In light of recent events by Avalanche Press (Company bashing not desired)

[Khan the Warlord]

Ah, so if you think a particular reviewer has a special thing against you, and that he doesn't give you a fair shake, you should continue to send free products to him, encouraging him to give you more bad press? That's illogical.

Has it occurred to anyone that, form Avalanche's point of view, it may seem that EN World reviewers are unfair? I mean, look at all the flack we give them for their covers. Might we here not look... less than neutral to them? Hm?

*IF* AP truly feels that the reviews here are unfair for the wrong reasons, they should have stated such in their e-mail. Let me check...

I am afraid, Mr. Collins, that the message had not been passed on
that XXXXXXXXXX is no longer supporting ENWorld with review
materials. Our reason for such is the disturbingly unfavorable reviews our products received up to, and including XXXXXXX.

While we are not opposed to constructive criticism, and
appreciate the objectivity of a professional reviewer, we find it quite disagreeable to support a publication that continues to publish negative reviews of our product, esspecially since said products were not paid for by the reviewer. A customer who has paid for the product has every right to complain as much as they want about the product, and its value. Someone who got it for free does not reserve such judgement.

Thank you, but no thank. We are quite happy to support
GamingReport.com, BeyondAdventure.com & Games Unplugged Magazine.

Nope, I don't see anything in there about the EN World staff giving unfair reviews -- just unfavorable reviews.

Which is quite lame.

And even if they did feel that way and simply didn't state it, that is being untruthful, which is also lame.

 

[Mort]

Yes, but Ebert & Roeper give crappy reviews all the time, yet movie studios still give them free tickets. It all goes back to that whole "any publicity is good publicity" thing.

To give proper perspective to this scenario, It HAS happened to Ebert & Roeper before (when it was Siskel & Ebert). They gave scathing reviews to "Nuns on the Run" a movie 20th Century Fox was heavily promoting at the time. 20th Century Fox stated that as a result it would no longer allow Siskel or Ebert into their pre-screenings. I don't know if this stuck, but I do remember Ebert announcing that they would just have to watch 20th century fox like everyone else and review from there.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

I'm not sure what all the hoopla is about. An, at best, less than average company took itself out of the running for my $. Of course, between their covers and the fact that their content was, at best, less than average, they weren't in the running for my $ anyway, so the point is moot.

As for the covers, I'd love it if someone from their marketing department could explain that one.

"Why yes, our market research shows that our customers want artwork that's in such poor taste that they have to hide the books from their parents, friends, and significant others if they want to keep their respect."

What exactly is the goal there? To rekindle that feeling that the hobby is something to be ashamed of which very few people have felt since the 80's?

"I really felt gaming had reached a new level of pop-cultural acceptance. Thank God Avalanche came along to prove to me how silly that idea was. What a relief it is to go back to hiding books under my bed!"

 

[Morrus]

It's wrong, and yet you will continue to buy those other products that are doing this thing you think is wrong, but you won't buy products in this industry if they do it.

That is a double standard.

Again irrelevant. I don't run a movie or book review website. If I did, I'd take the same stance.

Am I to understand from this that you support the whole concept of reviewers only being allowed to give good reviews? It sounds like it.

Otherwise - what is your objection to my trying to avoid this situation creeping into this industry - more importantly my website - at least as far as I have the limited ability to do so?

[Edit - ah, you edited your post as I was typing this. I agree - it is news, and people should know about it.]

 

[Khan the Warlord]

I personally know of two game (software) companies, one of which is a major company, that does not send free copies to reviewers who have slammed them in the past, or who are unlikely to give a good review. So, while that may not have been your experience, it does happen even in that industry.

Also, note I never listed electronic gaming industry in my list of industries that follow that policy (even though I know of at least two who do).

"Two companies" do not an industry norm make.

Don't generalize that you know what the majority of an industry does in regards to unfavorable reviews just because you know of a few exceptions.

 

[Fred Delles]

As for the covers, I'd love it if someone from their marketing department could explain that one.

"Why yes, our market research shows that our customers want artwork that's in such poor taste that they have to hide the books from their parents, friends, and significant others if they want to keep their respect."

What exactly is the goal there? To rekindle that feeling that the hobby is something to be ashamed of which very few people have felt since the 80's?

"I really felt gaming had reached a new level of pop-cultural acceptance. Thank God Avalanche came along to prove to me how silly that idea was. What a relief it is to go back to hiding books under my bed!"

LOL! Look for my copies of Avalanche D20 products under the bed next to my stacks of Playboys and that Satanic ritual book thingy.

 

[Mistwell]

"Two companies" do not an industry norm make.

Don't generalize that you know what the majority of an industry does in regards to unfavorable reviews just because you know of a few exceptions.

Maybe you didn't read my entire reply.

Here, I will say it again in bold.

Also, note I never listed electronic gaming industry in my list of industries that follow that policy (even though I know of at least two who do).

 

[Khan the Warlord]

As far as the poll goes, though, I can't vote because there's no option that says "I won't buy their products ever again unless they apologize and take back their policy."

Even if they made a public apology, I still wouldn't purchase their products anymore, simply because it would be a forced apology to try and stop the outpouring of dislike that their first decision generated.

They made a decision, in the majority of our eyes (as the results of the poll indicate thus far), it was a poor one and demonstrated their character as not only a publisher, but individuals as well.

They want to sell their products based on sex appeal (granted, not the first time this has been done in this world), they have obvious mechanics problems which illustrate their lack of the d20 system, they admit to not even playing the game they create for, and now they're desiring to purchase good reviews and not earn them.

No apology will make up for that.

For those of you that are happy to buy their products anyway as long as you like them, does the ethics of the company that makes the product not play into your decisions at all? For some more extreme examples, would you purchase a company's products if they were known for ripping off their authors, or were known for plagarizing other people's ideas? If not, why do you consider tampering with the review process -- and more importantly indicating that they exepct all of their reviewers to act unethically -- acceptable?

AMEN!

Simply because something that an individual or company does may not apply to you, it does still mean something -- and if anyone here claims to have a good moral standard, I would hope that they would recognize this and not be so willing to "let it slide".

Avalanche Press are "famous" to us, the customers, and because of that, we have every right to voice our opinions when they take a stance that we find repulsing as consumers.

To the defenders of AP I ask: Why should they be exempt from this criticism?

 

[ColonelHardisson]

I have to say that I see what Mistwell is getting at, and it's a valid argument. I just wish it was presented in a less combative way so it could be discussed rationally.

I don't like the idea of reviewers giving good reviews in exchange for anything, or that companies send out copies for just that purpose. I especially dislike it when a company makes that assumption openly. I like reviews, and occasionally they help me make up my mind (not that often, though), but I think it's important that when something like this hits the light of day, that it gets thoroughly thrashed out so that others don't follow suit, or others doing the same thing stop it. If a company succeeds in such strong-arming, particularly in a brazen manner, it could give others the idea they can get away with it too, and begins to inure the public at large to the idea that such practices are OK. Which they aren't.

 

[Mistwell]

Again irrelevant. I don't run a movie or book review website. If I did, I'd take the same stance.

Am I to understand from this that you support the whole concept of reviewers only being allowed to give good reviews? It sounds like it.

Otherwise - what is your objection to my trying to avoid this situation creeping into this industry - more importantly my website - at least as far as I have the limited ability to do so?

[Edit - ah, you edited your post as I was typing this. I agree - it is news, and people should know about it.]

1) I was only responding to the "we will only give free copies of our products to people we think will give us good reviews" policy, not the "All of EnWorld is on our list of bad bad people" policy (both paraphrased, of course).
2) I applaud you making everyone aware of their new policy. It is news worthy of reporting.
3) I do in fact support the hypothetical concept of not giving away free copies of products to people who consistently give me bad reviews, if free copies is part of my PR strategy.
4) I do not support the contention that reviewers should only be allowed to give good reviews. But that was expressly NOT their point. Here is what they said: "A customer who has paid for the product has every right to complain as much as they want about the product, and its value. Someone who got it for free does not reserve such judgement.". That statement was coupled with a refusal to continue to send FREE products to reviewers who slam them. It isn't a prior restraint. In fact, it isn't a restraint at all. Its a refusal to send free products to people who slam them. That is not the same, at all, as not allowing reviewers to give bad reviews.