Ethics: Advertising on Delphi Forums

[CraigSca]

On the Delphi Forums, I am a basic member, so I am unable to read the forums without advertising between each response in a particular thread. Among the forums I regularly check, I'm a big fan of the Tabletop Sports forum. Making the regular rotation of advertisements I see is the following:

	Ads by Google
	Out of the Park There's Nothing Better than PureSim Play Any Team from 1900 to 2005! www.MatrixGames.com

Does anyone else see a potential issue here?

[QuikSand]

As I recall, this isn't the first time that this little niche has seen this sort of thing. I honestly can't recall who has done what to whom... but I'm sure it will come along. (Wasn't there a phony press release floated about an OOTP release being delayed or canceled?)

[vtbub]

It's all about buying the keywords to get your product out there. Yeah, I think it's in the grey area, but eBay does it for everything.

[Shaun Sullivan]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

On the Delphi Forums, I am a basic member, so I am unable to read the forums without advertising between each response in a particular thread. Among the forums I regularly check, I'm a big fan of the Tabletop Sports forum. Making the regular rotation of advertisements I see is the following:



Does anyone else see a potential issue here?

In case anyone cares, I have nothing to do with this or any of the PureSim advertising done by Matrix. I don't think it's awful, but it is a gray area. That said, the other day I was searching for PureSim on www.download.com and low and behold OOTP uses PureSim in it's search keywords, so it shows up when I search for PureSim

I guess everyone is doing it.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Shaun Sullivan

In case anyone cares, I have nothing to do with this or any of the PureSim advertising done by Matrix. I don't think it's awful, but it is a gray area. That said, the other day I was searching for PureSim on www.download.com and low and behold OOTP uses PureSim in it's search keywords, so it shows up when I search for PureSim

I guess everyone is doing it.

FWIW, I'm VERY DISAPPOINTED to see that response.

Using search keywords is one thing. I don't think OOTP using PureSim as a key word is wrong nor vice versa. I don't think there is a problem with Coca-Cola and Pepsi doing the same thing -- what you're essentially doing is looking for customers who are interested in a similar product. Is it slimy? Yes, but it's not deceptive.

The example above is EXTREMELY deceptive. If I search "PureSim" on Download.com, I see a link clearly labeled PureSim, and it's a link for PureSim. I see a link labeled Out of the Park and it's a link for OOTP. Certainly it rides on the PureSim coattails by coming up on the search result, but at no time am I confused as to what I'm clicking on and what I should get.

That is NOT way CraigSca is citing. What Craig is showing is that the ad itself says "Out of the Park." I would conclude based on that ad that Out of the Park is a MatrixGames product and that following the link will take me to Out of the Park. It does not. This is almost classic bait and switch. The purpose of that ad is to make people think they are getting OOTP and giving them PureSim. That is dishonest at best, immoral at least and illegal at worst.

I wouldn't expect any differently from MatrixGames because they have demonstrated their character repeatedly in the past in terms of sports sims and I think their reputation is cemented. If you choose to affiliate with an operation like that, it's your choice.

I also completely recognize that you have no control over their advertising. What would have been the responsible thing to do is request that Matrix change the ad to read PureSim, not Out of the Park and tell them you won't do business with them in the future if they persist associating your product with deceptive advertising.

I read your response as condoning that type of advertising practice. If that is the case, I think that is sad and disappointing. It also makes me want to never purchase one of your products and recommond to others not to purchase your products.

You have to do what you think is best. But I wouldn't expect continued support from this community if that's what you think is best.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

The example above is EXTREMELY deceptive. If I search "PureSim" on Download.com, I see a link clearly labeled PureSim, and it's a link for PureSim. I see a link labeled Out of the Park Baseball and it's a link for OOTP. Certainly it rides on the PureSim coattails by coming up on the search result, but at no time am I confused as to what I'm clicking on and what I should get.

If a person is looking for "Out of the Park Baseball" and sees a link for "PureSim", and thinks that the two games are the same, it's THE CUSTOMER'S FAULT, not the company distributing the game, and certainly not the person creating the game (who had nothing to do how it's advertised). It's like if someone searches for Coke and sees Pepsi, orders it thinking it's Coke. Is it Pepsi's fault? No. It's the customer's, for being too damn dumb to understand or even ATTEMPT to understand the difference between the two games.

That is NOT way CraigSca is citing. What Craig is showing is that the ad itself says "Out of the Park Baseball." I would conclude based on that ad that Out of the Park is a MatrixGames product and that following the link will take me to Out of the Park.

And you would be wrong, and an examination of the games would show that you would be wrong. If you're ordering the game without understanding what you're ordering, it's still your fault.

It does not. This is almost classic bait and switch. The purpose of that ad is to make people think they are getting OOTP and giving them PureSim. That is dishonest at best, immoral at least and illegal at worst.

I disagree. It's none of the above.

I wouldn't expect any differently from MatrixGames because they have demonstrated their character repeatedly in the past in terms of sports sims and I think their reputation is cemented. If you choose to affiliate with an operation like that, it's your choice.

Ah, here's the gyst of your post, KChief ... allow me to paraphrase: "I don't like Matrix Games, so I'm gonna rag on Shaun for associating for a company I don't like, and then come up with nonsensical reasons for doing so"

You have to do what you think is best. But I wouldn't expect continued support from this community if that's what you think is best.

Speak for yourself. I think this community will support a good game regardless of who distributes it.

[gstelmack]

Isn't there a trademark thing or something here? I mean, if McDonald's used a tagline "The King of Burgers", do you think they wouldn't be in court over it?

[st.cronin]

*yawn*

[kingfc22]

Need more Maximim Football

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

If a person is looking for "Out of the Park Baseball" and sees a link for "PureSim", and thinks that the two games are the same, it's THE CUSTOMER'S FAULT, not the company distributing the game, and certainly not the person creating the game (who had nothing to do how it's advertised). It's like if someone searches for Coke and sees Pepsi, orders it thinking it's Coke. Is it Pepsi's fault? No. It's the customer's, for being too damn dumb to understand or even ATTEMPT to understand the difference between the two games.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't understand CraigSca's post and haven't seen the ad. I didn't understand Craig's post either and went to the Delph forums. What you said above DOES NOT match this instance whatsoever, unfortunately.

The link DOES NOT say PureSim -- it says "Out of the Park" in big bold letters The text is hyperlinked to the Matrix Web site with the page for PureSim. If you click on a link that says "Out of the Park," I think you should reasonably expect that it will link to Out of the Park Baseball.

You're extension of my analogy completely misses what is happening here. It is not someone searching for Coke, seeing Pepsi and ordering it think it's Coke. It's someone searching for Coke, seeing Coke and getting directed to Pepsi.

Just out of curiousity, what would you say about an ad that looked like this?

Front Office Football: The College Years There is nothing like NCAA Football 2007
EA Sports

If you think that's acceptable behavior, you and I have two completely different value systems. To each his own.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Ah, here's the gyst of your post, KChief ... allow me to paraphrase: "I don't like Matrix Games, so I'm gonna rag on Shaun for associating for a company I don't like, and then come up with nonsensical reasons for doing so"

And for the record, no I won't allow you to paraphrase because you have completely missed the point. This type of characterization and remak is not consistent with your usual positive and strong contributions here. Please don't misuse my words and attribute misleading accusations against me.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

FWIW, I'm VERY DISAPPOINTED to see that response.

Using search keywords is one thing. I don't think OOTP using PureSim as a key word is wrong nor vice versa. I don't think there is a problem with Coca-Cola and Pepsi doing the same thing -- what you're essentially doing is looking for customers who are interested in a similar product. Is it slimy? Yes, but it's not deceptive.

The example above is EXTREMELY deceptive. If I search "PureSim" on Download.com, I see a link clearly labeled PureSim, and it's a link for PureSim. I see a link labeled Out of the Park Baseball and it's a link for OOTP. Certainly it rides on the PureSim coattails by coming up on the search result, but at no time am I confused as to what I'm clicking on and what I should get.

That is NOT way CraigSca is citing. What Craig is showing is that the ad itself says "Out of the Park Baseball." I would conclude based on that ad that Out of the Park is a MatrixGames product and that following the link will take me to Out of the Park. It does not. This is almost classic bait and switch. The purpose of that ad is to make people think they are getting OOTP and giving them PureSim. That is dishonest at best, immoral at least and illegal at worst.

I wouldn't expect any differently from MatrixGames because they have demonstrated their character repeatedly in the past in terms of sports sims and I think their reputation is cemented. If you choose to affiliate with an operation like that, it's your choice.

I also completely recognize that you have no control over their advertising. What would have been the responsible thing to do is request that Matrix change the ad to read PureSim, not Out of the Park and tell them you won't do business with them in the future if they persist associating your product with deceptive advertising.

I read your response as condoning that type of advertising practice. If that is the case, I think that is sad and disappointing. It also makes me want to never purchase one of your products and recommond to others not to purchase your products.

You have to do what you think is best. But I wouldn't expect continued support from this community if that's what you think is best.

I agree with kcchief19, highly deceptive and a company I would shy away from doing any business with.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

The link DOES NOT say PureSim -- it says "Out of the Park Baseball" in big bold letters The text is hyperlinked to the Matrix Web site with the page for PureSim. If you click on a link that says "Out of the Park Baseball," I think you should reasonably expect that it will link to Out of the Park Baseball.

You're extension of my analogy completely misses what is happening here. It is not someone searching for Coke, seeing Pepsi and ordering it think it's Coke. It's someone searching for Coke, seeing Coke and getting directed to Pepsi.

Just out of curiousity, what would you say about an ad that looked like this?

Front Office Football: The College Years There is nothing like NCAA Football 2007
EA Sports

If you think that's acceptable behavior, you and I have two completely different value systems. To each his own.

Would I think that NCAA Football 2007 was the same as FOF: TCY? Assuming I wasn't already aware of FOF products, no I would automatically buy it. I would do a search for FOF and be able to see they're not the same game.

If the titles were the same, then yeah, I see your point, but the game names aren't the same, so I wouldn't blindly assume that the games were the same. That's my point -- too much people aren't smart enough to do research before they buy a product, then get mad when what they thought they bought isn't what they did. People need to shoulder much of the responsibility.

Would I do it if I owned a computer game company? No. Is it done commonly? Yes.

Most importantly, would I blame the game creator for someone clearly not within his control? Absolutely not.

And for the record, no I won't allow you to paraphrase because you have completely missed the point. This type of characterization and remak is not consistent with your usual positive and strong contributions here. Please don't misuse my words and attribute misleading accusations against me.

You're right, my words were a little strong, so I apologize. However, what would a typical reaction be if I did, say, a review of FOF 07 and lead with the words "I hate Jim Gindin, but here's my review of FOF 07". People would tend to disregard the review not because of it's validity, but because there's an inherant bias already admitted.

My point is saying "Matrix has a bad rep" then launching into a argument against how they advertise negatively affects the statement.

I appreciate the "strong and positive contributions" comment, though. :-)

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

That is NOT way CraigSca is citing. What Craig is showing is that the ad itself says "Out of the Park Baseball."

Originally Posted by kcchief19

The link DOES NOT say PureSim -- it says "Out of the Park Baseball" in big bold letters The text is hyperlinked to the Matrix Web site with the page for PureSim. If you click on a link that says "Out of the Park Baseball," I think you should reasonably expect that it will link to Out of the Park Baseball.

I am not entirely certain how big a difference this is, but I think it's woerh interjecting here...

Originally Posted by CraigSca

...but assuming Craig's post above is a faithful reproduction of the original, then what is actually says is "Out of the Park." While the fact that you are apparently reading the word "Baseball" after iot is perhaps evidence that their tactic is working as intended... they didn't actually use the entire name of the competing product. In another setting, someone might lead off an advertisement for something like a baseball training video with a phrase like "Out of the Park!" or "It's a Home Run!" as an apropos exclamation for something excellent.

I still think it's deceptive, and I absolutely think it's deliberate, but they didn't use the actual trademarked name of the competition. FWIW

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

FWIW, I'm VERY DISAPPOINTED to see that response...The example above is EXTREMELY deceptive.

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

...and thinks that the two games are the same, it's THE CUSTOMER'S FAULT

Lighten up, Francis..es

[Shaun Sullivan]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

FWIW, I'm VERY DISAPPOINTED to see that response.

I read your response as condoning that type of advertising practice. If that is the case, I think that is sad and disappointing. It also makes me want to never purchase one of your products and recommond to others not to purchase your products.

You have to do what you think is best. But I wouldn't expect continued support from this community if that's what you think is best.

Yikes. I knew I shouldn't have chimed in Believe me, I am not as evil as you seem to think I am. Really, that's a pretty harsh response, and I don't think I deserved it.

I really don't think consumers would be duped into buying PureSim if they were actively seeking out OOTP and happened to see this passive ad on a forum.

Really, why is that any different than a company associating its product with a keyword of "PureSim" when the word "PureSim" has nothing to do with Baseball, or their product, rather, it's simply the name of a competing product? What you are saying is it's ok for a consumer to go actively look for a PureSim download by entering "PureSim" into their search box and then be presented with OOTP as well, but it's not OK for a passive ad that has the words "out of the park" (not "Out of the Park Baseball" BTW) and then clearly mentions "PureSim" and presents a link to Matrix Games?

I really think they are both in the same category, and it's just semantics.

It seems to me that you already had some sort of axe to grind with Matrix, and I am incurring the brunt of your anger. If I came off as flippant, I apologize, I just don't think this is all as serious as you and Craig seem to think it is. This stuff goes on all the time.

At the very least, let's respectfully disagree on this one (I can certainly understand your side of this if I put myself in your shoes). But, please don't hang such a negative label on me, it's not fair -- I had nothing to do with creating that ad in the first place.

Shaun

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

FWIW, I'm VERY DISAPPOINTED to see that response.

Using search keywords is one thing. I don't think OOTP using PureSim as a key word is wrong nor vice versa. I don't think there is a problem with Coca-Cola and Pepsi doing the same thing -- what you're essentially doing is looking for customers who are interested in a similar product. Is it slimy? Yes, but it's not deceptive.

The example above is EXTREMELY deceptive. If I search "PureSim" on Download.com, I see a link clearly labeled PureSim, and it's a link for PureSim. I see a link labeled Out of the Park Baseball and it's a link for OOTP. Certainly it rides on the PureSim coattails by coming up on the search result, but at no time am I confused as to what I'm clicking on and what I should get.

That is NOT way CraigSca is citing. What Craig is showing is that the ad itself says "Out of the Park Baseball." I would conclude based on that ad that Out of the Park is a MatrixGames product and that following the link will take me to Out of the Park. It does not. This is almost classic bait and switch. The purpose of that ad is to make people think they are getting OOTP and giving them PureSim. That is dishonest at best, immoral at least and illegal at worst.

I wouldn't expect any differently from MatrixGames because they have demonstrated their character repeatedly in the past in terms of sports sims and I think their reputation is cemented. If you choose to affiliate with an operation like that, it's your choice.

I also completely recognize that you have no control over their advertising. What would have been the responsible thing to do is request that Matrix change the ad to read PureSim, not Out of the Park and tell them you won't do business with them in the future if they persist associating your product with deceptive advertising.

I read your response as condoning that type of advertising practice. If that is the case, I think that is sad and disappointing. It also makes me want to never purchase one of your products and recommond to others not to purchase your products.

You have to do what you think is best. But I wouldn't expect continued support from this community if that's what you think is best.

Well said. This just cements my attitude towards Matrix Games and all of their products.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by Shaun Sullivan

I guess everyone is doing it.

I have never seen Solecismic do this sort of thing. I've never seen Wolverine Studios, or Brian do this when he was independent. I don't remember Grey Dog doing this.

[lighthousekeeper]

[what makes good business sense] :not equal: [what messageboard dorks like]

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

[what makes good business sense] :not equal: [what messageboard dorks like]

That about covers my take too.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

...but assuming Craig's post above is a faithful reproduction of the original, then what is actually says is "Out of the Park." While the fact that you are apparently reading the word "Baseball" after iot is perhaps evidence that their tactic is working as intended... they didn't actually use the entire name of the competing product. In another setting, someone might lead off an advertisement for something like a baseball training video with a phrase like "Out of the Park!" or "It's a Home Run!" as an apropos exclamation for something excellent.

I will gladly admit to being stupid and acknowledging that their advertising practice is working as intended, as deceptive as it may be. You are absolutely correct -- the word baseball is missing. I apologize for stating that the word was there.

I still believe it's intentionally deceptive and unethical. Reiterrating what I said before, I don't have a problem with someone using search words to reach consumers who are interested in a similar product. I think it's unethical to trick people to assuming there is a connection between your product and someone else's product.

Originally Posted by Shaun Sullivan

Yikes. I knew I shouldn't have chimed in Believe me, I am not as evil as you seem to think I am. Really, that's a pretty harsh response, and I don't think I deserved it.
...
It seems to me that you already had some sort of axe to grind with Matrix, and I am incurring the brunt of your anger. If I came off as flippant, I apologize, I just don't think this is all as serious as you and Craig seem to think it is. This stuff goes on all the time.

At the very least, let's respectfully disagree on this one (I can certainly understand your side of this if I put myself in your shoes). But, please don't hang such a negative label on me, it's not fair -- I had nothing to do with creating that ad in the first place.

Shaun

Shaun, I don't believe your are evil, and I never said you were. In fact, the reason why this disappointed me so much is that I do respect you and thought you were above this kind of practice.

Unfortunately, the fact that you say "this stuff goes on all the time" as a justification for doing it is very disappointing. Lot of people do things that are unethical, but that doesn't make it right.

You respectfully disagree and that's fine. You're entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine. I have no "axe to grind" with Matrix. I have never purchased one of their products. However, if you were to do a poll of this forum I think you would find the view of Matrix Games to be extremely low due to their involvement with a game that has a very bad reputation. When I made the comment about Matrix Games, it was because I have a very low opinion of the company based on what I have seen and read in relation to another game.

In short, I'm not directing any anger at Matrix Games toward you. I am completely indifferent toward Matrix Games. I doubt I would ever buy one of their games because of the low regard in which they are held in this community.

Unfortunately, when you associate yourself with a company you share one another's reputations, both good and bad. To some people this means nothing -- if I like Madden, what do I care if EA relaces a buggy basketball game? To others this means everything -- I have no doubt that there are people on this forum that still hold EA in low regard for their handling of FOF. You take the good, you take the bad.

You say you don't have any control over how Matrix advertises your games, but the fact is you do. You can tell Matrix you don't like the ad and ask them to change it. You can use the way they advertise your game as a factor in evaluating your future relationship with them.

Shaun, frankly I think this reflects more on Matrix Games than you. As EF27 said, it cements their reputation with many of us. The involvement of someone with you outstanding reputation with Matrix actually reflected positively on Matrix. It made me think that maybe it wasn't the company, but just one bad developer, on bad product and a handful of cranky administrators on their Web site.

Regardless, my comments were not intended as a ripping or disrespect of you, and if it came across that way I apologize. I also apologize for my viewing error -- my mind read the word "Baseball" in the ad; although I contend that was exactly what the ad intended to happen.

My comments were more of an open letter to you stating how I felt about a company that used what I viewed as unethical advertising and how I felt about that as a consumer. I doubt that I'm the only potential consumer for PureSim games that feels that way, and I thought it was worthwhile to share my thoughts. If my thoughts were viewed as disrespectful, I'll be glad to correspond with you in a less public way. I just don't think you want to be surprised if some customers view you differently because you seem to be condoning what some of view as an unethical advertising approach.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

[what makes good business sense] :not equal: [what messageboard dorks like]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

That about covers my take too.

Bingo. Google ads do this kind of thing all the time. You can search on a certain product, and get ads suggesting a competitor. Heck, it even happens in gMail... I'll get a message mentioning an Intel chipset, and see an ad at the top of the window for an nVidia motherboard.

It's just a smart way for a smaller company to let folks interested in their particular market that they offer a competing product that might be worth taking a look at.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Shaun Sullivan

But, please don't hang such a negative label on me, it's not fair -- I had nothing to do with creating that ad in the first place.

I don't really have terribly strong opinions about this particular promotion tactic, and I'm inclined to agree with those saying that this is probably good business, regardless of some people getting a negative impression. But I don't think you (or anyone similarly situated) can have it both ways. If you choose to work with them to promote your product, then you are appropriately accountable for their efforts. If you really disapprove of how they do what they do, then you sever the relationship.

The company you keep says plenty about you, like it or not.

[CraigSca]

FWIW: People asked if this was an accurate representation of the real advertisement. Between messages there were three advertisements and that was the first one, and it was a direct copy/paste.

FWIW2: I have both products - PureSim and OOTP. I haven't seen OOTP do it, but I wouldn't bet my life savings that this isn't occuring in both directions. Still, this was the first time I had seen it in a forum I read quite often. Personally, I think this is ethically a bad move.

We can talk business all day - a good BUSINESS tactic would be to plant some salmonella in your competitior's restaurant, but that doesn't make it ethical.

[Shaun Sullivan]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I don't really have terribly strong opinions about this particular promotion tactic, and I'm inclined to agree with those saying that this is probably good business, regardless of some people getting a negative impression. But I don't think you (or anyone similarly situated) can have it both ways. If you choose to work with them to promote your product, then you are appropriately accountable for their efforts. If you really disapprove of how they do what they do, then you sever the relationship.

The company you keep says plenty about you, like it or not.

Ask anyone in this industry that has EVER dealt with me (Gary, Arlie, Jim, Clay, Markus, or any customer for that matter) whether I am an ethical, professional member of the community. I'm pretty sure what their answer would be.

If you or any of the others on this board choose to judge me based on anything besides my own actions, then so be it. Walk a mile in my shoes guys.

The irony is, a disturbing number of the posters here like flame wars and publicly humiliating people a lot more than discussing the genre anyway. Just have a look at the content of the longest most "popular" threads --they usually involve publicly mocking or skewering somebody mercilessly.

Of course many of these same folks feel they are also equipped to give me lessons on what is ethical, and tell me how "sad" I am. Some of you should consider having a look in the mirror.

I'm tired of the crap I get here, so I should probably consider moving on.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Shaun Sullivan

Ask anyone in this industry that has EVER dealt with me (Gary, Arlie, Jim, Clay, Markus, or any customer for that matter) whether I am an ethical, professional member of the community. I'm pretty sure what their answer would be.

If you or any of the others on this board choose to judge me based on anything besides my own actions, then so be it. Walk a mile in my shoes guys.

The irony is, a disturbing number of the posters here like flame wars and publicly humiliating people a lot more than discussing the genre anyway. Just have a look at the content of the longest most "popular" threads --they usually involve publicly mocking or skewering somebody mercilessly.

Of course many of these same folks feel they are also equipped to give me lessons on what is ethical, and tell me how "sad" I am. Some of you should consider having a look in the mirror.

I'm tired of the crap I get here, so I should probably consider moving on.

take it easy beavis

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Shaun Sullivan

Ask anyone in this industry that has EVER dealt with me (Gary, Arlie, Jim, Clay, Markus, or any customer for that matter) whether I am an ethical, professional member of the community. I'm pretty sure what their answer would be.

If you or any of the others on this board choose to judge me based on anything besides my own actions, then so be it. Walk a mile in my shoes guys.

The irony is, a disturbing number of the posters here like flame wars and publicly humiliating people a lot more than discussing the genre anyway. Just have a look at the content of the longest most "popular" threads --they usually involve publicly mocking or skewering somebody mercilessly.

Of course many of these same folks feel they are also equipped to give me lessons on what is ethical, and tell me how "sad" I am. Some of you should consider having a look in the mirror.

I'm tired of the crap I get here, so I should probably consider moving on.

Sorry that my post so obviously got to you. I deliberately tried to make it clear that I really don't even see this particular marketing thing as a big deal.

Regardless, if your view of this is basically "hey, my marketers did it, it has nothing to do with me," then I'll still believe that you are missing a broader point. If you can't separate that pretty specific observation (or criticism, if you prefer) from "crap" and "skewering" then I guess I'll go back to your earlier suggestion, and simply agree to disagree, just on somewhat different matters.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Bearing in mind that I don't really see these particular ads as anything other than the business of doing business, the fact that you just took aim & shot yourself in the foot with this post prolly ain't a good sign.

Originally Posted by Shaun Sullivan

If you or any of the others on this board choose to judge me based on anything besides my own actions, then so be it. Walk a mile in my shoes guys.

Everybody, designer to pro athlete to kindergarten teacher, is subject to being known by the company they keep. Deal with it, you don't get a free pass just because you're a game designer.

The irony is, a disturbing number of the posters here like flame wars and publicly humiliating people a lot more than discussing the genre anyway. Just have a look at the content of the longest most "popular" threads --they usually involve publicly mocking or skewering somebody mercilessly.

Damn, if I didn't think it was so absurd, I'd almost believe you were somehow taking up for the debacle that was Maxmium Foobtall. But there's no logical reason that you would do that, I mean, it's not like you have some connec ... oh ... wait a minute.

Putting yourself in the position of defending dogs like Matrix probably isn't the best move you could make. The support and sales that you've gotten from here are in spite of them, not because of them. Defend them at your own risk.

I'm tired of the crap I get here, so I should probably consider moving on.

??? If you think you've gotten any significant amount of undue crap here over time, then you probably should. And you probably ought to do it with great haste, because you're damned sure too sensitive to deal with reality.

If you think you've "gotten crap" here, then buddy boy I would strongly recommend that you take some time & get a firmer grip on reality and your place in it. You ain't gonna get your ass kissed here just because you're a friggin designer. Here's a newsflash for you: these games that we all play? They ain't the cure for cancer. Nor even bad breath. They're diversions. And in the grand scheme of life, that's all they are. And making them does not get you some free pass on honesty. Nor on being fair game for discussion.

"the crap you get here"? Good God Almighty, even though I don't see a real problem with the ads that started this thread, I can at least understand why some would at least mark them as questionable. And if you think that's more crap than you deserve, then by all means, hit the fucking road.

Once again, I'm reminded of why I wish most developers would just stay the fuck off the internet. I'm not sure whether you just came across as a whiny little bitch or an unjustifiably arrogant prick, or maybe parts of both but either way, thanks a whole friggin lot for making me regret ever buying your damned game. And right now, I'd really like to attach it to the end of my foot & shove it up your ass.

[rkmsuf]

lol, that was great

[heybrad]

Wow... talk about an over reaction to an over reaction to an over reaction!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by heybrad

Wow... talk about an over reaction to an over reaction to an over reaction!

Sorry Brad, but my annual quota of patience for whiny bitches has been used up. My warehouse is also completely out of tolerance for game designers who act like they're God's gift to the world and should be treated with kid gloves since they're so special.

I'm not expecting a resupply of either commodity until sometime after the first of the year, and even then, supplies are expected to be limited & delays in shipping should be anticipated.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

My warehouse is also completely out of tolerance for game designers who act like they're God's gift to the world and should be treated with kid gloves since they're so special.

While I agree that most game developers have a prima donna attitude in this regard, I don't think Shaun is one of them. I think he's just a little pissed at the notion of being called a sneaky bastard when that's clearly not what he is.

Vote with your wallets, fellas. In my experience, PureSim was a better buy for the money this year than OOTP. As for the google ads, well, why don't you all go rage against the Malt-O-Meal cereal aisle the next time you're at Safeway:



You guys act like nobody's ever used imitation in marketing before.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

While I agree that most game developers have a prima donna attitude in this regard, I don't think Shaun is one of them.

His last post in this thread strongly suggests otherwise.

Somewhat surprising, and at least mildly disappointing ... but it was what it was.

And, insane though it may have been, it read pretty clearly as a much larger gripe than about just this incident, which revealed a lot more about his attitude than I suspect he intended. But he'll play hell putting that genie back in the bottle.

[Shaun Sullivan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'm not sure whether you just came across as a whiny little bitch or an unjustifiably arrogant prick, or maybe parts of both but either way, thanks a whole friggin lot for making me regret ever buying your damned game. And right now, I'd really like to attach it to the end of my foot & shove it up your ass.

Did you get the boxed copy or just the download? I'm trying to figure out how much lubrication I should use

[Toddzilla]

Wow - a lot of panties sure got bunched in this thread. Good thing I go commando....

[SirFozzie]

Woah.. thread goes humming along nicely, accelerates to about 110.. and then Shaun with the comment that throws the whole thread into a bootleger's reverse.

*laughs*

Personally, I'm not enamored of the Delphi ad, but it is a part of advertising, sadly.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Shaun Sullivan

Did you get the boxed copy or just the download? I'm trying to figure out how much lubrication I should use

well said Shaun.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Sorry Brad, but my annual quota of patience for whiny bitches has been used up. My warehouse is also completely out of tolerance for game designers who act like they're God's gift to the world and should be treated with kid gloves since they're so special.

I'm not expecting a resupply of either commodity until sometime after the first of the year, and even then, supplies are expected to be limited & delays in shipping should be anticipated.

Normally I agree with you on alot of things, but I don't think Shaun has acted like a Prima-Donna in this or any of his prior posts. He's simply reacting to what he saw as a slight on him personally, which is much the same reaction that many of us would have.

I do agree with him in the fact that developers get treated VERY poorly on this board in general, and that's shouldn't be the kind of impression we as a community should be giving.

[Antmeister]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

While I agree that most game developers have a prima donna attitude in this regard, I don't think Shaun is one of them. I think he's just a little pissed at the notion of being called a sneaky bastard when that's clearly not what he is...

The problem is that no one called him a sneaky bastard. Heck, no one even inferred that he was sneaky bastard. The way I read some people believe that Matrix Games is using an unethical tactic and because is associated with them, they believe he should say something about it. Why did this blow up into this?

It seems to me that people were more concerned about Shaun's association with Matrix because they believe it could hurt him in the future. I didn't see this as attack on Shaun whatsoever since he had nothing to do with the ad.

All kcchief19 said was that he was disappointed by the response because he had hoped that Shaun would say something about it. He didn't say that Shaun is a rat bastard because he placed the ad.

And all QuikSand was saying is that the actions of the publisher can be intervened with since it is Shaun's product. Again, he didn't call him a rat bastard either.

Overall, the ad doesn't bother me all too much since you don't find the ad when googling for "Out of the Park" or "Out of the Park Baseball" which is usually how most people search for these things anyway. I do find it somewhat deceptive however since the actual hyperlink doesn't reflect the actual name of the product. But then again this is just an opinion. I just hope no one cries bloody murder if you see something like:

Pure Sim: Pure baseball simulation excitement with Out of the Park Baseball.

[Antmeister]

Originally Posted by Shaun Sullivan

Did you get the boxed copy or just the download? I'm trying to figure out how much lubrication I should use

Ok I love this quote. I wish we had quote of the moment. This is ridiculous.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

I do agree with him in the fact that developers get treated VERY poorly on this board in general ...

Well, at least we've identified the source of our general disagreement.

I feel like the opposite is much closer to the truth, that many more are given the benefit of too many doubts instead of being roughed up unfairly.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Well, at least we've identified the source of our general disagreement.

I feel like the opposite is much closer to the truth, that many more are given the benefit of too many doubts instead of being roughed up unfairly.

did you mean to say "roughed up fairly" ?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

did you mean to say "roughed up fairly" ?

Nope. Read it again, I think it reads like I meant to say it.

Overall, I find the notion that developers are somehow given a hard time here unfairly to be utterly mindboggling, when if anything I'd say they get off lightly on the whole.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I feel like the opposite is much closer to the truth, that many more are given the benefit of too many doubts instead of being roughed up unfairly.

nice to see that there's still one guy out there willing to fix this horrible injustice.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Well, at least we've identified the source of our general disagreement.

I feel like the opposite is much closer to the truth, that many more are given the benefit of too many doubts instead of being roughed up unfairly.

I remember the times people in this forum bashed Gary Gorski for posting his opinion on political topics, saying developers shouldn't be doing that. Or the vicious beating David Winters got for Maximum Football (and ANY developer who tries to make a game should be saluted for the attempt, successful or not. No one deserved the kind of bashing Winters got, regardless of the product they put out). I feel they're put to a sorta double standard in many cases in this forum.

I think most of us want developers to post here, so we should show them a little respect when they do.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

The times I remember if people in this forum bashing Gary Gorski for posting his opinion on political topics, saying developers shouldn't be doing that. Or the vicious beating David Winters got for Maximum Football (and ANY developer who tries to make a game should be saluted for the attempt, successful or not. No one deserved the kind of bashing Winters got, regardless of the product they put out). I feel they're put to a sorta double standard in many cases in this forum.

I think most of us want developers to post here, so we should show them a little respect when they do.

i think that's true, but i think there is a thin line between "respect" and "giving a free pass" and "kissing-ass".

i think we should certainly want developers to post here, and keep us informed, and use this community to draw beta-testers and suggestions/etc. from. and that means respecting them. i don't think we need to resort to attacking them, but i don't feel we should be obsequious in our praise.

then again i suspect that there is likely to be a divide on this, with some people (who may not use this board as much for gaming-related things) saying "who gives a rat's ass if developers post here or not," while others who still value this community for the gaming knowledge saying "we want developers to feel welcome."

so it's really a question of what kind of a community we want to be.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by Antmeister

Pure Sim: Pure baseball simulation excitement with Out of the Park Baseball.

Well, that's not exactly fair. Sure, they're both registered trademarks for specific computer baseball games, but one is a common phrase used in baseball, and one is clearly a product name. This may be splitting hairs, but IMO, your example is 100x more egregious than the existing PureSim ad.

[BrianD]

I don't think anyone has said that developers shouldn't post here. We've just had a few people say that they will let personal feeling about the developers shape their buying decisions.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

I remember the times people in this forum bashed Gary Gorski for posting his opinion on political topics, saying developers shouldn't be doing that. Or the vicious beating David Winters got for Maximum Football (and ANY developer who tries to make a game should be saluted for the attempt, successful or not. No one deserved the kind of bashing Winters got, regardless of the product they put out). I feel they're put to a sorta double standard in many cases in this forum.

I think most of us want developers to post here, so we should show them a little respect when they do.

???

David Winters deserves 10x the beatings he got.. Yes, an A for effort, surely. But an F minus minus MINUS for result. Combined with stringing folks along for years, and the public relations nightmare that was his wife stepping in and for a while going along with the "FOF Peepul Hate Maximum Football because it's better then their shitty text sim" crowd over there.

I mean, when a publisher says they don't know how the game sold as many as they did (I talked with the Matrix guys at GenCon)....

[Antmeister]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

Well, that's not exactly fair. Sure, they're both registered trademarks for specific computer baseball games, but one is a common phrase used in baseball, and one is clearly a product name. This may be splitting hairs, but IMO, your example is 100x more egregious than the existing PureSim ad.

Hey now Mr. Zilla, I just said Pure Sim, not PureSim. Plus I didn't use Baseball. Any text simulation can be called a pure sim. Couldn't it? I know I am just playing with words, but that is exactly the explanation I see for the example above. In other words, if someone had the same intent, the area wouldn't be so gray to most people.