat em ups *and* we're playing Dynasty warriors Empires.

I hadn't seen that IGN short before-funny shit

 

[Lostconfused]

Was I just ignorant of all of this during the ps2/xbox/gamecube era, or did gaming get a whole lot weirder in the past couple of years. Well if you look at it a bit more seriously than i buy games I like and i don't buy the ones I don't like.

 

[Dude Abides]

Which is fine if you're a non-sentient automaton forced to purchase something and have to base that purchase on what is ultimately an insubstantial and subjective quality whose assignment is always entirely debatable and largely inconclusive until after you're allowed to evaluate the item yourself as a user. Unfortunately I'm a sentient human being who is far more inclined to save his money given the current state of the economy (and/or the fact of many high-quality releases that are dropping now) than spend it on things marketed with tactics I have a moral and intellectual objection to.

Or, you could decide to purchase a game because you think you'll have fun playing it and that outweighs the self-satisfaction you may get from vainglorious moral posturing about it.

 

[Tain]

Why? Would you rather we have every FPS game be completely void of individual personality or customization?

I like when I get into a game and it gives me options.

You can have tons of important options without skill trees and experience points, though. I love Deus Ex, but it's not automatically more complex than HL1 because it lets me upgrade a number that reduces rifle scope sway.

 

[elrechazado]

Or, you could decide to purchase a game because you think you'll have fun playing it and that outweighs the self-satisfaction you may get from vainglorious moral posturing about it.

So true. If I spent all of my time deciding who to punish or not punish or send a message to, between publisher, developer, specific person who works for either of those, and choice of marketing, I wouldn't have time to game. Play games you fucking like to play. All advertising is an attempt to influence you. Billboards, forum posts, free copies to bloggers, swag to gaming sites, fake or real or whatever you want, who the hell cares?

The op for borderlands is really cool looking. Should I be sweating about whether the guy who made it might or might not have been paid to do it? Why would I conceivably care about that?

 

[rohlfinator]

Let's go back to the original post I was responding to.

That is most definitely an emotional appeal to the plight of the game developer. This is clearly
'Imagine how you'd feel if you were the developer...'

Ah, I see... I thought you were directly responding to Hawkian.

Well, in that light, I'd respond by saying that your argument is invalid -- you can't appeal to the emotions of the marketing team, because marketers are soulless beings and therefore have no emotions! Hah.

Which is fine if you're a non-sentient automaton forced to purchase something and have to base that purchase on what is ultimately an insubstantial and subjective quality whose assignment is always entirely debatable and largely inconclusive until after you're allowed to evaluate the item yourself as a user. Unfortunately I'm a sentient human being who is far more inclined to save his money given the current state of the economy (and/or the fact of many high-quality releases that are dropping now) than spend it on things marketed with tactics I have a moral and intellectual objection to.

Fair enough -- if you're fine with skipping it and/or have a good selection of alternatives, more power to you.

I just think it would be silly for someone who is genuinely interested in the game to skip it based on this reason. "Voting with your wallet" only makes sense when your vote is actually going to be interpreted correctly. Skipping this game for this reason alone is most likely going to tell the publisher that either a) you think the game sucks or b) they need to be more aggressive with their marketing.

 

[APF]

I just think it would be silly for someone who is genuinely interested in the game to skip it based on this reason. "Voting with your wallet" only makes sense when your vote is actually going to be interpreted correctly.

Which is why I'm voicing the fact that this tipped me over the edge to a "no buy," and would likely do the same for future purchases (whereas being open about being a community rep / similar is totally cool)

IMO it's similar but on a lower level of importance to the debate over Orson Scott Card's involvement in Shadow Complex and other video games; it's not simply about the game, it's about the larger message that this won't help marketing, it will hurt it.

 

[Slavik81]

Ah, I see... I thought you were directly responding to Hawkian.

Well, in that light, I'd respond by saying that your argument is invalid -- you can't appeal to the emotions of the marketing team, because marketers are soulless beings and therefore have no emotions! Hah.

That's ok. As I thought more about it, my conclusions changed slightly, and there are almost certainly a few intermediary points of mine which could be attacked and I'd no longer defend.

I was under the impression Hawkian was still trying to argue in favour of that original post. If I was mistaken, I apologize.

 

[ThaiGrocer]

Reminds of the old man that tries to fit in with the younger crowd.

I cross my fingers that this kind of BS isn't effective.

 

[Vercingetorix]

This guy seemed way too moronic to be a viral marketer, I would have never guessed he was one.

What are these marketing firms doing, hiring random idiots who charge into forums with heavy handed stuff that just gets their marketing threads locked ASAP?

 

[Tobor]

Holy shit. Last thing I saw this thread had been closed. :lol

Serves me right for having a social life for once.

 

[Otrebor Nightmarecoat]

Well if everyone here does not buy the game now it will suffer like -100 games sold.

Now it will sell 99,900 copies =(

 

[THE Caffeinated]

I bet the guy was actually hired by Nintendo because they knew this thread would backfire and make people not want to buy Borderlands. Sneaky sneaky.

 

[Revengeance]

Well if everyone here does not buy the game now it will suffer like -100 games sold.

Now it will sell 99,900 copies =(

Oh, hell no. I'm definitely still buying the game. Sketchy marketeering goes on all the time, and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the quality of a game.

 

[xfactor]

I bet the guy was actually hired by Nintendo because they knew this thread would backfire and make people not want to buy Borderlands. Sneaky sneaky.

Or maybe he was hired by Sony/Microsoft to give Nintendo a bad name by making people think he's hired by Nintendo who is trying to make people not want to buy Borderlands?

 

[tebunker]

Wait, wasn't John Master Lee the guy who used to run pr/marketing for Hudson? Am I going nuts? Why would you viral with a profile associated with that?

/EDIT

I knew I wasn't crazy, looked at his post history, and he did for Hudson, again, not a smart idea to use your main public profile to try to market some other game.

 

[Spruchy]

For everyone not buying a copy I shall buy one of my little bastards one.

 

[TheSeks]

Wow, I thought Viral Marketing for games died with "All I want for Christmas is a PSP."

Is the Borderland hype so dead that Gearbox has to hire people to post on GAF to try to hype GAF for what is looking to be mostly a meh action RPG?

Since making this post, I have heard some heated feedback over on Neogaf, a gaming forum known for its no-holds-bar commentary, so I thought I should clarify some statements.

I'm not proposing that every game needs to be an action RPG. What I'm saying is that these three key gameplay elements can be added to any game, and improve the experience. I also realize that every game can't have a blockbuster budget behind it, and that these elements would be expensive to implement. Coming from a game development background, I can understand the challenges of this sort of implementation. However, in this scenario, I wanted to tackle the issue as a gamer, and not as a game developer.

:lol @ coming from a developer background. If you did, then you'd understand why fighters/et. al./DIFFERENT GAMES couldn't have these elements in it. Do you expect me to Shryoken Sagat 200 times to earn the Ultra Ability in Street 5: GRIND MORE EDITION!?

There's also no guarantee that Borderlands will be a great game. It could potentially fall short of the mark. But that shouldn't diminish the importance of the features that many gamers have been anticipating for so long.

Such as...? Everything Borderlands is doing, other games before it has done. (With the exception of the "200+ GUNZ" gimmick it's brining)

In any case, we'll follow up shortly we some gamer commentary! And what happens when you get banned from Gaf. Things sure can get ugly quick.

:lol This is a message board that caught your shit. At least have the balls to admit it.

 

[luka]

Or maybe he was hired by Sony/Microsoft to give Nintendo a bad name by making people think he's hired by Nintendo who is trying to make people not want to buy Borderlands?

Does the white house know about this? HOW DEEP DOES IT GO!?

 

[Decado]

My issues:

1) As a shooter it just doesn't look that good. I mean, sure they tossed in a bunch of action rpg elements, but if the core gameplay is mediocre, I don't see the point.

2) The AI looks terrible.

Seems like a good case of "more features, less polish".

 

[Dipper145]

This whole thread is hilarious, but I'm still going to be buying the game because I think it looks like a lot of fun. I like FPS games, I like RPG games, and I like being a loot whore, so it is combining all those elements into what I think looks to be an interesting game.

To be honest what really pushed me to buy the game was the price point. Getting it for 39.99 on the 360 in Canada, just like Batman, is a great deal and pushed me over the edge. There is definitely no way I would have got it for the full price of 69.99. There is also the deal on Steam for PC users that ends up at around $33.5 each, which I would get if I had computer good enough.

I also have no doubt that this kind of marketing stuff probably happens a lot more than people think around here.