Options

EA Mails Game Journalists 200 dollar checks

24

Posts

  • Options
    vagrant_windsvagrant_winds Overworked Mysterious Eldritch Horror Hunter XX Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Okay, so I withdraw my comments with it being a fake check. It's good marketing. If it was real, it would just be straight up shameless bribery.

    vagrant_winds on
    // Steam: VWinds // PSN: vagrant_winds //
    // Switch: SW-5306-0651-6424 //
  • Options
    darleysamdarleysam On my way to UKRegistered User regular
    edited September 2009
    subedii wrote: »
    Zerokku wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure it was already confirmed these weren't legit checks.

    http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showpost.php?p=11529681&postcount=2201

    This is just some brilliant marketing.

    If it's a fake check then fine. I still don't get why so many people here think it would be totally OK for games companies to directly give money to reviewers. O_o

    If its kept in the dark, then yeah no thanks. But making it an obvious and fake "bribe" (it isnt really) is fine by me.

    Yup, was just going to post this. If it were a covert thing that had been exposed by some blog or whatever, then fine, we've got ourselves a scandal, light up the torches and grab your pitchforks.

    They sent out the cheque in a wooden display case with a written explanation.

    The tongue is so firmly planted in the cheek it will need stitches from bursting out the other side.

    darleysam on
    forumsig.png
  • Options
    Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    edited September 2009
    subedii wrote: »
    Fiaryn wrote: »
    I'd cash the damn thing and give it to charity. That goes straight against their marketing campaign.

    Also, why hasn't their marketing campaign been fired yet? Fake religious protest, molest booth girls for prises, and this? Seriously?

    The first two were pretty lame but you're pretty much being a giant stick in the mud for bitching about this one.

    Not really. A games company is very directly paying reviewers. Oh gee, it's not like that, it's marketing.

    So at what point does a payment start being marketing then? When you put it in a nice box and with a gimmick check? Surely if this is fine, then a tonne of other payments are just as viable as long as you call it advertising the game. Crap I can think of a dozen other games that could send joke checks to people and call it "promoting the product".

    I mean if they wanted to make it a gimmick it could have just as easily been a check for a piffly amount like $1, or maybe even $5 or $10, then maybe I would've seen the joke. Maybe.

    Guess I'm just another stick in the mud.
    And thus, a sin has been committed...

    Santa Claustrophobia on
  • Options
    subediisubedii Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    jclast wrote: »
    subedii wrote: »
    Zerokku wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure it was already confirmed these weren't legit checks.

    http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showpost.php?p=11529681&postcount=2201

    This is just some brilliant marketing.

    If it's a fake check then fine. I still don't get why so many people here think it would be totally OK for games companies to directly give money to reviewers. O_o

    Because $200 is not a lot of money to people who do things for a living. If you're calling $200 a money hat then you are describing a very small hat.

    Well Gee, I guess nobody could possibly have a job and still consider $200 a fair amount of cash.

    What.


    $200 isn't exactly a small freaking amount. $5 would be a small amount. Heck, if it was just a piffly amount like that, then it would work far better as a tongue in cheek joke.

    Be that as it may, the discussion's pretty much pointless if it is just a fake check.

    subedii on
  • Options
    kedinikkedinik Captain of Industry Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Zerokku wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure it was already confirmed these weren't legit checks.

    http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showpost.php?p=11529681&postcount=2201

    This is just some brilliant marketing.

    The checks are real unless Kotaku's accounting department is incompetent.

    I, too, think this is brilliant marketing; it's too brazen to be sleazy.

    kedinik on
    I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
  • Options
    McAllenMcAllen Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    hahaha I hope there's a comic that depicts some journalist going to the bank with a satanic looking check.

    But it is hard. If they were real checks then it could give journalists an incentive to give the game a bad review just because they felt bribed.

    But thank god they were fake.

    McAllen on
  • Options
    jclastjclast Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    subedii wrote: »
    jclast wrote: »
    subedii wrote: »
    Zerokku wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure it was already confirmed these weren't legit checks.

    http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showpost.php?p=11529681&postcount=2201

    This is just some brilliant marketing.

    If it's a fake check then fine. I still don't get why so many people here think it would be totally OK for games companies to directly give money to reviewers. O_o

    Because $200 is not a lot of money to people who do things for a living. If you're calling $200 a money hat then you are describing a very small hat.

    Well Gee, I guess nobody could possibly have a job and still consider $200 a fair amount of cash.

    What.


    $200 isn't exactly a small freaking amount. $5 would be a small amount. Be that as it may, the discussion's pretty much pointless if it is just a fake check.

    It is a lot of money insofar as you are excited when you find it on the ground, but it is not a lot of money when measured against one's yearly salary. Taking the bribe tends to carry the potential consequence of losing the yearly salary.

    jclast on
    camo_sig2.png
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    It is a lot of money insofar as you are excited when you find it on the ground, but it is not a lot of money when measured against one's yearly salary. Taking the bribe tends to carry the potential consequence of losing the yearly salary.
    Please, this is Kotaku. They would probably have the "journalist" milk it for page views.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    NerfThatManNerfThatMan Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    I really like this. Hope they're real. It's hilarious. The note and scary check is what makes it, obviously. It was meant to be talked about, meant to be read. It's not bribery because it's fucking cool.

    NerfThatMan on
    PSN: corporateshill
  • Options
    ZerokkuZerokku Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    kedinik wrote: »
    Zerokku wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure it was already confirmed these weren't legit checks.

    http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showpost.php?p=11529681&postcount=2201

    This is just some brilliant marketing.

    The checks are real unless Kotaku's accounting department is incompetent.

    This is Kotaku we're talking about here.

    Zerokku on
  • Options
    LeitnerLeitner Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Heh, this is pretty great. Then again I thought that about having people run round London with body parts shouting durka durka durka. Never change games industry.

    Leitner on
  • Options
    subediisubedii Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    jclast wrote: »
    subedii wrote: »
    jclast wrote: »
    subedii wrote: »
    Zerokku wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure it was already confirmed these weren't legit checks.

    http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showpost.php?p=11529681&postcount=2201

    This is just some brilliant marketing.

    If it's a fake check then fine. I still don't get why so many people here think it would be totally OK for games companies to directly give money to reviewers. O_o

    Because $200 is not a lot of money to people who do things for a living. If you're calling $200 a money hat then you are describing a very small hat.

    Well Gee, I guess nobody could possibly have a job and still consider $200 a fair amount of cash.

    What.


    $200 isn't exactly a small freaking amount. $5 would be a small amount. Be that as it may, the discussion's pretty much pointless if it is just a fake check.

    It is a lot of money insofar as you are excited when you find it on the ground, but it is not a lot of money when measured against one's yearly salary. Taking the bribe tends to carry the potential consequence of losing the yearly salary.

    I'm afraid I'm really not understanding you here. You say accepting bribes is a bad idea because the consequence would be losing your job. You're using that reasoning to say that as a result, accepting this couldn't possibly be seen as such?

    subedii on
  • Options
    kedinikkedinik Captain of Industry Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    I tried calling the phone number visible in one of Joystiq's pictures; it went to a woman's at-work voicemail.

    It's probably the number banks are supposed to use to confirm the reality of the checks.

    kedinik on
    I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
  • Options
    jclastjclast Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    subedii wrote: »
    jclast wrote: »
    subedii wrote: »
    jclast wrote: »
    subedii wrote: »
    Zerokku wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure it was already confirmed these weren't legit checks.

    http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showpost.php?p=11529681&postcount=2201

    This is just some brilliant marketing.

    If it's a fake check then fine. I still don't get why so many people here think it would be totally OK for games companies to directly give money to reviewers. O_o

    Because $200 is not a lot of money to people who do things for a living. If you're calling $200 a money hat then you are describing a very small hat.

    Well Gee, I guess nobody could possibly have a job and still consider $200 a fair amount of cash.

    What.


    $200 isn't exactly a small freaking amount. $5 would be a small amount. Be that as it may, the discussion's pretty much pointless if it is just a fake check.

    It is a lot of money insofar as you are excited when you find it on the ground, but it is not a lot of money when measured against one's yearly salary. Taking the bribe tends to carry the potential consequence of losing the yearly salary.

    I'm afraid I'm really not understanding you here. You say taking bribes is a bad idea because the consequence would be losing your job. You're using that reasoning to justify that this couldn't possibly be seen as such as a result?

    I am saying that this is too small to be a real bribe. Professionals would not risk their job for $200.

    Also, real bribes don't come in press kits in fancy wooden boxes with creepy notes and skeletons on the checks where the address references the 4th circle of hell.

    jclast on
    camo_sig2.png
  • Options
    AlegisAlegis Impeckable Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Very clever. I sincerly hope they're indeed fake.

    Alegis on
  • Options
    ArcticMonkeyArcticMonkey Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    But is passing bad checks a sin?

    ArcticMonkey on
    "You read it! You can't unread it!"
    venstre.giflobotDanceMiddle.gifhoyre.gif
  • Options
    subediisubedii Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    jclast wrote: »
    subedii wrote: »
    jclast wrote: »
    subedii wrote: »
    jclast wrote: »
    subedii wrote: »
    Zerokku wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure it was already confirmed these weren't legit checks.

    http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showpost.php?p=11529681&postcount=2201

    This is just some brilliant marketing.

    If it's a fake check then fine. I still don't get why so many people here think it would be totally OK for games companies to directly give money to reviewers. O_o

    Because $200 is not a lot of money to people who do things for a living. If you're calling $200 a money hat then you are describing a very small hat.

    Well Gee, I guess nobody could possibly have a job and still consider $200 a fair amount of cash.

    What.


    $200 isn't exactly a small freaking amount. $5 would be a small amount. Be that as it may, the discussion's pretty much pointless if it is just a fake check.

    It is a lot of money insofar as you are excited when you find it on the ground, but it is not a lot of money when measured against one's yearly salary. Taking the bribe tends to carry the potential consequence of losing the yearly salary.

    I'm afraid I'm really not understanding you here. You say taking bribes is a bad idea because the consequence would be losing your job. You're using that reasoning to justify that this couldn't possibly be seen as such as a result?

    I am saying that this is too small to be a real bribe. Professionals would not risk their job for $200.

    Also, real bribes don't come in press kits in fancy wooden boxes with creepy notes and skeletons on the checks where the address references the 4th circle of hell.

    So it's totally OK to accept the cash then. Because it's not "real".

    The logic that it can't be considered a real bribe because it's too direct to be a real bribe doesn't really make any sense to me. If I paid $200 to a book reviewer, heck, if I paid $20, that would pretty much be acknowledged as a bribe in every courthouse from here to Russia if it actually came to that. Doesn't matter if I handed it out in a fantastically elaborate ceremony, it doesn't matter if my book is on free-market capitalism and I say I was just giving him an object lesson, if at the end of the day I'm still giving them the money.


    You see I think I see where we're having the disjunct. I don't really view the amount as too relevant, to me accepting a direct cash gift from the person you're reviewing is a BIG FREAKING NO in any journalistic circle, whereas you view the amount as a big stumbling block because you don't think it's enough to influence anyone. That about right?

    subedii on
  • Options
    kedinikkedinik Captain of Industry Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    kedinik wrote: »
    I tried calling the phone number visible in one of Joystiq's pictures; it went to a woman's at-work voicemail.

    It's probably the number banks are supposed to use to confirm the reality of the checks.

    The woman called me back and I posed as a journalist; they're really real.

    kedinik on
    I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
  • Options
    urahonkyurahonky Resident FF7R hater Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    I think this is an awesome idea by EA.

    urahonky on
  • Options
    jclastjclast Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    subedii wrote: »
    jclast wrote: »
    subedii wrote: »
    jclast wrote: »
    subedii wrote: »
    jclast wrote: »
    subedii wrote: »
    Zerokku wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure it was already confirmed these weren't legit checks.

    http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showpost.php?p=11529681&postcount=2201

    This is just some brilliant marketing.

    If it's a fake check then fine. I still don't get why so many people here think it would be totally OK for games companies to directly give money to reviewers. O_o

    Because $200 is not a lot of money to people who do things for a living. If you're calling $200 a money hat then you are describing a very small hat.

    Well Gee, I guess nobody could possibly have a job and still consider $200 a fair amount of cash.

    What.


    $200 isn't exactly a small freaking amount. $5 would be a small amount. Be that as it may, the discussion's pretty much pointless if it is just a fake check.

    It is a lot of money insofar as you are excited when you find it on the ground, but it is not a lot of money when measured against one's yearly salary. Taking the bribe tends to carry the potential consequence of losing the yearly salary.

    I'm afraid I'm really not understanding you here. You say taking bribes is a bad idea because the consequence would be losing your job. You're using that reasoning to justify that this couldn't possibly be seen as such as a result?

    I am saying that this is too small to be a real bribe. Professionals would not risk their job for $200.

    Also, real bribes don't come in press kits in fancy wooden boxes with creepy notes and skeletons on the checks where the address references the 4th circle of hell.

    So it's totally OK to accept the cash then.

    The logic that it can't be considered a real bribe because it's too direct to be a real bribe doesn't really make any sense to me. If I paid $200 to a book reviewer, heck, if I paid $20, that would pretty much be acknowledged as a bribe in every courthouse from here to Russia if it actually came to that. Doesn't matter if I handed it out in a fantastically elaborate ceremony, it doesn't matter if my book is on free-market capitalism and I say I was just giving him an object lesson, if at the end of the day I'm still giving them the money.


    You see I think I see where we're having the disjunct. I don't really view the amount as too relevant, to me accepting a direct cash gift from the developer is a BIG FREAKING NO in any journalistic circle, whereas you view the amount as a big stumbling block because you don't think it's enough to influence anyone. That about right?

    You are right. Technically it is a bribe. I am saying that it is too small for anyone to practically consider it (assuming that they value their job and/or care about the potential consequences of their actions).

    jclast on
    camo_sig2.png
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    kedinik wrote: »
    kedinik wrote: »
    I tried calling the phone number visible in one of Joystiq's pictures; it went to a woman's at-work voicemail.

    It's probably the number banks are supposed to use to confirm the reality of the checks.

    The woman called me back and I posed as a journalist; they're really real.

    Damn.

    This sort of reminds me of that one show that got sponsored by Starbucks and started making a ton of jokey references to hide their shame. This at least is arguably be mostly in jest. Why didn't Kotaku give it to a charity?

    Couscous on
  • Options
    DiannaoChongDiannaoChong Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Joystiq (who never keeps, or accepts anything for free (all review games are given back, or handed out), or takes a free ride) is cashing it and donating it to charity in EA's name.

    I can see how they dont want to give it away like other items, as the check is made out to a journalist specifically. By cashing that check, to pay it out to someone else would be against their policy I guess? Thats a fucked up situation to be in.

    Edit: And joystiq does make a very valid point: Think about how cool this is when they raise the price of games to 70$ on pc and console for expensive marketing gimmicks.

    DiannaoChong on
    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Well, the routing number on the check is for the Key Bank of Alaska. Interesting...
    Proof Alaska is hell.seal.jpg

    Couscous on
  • Options
    subediisubedii Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    jclast wrote: »

    You are right. Technically it is a bribe. I am saying that it is too small for anyone to practically consider it (assuming that they value their job and/or care about the potential consequences of their actions).

    At least we agree that it is at least technically a bribe.

    My problem is that once you establish that, you can't just say "the money's too small, that's alright to accept". That opens up the most ridiculously cavernously humongous gaping holes if you go that route. You literally have no policy against bribery if you say that accepting cash "every now and then, as long as it's a small amount each time, is totally A-OK and fine".

    subedii on
  • Options
    FiarynFiaryn Omnicidal Madman Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    subedii wrote: »
    jclast wrote: »

    You are right. Technically it is a bribe. I am saying that it is too small for anyone to practically consider it (assuming that they value their job and/or care about the potential consequences of their actions).

    At least we agree that it is at least technically a bribe.

    My problem is that once you establish that, you can't just say "the money's too small, that's alright to accept". That opens up the most ridiculously cavernously humongous gaping holes if you go that route.

    Theoretically yes but I am somehow inclined to believe that videogame companies are not going to suddenly throw themselves down the slippery slope because we here on THE INTERNET decided it was ultimately okay because it's a joke.

    Fiaryn on
    Soul Silver FC: 1935 3141 6240
    White FC: 0819 3350 1787
  • Options
    Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    edited September 2009
    subedii wrote: »
    So it's totally OK to accept the cash then.

    [...]

    It's seems like the point has been missed somewhere. According to the note, accepting the money would be a sin. Declining the money would be a sin. Therefore, which part of the sin are you most willing to 'commit'. Where do your values lie. Could you take the money and pocket it? Could you turn it down knowing you could've done something much greater with it?

    In this case, Crescente falls to the sin of Pride and decides to destroy the check and thus also waste it.

    This is more of a philosophical exercise than anything else. But I wonder what it says if the only conclusion some people might reach is that this is, in fact, a bribe?

    Santa Claustrophobia on
  • Options
    AroducAroduc regular
    edited September 2009
    subedii wrote: »
    jclast wrote: »

    You are right. Technically it is a bribe. I am saying that it is too small for anyone to practically consider it (assuming that they value their job and/or care about the potential consequences of their actions).

    At least we agree that it is at least technically a bribe.

    My problem is that once you establish that, you can't just say "the money's too small, that's alright to accept". That opens up the most ridiculously cavernously humongous gaping holes if you go that route.

    Tipping is technically a bribe to some cultures. Giving a cop a free donut for stopping by your store at 3am just to make sure things are okay is technically a bribe. Hell, what do you think the conventions and press events that they throw for reviewers are? Do you think they just dump them in a room with a developer, or do they get a ton of neat plastic toys, free food, and all sorts of whizbangs?

    To say nothing of the legal but rather grey area of grease payments.

    Aroduc on
  • Options
    darleysamdarleysam On my way to UKRegistered User regular
    edited September 2009
    So we're fine when a studio treats journalists to exceptional hospitality, feeds them nice stuff, gives them fancy accommodation, pays for their flights, gives them exclusive review rights..

    but a $200 cheque as a joke? LIGHT UP THE SCANDAL SIGNAL!

    darleysam on
    forumsig.png
  • Options
    subediisubedii Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Fiaryn wrote: »
    subedii wrote: »
    jclast wrote: »

    You are right. Technically it is a bribe. I am saying that it is too small for anyone to practically consider it (assuming that they value their job and/or care about the potential consequences of their actions).

    At least we agree that it is at least technically a bribe.

    My problem is that once you establish that, you can't just say "the money's too small, that's alright to accept". That opens up the most ridiculously cavernously humongous gaping holes if you go that route.

    Theoretically yes but I am somehow inclined to believe that videogame companies are not going to suddenly throw themselves down the slippery slope because we here on THE INTERNET decided it was ultimately okay because it's a joke.

    I appreciate you're trying to make a point here, but you're just coming of as patronising and completely missing my point.

    I don't care WHO ON THE INTERNET says whether it's OK or not to accept the money. The issue I have is whether the journalists and the journalistic organisations view it as OK. And if it is established as being acceptable, then yeah, I've got an issue with that.

    I honestly doubt it would ever come to that. Truth be told I expect most recipients are simply going to donate the cash to charity, (or destroy it), purely out of principle.

    subedii on
  • Options
    VaregaVarega Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    This is an amazing marketing scheme. Those bitching about this obviously don't understand what's going on. And kudos to Joystiq for donating their bribe.

    I'm definately going to at least give this game a look see, just because the board game is pretty fun, if not horribly long.

    Varega on
    League of Legends:Varega
  • Options
    DiannaoChongDiannaoChong Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    darleysam wrote: »
    So we're fine when a studio treats journalists to exceptional hospitality, feeds them nice stuff, gives them fancy accommodation, pays for their flights, gives them exclusive review rights..

    but a $200 cheque as a joke? LIGHT UP THE SCANDAL SIGNAL!

    exactly.


    Who was it that flew a bunch of people to fucking Morraco to show them game demos? Its silly.




    Also in buisness, most will make you take ethics courses, which include theory on bribery and gifts. Minor gifts are okay, and even encouraged. but bribes or BAD. BAD BAD BAD. But it never once ever teaches you how to decern a bribe from a minor gift. The main reason? As you go up the chain of command, those gifts become a higher teir of cost because of the base pay of said individuals. So them throwing around more expensive gifts is exceptable, but if you recieve one of them, holy shit its your ass.

    So when a journalist recieves a 150$ super collectors edition with NVG or plastic guns, or rarer one of a kind items, its considered a gift/part of the job, so why would it be a bribe to accept a 200$ check with a 60$ game?

    DiannaoChong on
    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    MechanicalMechanical Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    darleysam wrote: »
    So we're fine when a studio treats journalists to exceptional hospitality, feeds them nice stuff, gives them fancy accommodation, pays for their flights, gives them exclusive review rights..

    but a $200 cheque as a joke? LIGHT UP THE SCANDAL SIGNAL!

    exactly.


    Who was it that flew a bunch of people to fucking Morraco to show them game demos? Its silly.

    But that was completely different!

    Heheh. It's fun watching this one unfold.

    Mechanical on
  • Options
    subediisubedii Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Aroduc wrote: »
    subedii wrote: »
    jclast wrote: »

    You are right. Technically it is a bribe. I am saying that it is too small for anyone to practically consider it (assuming that they value their job and/or care about the potential consequences of their actions).

    At least we agree that it is at least technically a bribe.

    My problem is that once you establish that, you can't just say "the money's too small, that's alright to accept". That opens up the most ridiculously cavernously humongous gaping holes if you go that route.

    Tipping is technically a bribe to some cultures. Giving a cop a free donut for stopping by your store at 3am just to make sure things are okay is technically a bribe. Hell, what do you think the conventions and press events that they throw for reviewers are? Do you think they just dump them in a room with a developer, or do they get a ton of neat plastic toys, free food, and all sorts of whizbangs?

    To say nothing of the legal but rather grey area of grease payments.

    Please don't try to conflate tipping with bribery. Unless you believe that the reviewer should be paid by the company for the service they have rendered to them, then sure, go ahead, but then you're basically saying that the review isn't independent of payment, and therein lies the problem.

    And whilst it's off topic, yes cops accepting food and services for free is classed as a bribe, they are not allowed to accept gifts in the line of duty. But that's a separate topic.

    Press events are a grey area, and more complicated to talk about, I'll definitely agree there. Direct payment to the reviewer however, is not.

    subedii on
  • Options
    Descendant XDescendant X Skyrim is my god now. Outpost 31Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Bamelin wrote: »
    Kotaku wrote:
    Not one to back away from controversy, Electronic Arts today mailed out real checks payable to game reviewers for $200.

    Each check, mailed in wooden boxes decorated with twin skeletons and the words Dante's Inferno, was affixed to a velvet pillow inside a box. Inside the top of the box is a welcome to the fourth circle of hell which reads:

    In Dante's Inferno, Greed is a two-headed beast. Hoarding wealth feeds on beast and squandering it satiates the other. By cashing this check you succumb to avarice by harding filthy lucre, but by not cashing it, you waste it, and thereby surrender to prodigality. Make your choice and suffer the consequence for your sin. And scoff not, for consequences are imminent.

    Not wanting to give in to temptation by cashing the check or using it to market Kotaku, or waste the money, we came up with a different solution. Balls in your court EA.

    (Kotaku burned the cheque)

    Burning the cheque is not a "different solution." It's the same as wasting the money. Kotaku still committed the sin of prodigality by burning the cheque.

    Descendant X on
    Garry: I know you gentlemen have been through a lot, but when you find the time I'd rather not spend the rest of the winter TIED TO THIS FUCKING COUCH!
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Burning the cheque is not a "different solution." It's the same as wasting the money. Kotaku still committed the sin of prodigality by burning the cheque.
    A different solution would be to cash the check and then secretly donate it to the church.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    FiarynFiaryn Omnicidal Madman Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    subedii wrote: »
    Fiaryn wrote: »
    subedii wrote: »
    jclast wrote: »

    You are right. Technically it is a bribe. I am saying that it is too small for anyone to practically consider it (assuming that they value their job and/or care about the potential consequences of their actions).

    At least we agree that it is at least technically a bribe.

    My problem is that once you establish that, you can't just say "the money's too small, that's alright to accept". That opens up the most ridiculously cavernously humongous gaping holes if you go that route.

    Theoretically yes but I am somehow inclined to believe that videogame companies are not going to suddenly throw themselves down the slippery slope because we here on THE INTERNET decided it was ultimately okay because it's a joke.

    I appreciate you're trying to make a point here, but you're just coming of as patronising and completely missing my point.

    Let me ask you a question here:

    Do you really and truly believe that how gaming journalists react to this cheque is going to have any relevance to future behavior?

    Fiaryn on
    Soul Silver FC: 1935 3141 6240
    White FC: 0819 3350 1787
  • Options
    InsomnInsomn Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    I thought it was a pretty slick move, myself. I don't trust gaming journalists anyway and it made me pay attention to a game I know nothing about.

    For a minute, anyway.

    Insomn on
  • Options
    subediisubedii Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Fiaryn wrote: »
    subedii wrote: »
    Fiaryn wrote: »
    subedii wrote: »
    jclast wrote: »

    You are right. Technically it is a bribe. I am saying that it is too small for anyone to practically consider it (assuming that they value their job and/or care about the potential consequences of their actions).

    At least we agree that it is at least technically a bribe.

    My problem is that once you establish that, you can't just say "the money's too small, that's alright to accept". That opens up the most ridiculously cavernously humongous gaping holes if you go that route.

    Theoretically yes but I am somehow inclined to believe that videogame companies are not going to suddenly throw themselves down the slippery slope because we here on THE INTERNET decided it was ultimately okay because it's a joke.

    I appreciate you're trying to make a point here, but you're just coming of as patronising and completely missing my point.

    Let me ask you a question here:

    Do you really and truly believe that how journalists treat this issue is going to have any relevance to future behavior?

    Thanks for cutting out the second half of my comment.

    I already said I really and truly believe this will be a non-issue because they're not actually going to end up accepting these.

    If on the crazy chance that they did accept these en-masse, then yes, that's what I would call a trend, and it's one that would definitely have later repercussions.

    subedii on
  • Options
    LewiePLewieP Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    By the way, EA's marketing department are fucking geniuses.

    I am going to note this as another example of how they know how to stir up excellent controvery marketing for very little money.

    See the Mercenaries 2 petrol giveaways, and the Godfather 2 knuckleduster scandal.

    Very little money in the grand scheme of things, and a lot of press coverages/discussion.

    LewieP on
  • Options
    DiannaoChongDiannaoChong Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    subedii wrote: »
    Fiaryn wrote: »
    subedii wrote: »
    Fiaryn wrote: »
    subedii wrote: »
    jclast wrote: »

    You are right. Technically it is a bribe. I am saying that it is too small for anyone to practically consider it (assuming that they value their job and/or care about the potential consequences of their actions).

    At least we agree that it is at least technically a bribe.

    My problem is that once you establish that, you can't just say "the money's too small, that's alright to accept". That opens up the most ridiculously cavernously humongous gaping holes if you go that route.

    Theoretically yes but I am somehow inclined to believe that videogame companies are not going to suddenly throw themselves down the slippery slope because we here on THE INTERNET decided it was ultimately okay because it's a joke.

    I appreciate you're trying to make a point here, but you're just coming of as patronising and completely missing my point.

    Let me ask you a question here:

    Do you really and truly believe that how journalists treat this issue is going to have any relevance to future behavior?

    Thanks for cutting out the second half of my comment.

    I already said I really and truly believe this will be a non-issue because they're not actually going to end up accepting these.

    If on the crazy chance that they did accept these en-masse, then yes, that's what I would call a trend, and it's one that would definitely have later repercussions.


    But the trend is that the journalists have been accepting things like this for ages and noones given a shit until a check for a (I would say) less amount then what they recieve for other promotional material in straight cash shows up, in the guise of a clever marketing ploy. Why would it be bad for the journalist to accept the 200$, when normally they would get flown off and given accomodations,food and then swag at an event?

    DiannaoChong on
    steam_sig.png
Sign In or Register to comment.