Funny Email From a Publisher re. Reviews

[Teflon Billy]

well, looks like I owe the Colonel a dollar, I didn't guess it was Avalanche.

Wierd behaviour though. I always thought (from the endless threads decrying Avalanche's "stripper" covers) that they had a pretty good following amongst the folks here. There are always tons of people leaping to their defense in such threads, claiming the high quality of their historical supplements.

Even during the ENnies I know that Psion and I were solidly behind Black Flags for the setting category, and, had it been up to me, Blood Prince of Wallachia would've gotten the nod as well.

They don't need guaranteed positive reviews. Their products hold up.

Odd

 

[Simplicity]

Well, I think whoever wrote that email chose their words EXTREMELY poorly. I can certainly understand if Avalanche
Press no longer wants to provide ENWorld with advance, free copies for review purposes. That's a courtesy, and it's something
they don't have to extend if they don't want to.

However, the email seemed to imply that because they were
providing free copies, the reviewer is no longer allowed to
express negative criticism of the product. That is just idiotic.
Because it boggles my mind so much that any publisher could
be THAT corrupt, I think I'll just have to go on the assumption
that they didn't mean what they actually said.

It would be a shame if they dropped out of the d20 on-line community, since they seem to be a rather prolific publisher
(not that I buy any of their T&A-encased trash, but someone must be buying them).

Speaking of which, I wonder what they would think of Mialee's Fashion Platemail reviews? The guys at Avalanche would probably blow a gasket if they saw those.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Re: Ahhhh

Morrus, think we can start a poll as to how long before they a) relent or b) are out of business?

First of all, that's in bad taste; and second of all, you severely overestimate the impact of the internet to "make or break" any RPG company.

Well, ok, it can make or break ME, but not Avalanche.


Wulf

 

[Simplicity]

wow, have to be pretty flexible to kick yourself in the 'nads like that.

LOL!

 

[Eosin the Red]

Wierd behaviour though. I always thought (from the endless threads decrying Avalanche's "stripper" covers) that they had a pretty good following amongst the folks here. There are always tons of people leaping to their defense in such threads, claiming the high quality of their historical supplements.

Sad thing is they do have a pretty big following here. I can name at least 10-15 folks not counting the good Col and yourself who regularly bought their product. I know that each time I pick up one of their product, I will think of this thread and wonder if I really need it. Unfortunatly, I won't be able to base the decision off of reviews unless they have been bought. The covers do little for me (34 years old with a wife and two kids. I no longer need T&A). The layout and design has been subpar upto this point so it is going to be awefully hard figure out how good the product is except by word of mouth.

Maybe Earth 1066 will finally come out and I can replace my need for semi-historical fantasy through them or I could finish off my 7th Sea collection (don't play just read). AEG has put out a few new books in the line.

 

[The Sigil]

In a word, reprehensible.

I was stunned to see this kind of letter from a company - essentially implying that their understanding of the review process is that "companies that give out freebies should get better reviews than companies that don't because freebies should never get bad reviews."

I am speechless. Does it not occur to these folks that there is a difference between a REVIEW and an ADVERTISEMENT? The moment a reader starts to feel that a "good review" is the result of bias on the part of the reviewer and not on the merit of the product, the impact of that review is lost. That doesn't mean that if a reviewer says, "I may be biased on this because I like alternative magic systems" that the review becomes worthless, because that is an admission of the personal preferences of the reviewer - if my personal preferences are the same (or different), I know to pay particular attention (or give less weight to) that portion of the review.

However, the instant I think that "this guy is giving the product a good review because he got it for free" I have to throw everything said about the product completely out the window (unless it's a freebie for everyone).

In my mind, there is an obligation that exists when a reviewer accepts a free copy of a work from a publisher. That obligation is to give a review of the product. In other words, "feedback" is the price the reviewer is expected to pay. Whether that feedback is positive or negative is of course the realm of the reviewer.

I haven't bought anything from Avalanche yet (their T&A covers left me nonplussed and I found the work within even less appealing to me - though admittedly I am not a historical buff and therefore probably not in the target audience). Looks like I don't need to plan to either - any company that confuses REVIEWS for ADVERTISING apparently does not understand that the credibility of the reviewer is what makes reviews much more persuasive than advertising and if they attempt to undermine the credibility of the reviewer, any positive reviews they may receive are nothing more than wasted type and actually wind up having a NEGATIVE effect. At least with me.

--The Sigil

 

[enrious]

Morrus,

Did you realize you forgot Psion's 3-star review of Twilight of Atlantis?

 

[Morrus]

Morrus,

Did you realize you forgot Psion's 3-star review of Twilight of Atlantis?

So I did. Average score still works out the same, though.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Morrus,

Did you realize you forgot Psion's 3-star review of Twilight of Atlantis?

Heh heh... I actually started my search with Avalanche, and noted the 4/4/3/3/2/2 staff reviews. Rather than continue searching B-Z, I assumed Morrus had overlooked one.


Wulf

 

[herald]

I for one will now avoid purchacing any Avalance products. It really doesn't matter how good their product is now, they have marked themselves as a company that could be duplicitous and untrustworthy. I feel about they they same way I feel about Sony Pictures. Sony created a phony Movie Reviewer just to get "blurbs" on thier posters. I have to wonder if Avalance will pursue this now.

I feel bad for the otehr web sites that now have been besmirched with Avalance's implications and for the products creators who now are stained with this business entity.

Why is there always someone around to poison the well of free enterprise?