The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
[URL]http://uk.gamespot.com/news/6163151.html[/URL]
How to look utterly incompetent the Sony way.
How to look utterly incompetent the Sony way.
[URL]http://uk.gamespot.com/news/6163151.html[/URL]
How to look utterly incompetent the Sony way.
How to look utterly incompetent the Sony way.
Haha, even worse than a thousand retards looking up into the sky.
The real stupid people here are not Sony but the people creating such a fuss about this. I'd already seen the site before this "scandal" started. It was pointed out to me as a PSP marketing site. Even if I'd not got that large hint you'd have to be brain dead not to realise what it was from looking at it.
I've no doubt these people will soon be outraged to find that the things they show during commercial breaks on TV are adverts too.
I've no doubt these people will soon be outraged to find that the things they show during commercial breaks on TV are adverts too.
*Buzzer*
I linked to this because the article mentions all the previous marketing errors, this most recent one is simply the icing on the cake. This brings home just how dumb some people at/working for Sony are and really shines some light on how the PS3 has ended up the way it has.
However although this 'fake site' approach doesn't seem that bad it is when you consider that Sony films have been found have been marketed using faked quotes from non-existant critics. But then again, seeing how Sony have used FMV and shots of gameplay from PC versions to sell some shoddy Playstation games, it shouldn't surprise anyone.
It does however mean that when they are caught-out they will be made to pay dearly by all those who are sick to death of Sony's 'hype over substance' approach.
I linked to this because the article mentions all the previous marketing errors, this most recent one is simply the icing on the cake. This brings home just how dumb some people at/working for Sony are and really shines some light on how the PS3 has ended up the way it has.
However although this 'fake site' approach doesn't seem that bad it is when you consider that Sony films have been found have been marketed using faked quotes from non-existant critics. But then again, seeing how Sony have used FMV and shots of gameplay from PC versions to sell some shoddy Playstation games, it shouldn't surprise anyone.
It does however mean that when they are caught-out they will be made to pay dearly by all those who are sick to death of Sony's 'hype over substance' approach.
So what you're want to say is because Sony have made mistakes in the past we're allowed to "blame" them for engaging in practices that every other company in the world does. Viral marketing isnt illegal or immoral and neither is advertising in general. The vast majority of adverts you see are "fake" in that it creates some fictious event/scenario. This isnt any different no matter how many times people say "OMFG!!11 Sony Suxs!!!"
The real idiotic thing in this case is that people didnt recognize it as such and felt the need to "expose" Sony. Sorry, but that makes the people involved far more stupid than Sony in my opinion. :)
P.S. Having reread the article, I'm not sure any of the other marketing campaigns mentioned there qualify as mistakes either. :) Being seen to be controversial or "edgy" is necessarily a negative thing.
The real idiotic thing in this case is that people didnt recognize it as such and felt the need to "expose" Sony. Sorry, but that makes the people involved far more stupid than Sony in my opinion. :)
P.S. Having reread the article, I'm not sure any of the other marketing campaigns mentioned there qualify as mistakes either. :) Being seen to be controversial or "edgy" is necessarily a negative thing.
Garin wrote:
> So what you're want to say is because Sony have made mistakes in
> the past we're allowed to "blame" them for engaging in
> practices that every other company in the world does. Viral
> marketing isnt illegal or immoral and neither is advertising in
> general.
Ah yes, the concept of "freedom of speech". In short, uh 'yes' we are allowed to "'blame'" them. More rationally we are allowed to blame them more because of their track record: faking critic quotes is pretty low for instance.
There are honest approaches to marketing and then there are cunning tricks to drum up interest, these tricks are fine up to a point but when it comes down to faking a fansite: some may see that as a step or two too far. Beyond that it's simply another example to people of how Sony like to mis-lead people and it's that mis-leading (in any form) that various people find objectionable.
It's more of a problem for them now than in the past as now Sony are up against marketing-savvy companys (or at-least one that pays other marketing-savvy companies to get it right for them) who prefer to take an honest approach by showing in-game footage or to make it clear that the footage is not in-game (As in the GRAW advert) or to bridge the gap and say the advert was created using the game engine (Gear of War).
It's thess attempts at a more 'honest approach' that is causing Sony a few headaches with it's marketing runs.
The vast majority of adverts you see are
> "fake" in that it creates some fictious
> event/scenario. This isnt any different no matter how many
> times people say "OMFG!!11 Sony Suxs!!!"
But here you still conveniently over-look all the other points made and merely focus on the one described as 'the icing on the cake'.
The difference in this advert is that some saw it as an attempt to mis-lead people into thinking it was a genuine site and not just a 'humorous' site sanctioned by Sony themselves.
It's quite easy to see how those who've fallen for the spin before or simply disagree with the level marketing spin sony uses being rather angry about the mis-leading tactics being used.
This is not fake in the way a TV ad is fake, this was seen by some as a deliberate attempt to convince people the site was setup by gamers wanting to purchase a PSP.
>
> The real idiotic thing in this case is that people didnt
> recognize it as such and felt the need to "expose"
> Sony. Sorry, but that makes the people involved far more stupid
> than Sony in my opinion. :)
Except those people might be aware of how far Sony will go in faking things and may actually be out to stop Sony from getting away with any fake stuff if they can possibly help it.
>
> P.S. Having reread the article, I'm not sure any of the other
> marketing campaigns mentioned there qualify as mistakes either.
> :) Being seen to be controversial or "edgy" is
> necessarily a negative thing.
Well some are simply mistakes in 'common-sense'.
For example: perhaps if only gamers could have seen the white PSP ad it would have been fine, however as Joe Public saw it the predictable gut-reaction from those unaware of the product could have been seen from lightyears away.
> So what you're want to say is because Sony have made mistakes in
> the past we're allowed to "blame" them for engaging in
> practices that every other company in the world does. Viral
> marketing isnt illegal or immoral and neither is advertising in
> general.
Ah yes, the concept of "freedom of speech". In short, uh 'yes' we are allowed to "'blame'" them. More rationally we are allowed to blame them more because of their track record: faking critic quotes is pretty low for instance.
There are honest approaches to marketing and then there are cunning tricks to drum up interest, these tricks are fine up to a point but when it comes down to faking a fansite: some may see that as a step or two too far. Beyond that it's simply another example to people of how Sony like to mis-lead people and it's that mis-leading (in any form) that various people find objectionable.
It's more of a problem for them now than in the past as now Sony are up against marketing-savvy companys (or at-least one that pays other marketing-savvy companies to get it right for them) who prefer to take an honest approach by showing in-game footage or to make it clear that the footage is not in-game (As in the GRAW advert) or to bridge the gap and say the advert was created using the game engine (Gear of War).
It's thess attempts at a more 'honest approach' that is causing Sony a few headaches with it's marketing runs.
The vast majority of adverts you see are
> "fake" in that it creates some fictious
> event/scenario. This isnt any different no matter how many
> times people say "OMFG!!11 Sony Suxs!!!"
But here you still conveniently over-look all the other points made and merely focus on the one described as 'the icing on the cake'.
The difference in this advert is that some saw it as an attempt to mis-lead people into thinking it was a genuine site and not just a 'humorous' site sanctioned by Sony themselves.
It's quite easy to see how those who've fallen for the spin before or simply disagree with the level marketing spin sony uses being rather angry about the mis-leading tactics being used.
This is not fake in the way a TV ad is fake, this was seen by some as a deliberate attempt to convince people the site was setup by gamers wanting to purchase a PSP.
>
> The real idiotic thing in this case is that people didnt
> recognize it as such and felt the need to "expose"
> Sony. Sorry, but that makes the people involved far more stupid
> than Sony in my opinion. :)
Except those people might be aware of how far Sony will go in faking things and may actually be out to stop Sony from getting away with any fake stuff if they can possibly help it.
>
> P.S. Having reread the article, I'm not sure any of the other
> marketing campaigns mentioned there qualify as mistakes either.
> :) Being seen to be controversial or "edgy" is
> necessarily a negative thing.
Well some are simply mistakes in 'common-sense'.
For example: perhaps if only gamers could have seen the white PSP ad it would have been fine, however as Joe Public saw it the predictable gut-reaction from those unaware of the product could have been seen from lightyears away.
There's good Viral campaigns and then there's "YO YO BIATCHES, CHECK OUT DIZ L33t PSP, CRAZY SKILLZ ON TEH ONEZ AND TWOZ DOWN WIT TEH KIDZ YO!"
Hedfix wrote:
> But here you still conveniently over-look all the other points
> made and merely focus on the one described as 'the icing on the
> cake'.
I'm not conveniently overlooking anything. Why should I respond to a point I never addressed in the first place. I only ever commented about the PSP fan site. Quite why I should factor in what a different division of Sony did some years ago I'll never know.
I'm a firm believer in pulling up people/companies for things they've done wrong. What I'm not interested is this kind of witch-hunt where everything that happens has to have a negative spin put on it. Having read the original thread on the somethingawful forums, theres no way you can claim people were acting out of some altruistic motive to protect innocents who thought it might be a real site. They wanted to have a go at Sony and found an excuse. And as I said, if they really did believe it was a real fan site, they're not too bright in my opinion. :)
> But here you still conveniently over-look all the other points
> made and merely focus on the one described as 'the icing on the
> cake'.
I'm not conveniently overlooking anything. Why should I respond to a point I never addressed in the first place. I only ever commented about the PSP fan site. Quite why I should factor in what a different division of Sony did some years ago I'll never know.
I'm a firm believer in pulling up people/companies for things they've done wrong. What I'm not interested is this kind of witch-hunt where everything that happens has to have a negative spin put on it. Having read the original thread on the somethingawful forums, theres no way you can claim people were acting out of some altruistic motive to protect innocents who thought it might be a real site. They wanted to have a go at Sony and found an excuse. And as I said, if they really did believe it was a real fan site, they're not too bright in my opinion. :)
*Shrugs*
I've already explained everything in my post below.
I've already explained everything in my post below.