Sony Blackballs Blog Over PS3 Rumor 219
Earlier today Kotaku ran an article looking at the possible future of PlayStation 3's online component. They detail a form of Sony Mii, with achievements accruing in an actual room as you succeed in playing games. During their correspondence with Sony as preparation for the story, the company asked them very specifically not to run the story. They then threatened to pull PR support for the site if they ran the story. When the story went up anyway, Sony followed through with its threats: "So, it is for this reason, that we will be canceling all further interviews for Kotaku staff at GDC and will be dis-inviting you to our media event next Tuesday. Until we can find a way to work better together, information provided to your site will only be that found in the public forum. Again, I take absolutely no joy in sending you this note, but given the situation you have put me into, I have no choice. - Dave Karraker, Sr. Director, Corporate Communications, Sony Computer Entertainment America." Update: 03/02 02:27 GMT by Z : I am happy to be able to add that Sony and Kotaku made up after what sounds like a lengthy phone call. 'Good on you' to both Mr. Karraker and Mr. Crecente.
Waaaaaaah (Score:5, Insightful)
Play by their rules, or else (Score:5, Insightful)
Grey (Score:5, Insightful)
We can argue that Kotaku was foolish and that Sony was harsh, but really it looks to me like both companies were doing their jobs.
It's in Kotaku's interest to publish rumors, to not be "under the thumb" of any one company they report on, and to do their journalism in as unbiased and unthreatened a fashion as possible.
It's in Sony's interest to dodge rumors, save important features for display at key media events, and handle their PR in the fashion they feel is best for their image.
Could Kotaku have tried harder to get Sony's blessing on the article? Maybe. Could Sony have been less harsh? Maybe. I don't think this constitutes a mistake on either's part, just a sad end.
They're both right (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Play by their rules, or else (Score:4, Insightful)
I wish honesty (harsh honesty, but honesty nonetheless) wasn't news, but these days it is.
Re:Play by their rules, or else (Score:1, Insightful)
You are either a journalist or a PR outlet. If you want exclusive news and you agree to conditions, such as obeying a companies PR plan or suppress news they don't like, you are no longer a journalist, you are a PR outlet.
Kotaku decided to be not Sony's bitch.
Re:Nutshell (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Rumor and speculation? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Play by their rules, or else (Score:3, Insightful)
It's all politics, whether it's government or business.
Re:Grey (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, so here's probably what happens: someone leaks something to Kotaku. Who's leaking it? We don't know; nor do we know why. But they think it's pretty good stuff. So Kotaku pursues the story with their contacts at Sony. Here's the problems:
1. How many new services or products have been announced as "confirmation" of an apparently "off-the-record" story?
2. In their correspondence with their "official sources", was any information about the "rumor" confirmed or denied? If the official source says, "yes, but please keep quiet about it", well, then you've got a worthless source and a privileged one, and -- even if you attribute everything to the "worthless" source --, your decision to publish could have been and probably was motivated by the confirmation through the privileged source. And that's how your privileged source is going to view it.
3. How did Kotaku establish contacts with the "leak"? From the Sony PR perspective, the answer is going to be, "most likely through the access we gave them to our company".
I have no love for Sony here, but Kotaku's argument for a "journalistic ethical stance" is pretty thin. They weren't "just doing their job".
But I guess the competition among game blogs is fierce, as it is for the consoles they write about.
Re:Nutshell (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed it is. Thanks for the clarification.
Re:Close to the mark? (Score:1, Insightful)
Or perhaps they have no intention of doing this and would prefer such rumors did not get started. This guy had access to inside information, given by Sony, in exchange for certain agreements. He chose to violate those agreements even when the consequences were spelled out for him.
These understandings are nothing secret, in exchange for holding a review until release date, you are given early access to that information so you can prepare a review. Post your story 2 days early to "scoop" your rivals, get cut off from the privledged access because you can't follow simple directions.
The summary is trying to make out like Sony has done something wrong...
Re:Play by their rules, or else (Score:2, Insightful)
Since when do BLOGS dictate who SONY gives non-public information too?
Re:Play by their rules, or else (Score:5, Insightful)
Since when is Sony forced to extend special favours to a site that has refused a request?
Sony isn't dictating what the blog can and cannot post, they're merely saying that if they post something they don't like, they'll stop giving them access to inside information. Seems fair enough to me - or would you expect Sony to continue treating them as they were no matter what the blog posted about them?
Re:And I should care why? (Score:2, Insightful)
Was this "Evil" for Sony? I don't know if I'd go that far. But it was most certainly stupid. Kotaku isn't the end all of video games, but it is a popular site, and is a potential source of lots of good free PR. They don't have to kiss Kotaku's ass if they don't want to, but going out of your way to piss them off isn't smart either.
And so now instead of a discussion about the PS3's new features, we're discussing how Sony treated a random website. No matter which side of this debate you fall on, how is it in Sony's interest to have the discussion derailed like that? I don't buy the "any publicity is good publicity line". When you're dealing with a market that's knowledgeable about your product (I have no doubts that 95% of the hardcore gamers out there keep up with video game news on the internet to some degree), then bad press is not what you want.
Sony just keeps making their own lives harder. If I was a Nintendo or MS Xbox division exec, I'd constantly be laughing my ass off at Sony.
Re:Play by their rules, or else (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. And Kotaku has no right to future insider information.
This isn't about rights, it's about relationships.
Re:Play by their rules, or else (Score:2, Insightful)
Since those BLOGS started getting special information news favours from SONY.
If a prostitute is sucking your cock you don't punch her in the mouth. The blog should have been aware of who was greasing their pole, and refrained from balling up their fist.
Re:Close to the mark? (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand because of all the other hell Sony has caused themselves, this is a relatively minor problem."
Yes, but given that Sony couldn't even handle a simple maneuver as you suggested, one even the most socially inept geek could handle....it begs the following--if they cannot handle basic PR, why would I trust that they could handle the rest of their console which includes complex tasks such as hardware, software, and programmer/developer relationships?
The PS3 may be a glorious piece of hardware and have jaw-dropping graphics. But at this point, who the hell cares. A bank that isn't unstable that is perceived as unstable becomes unstable (as people withdraw funds due to fear, like a stock market bust); Sony has a product they are just mauling themselves with every action they take, so why should I drop $500-600 on the console + $200 for games for something going down the drain?
Nintendo with the Wii is printing money. Sony seems to be content flushing money down the toilet with the PS3; hell, I wouldn't be surprised if *PS2* purchases we see from all the industry console and games numbers has become the unintended *bright* side to the PS3's launch for Sony.
Re:Play by their rules, or else (Score:3, Insightful)
I still honestly don't think Sony did anything wrong. No one has a right to their information. And Kotaku is just doing what works for themselves. No big surprise or class there.
But I think Sony would have been smarter to quietly 'X' Kotaku's name off their buddy list rather than get all pissy about it.
Re:And I should care why? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Play by their rules, or else (Score:3, Insightful)
If I want to read Sony press releases, I can do so on Sony's website. Video-game journalism needs to be a lot more independent - it's been an industry mouthpiece for too long.
Comment removed (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Close to the mark? (Score:4, Insightful)
Asked to remove, sure ... but blacklisting? (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, I'm sure there are times where a "No comment" isn't enough. Maybe it's leaked confidential information. Or someone broke an NDA. In those cases, they'll ask a site to remove it, and sure enough most will.
Even if they don't, I don't recall blacklisting as a tactic that's been done before (please correct me if I'm wrong, and supply examples/evidence). Of course Sony/MS/Nintendo/anyone-else is free to do what they please, but there's a reason why it's generally (never?) done. The backlash is pretty severe, especially in this industry where its fans are so vocal and connected.
Re:Nutshell (Score:3, Insightful)
Your neighbor happens to be the guy all the cool people come to talk to. He gets all the gossip, and people like to listen to what he says. He's very careful to label rumors as such.
But the rumor isn't leprosy, as that could be considered a danger to the community. (Whether it is or isn't, isn't at issue here.) Instead, the rumor is that you're getting a pool. But you REALLY want to be the one to tell everyone. You neighbor, gossip monger that he is, can't help himself over such a trivial, fun tidbit that he really isn't even sure of.
So you turn the cold shoulder to him. In return, he tells all his people how you are now treating him. Over a silly little rumor that he wasn't even really sure of. Why are you being so mean to him? You don't have to TELL him you're going to be mean, just stop telling him anything that might be rumor-ish.
That's a better bad analogy.
Re:Play by their rules, or else (Score:2, Insightful)
Exactly.
Trust and respect build relationships. Treating everyone as your adversary and see how much you can "score" against them will not make you friends, even though all you did was "legal" and "within your rights".
For example, if you works in IT dept of a company, and one guy comes to you and ask you about a rumor of a potentially very disruptive new IT policy. Without confirming the rumor, you ask that guy "don't spread such rumor", and then that guy goes about spreading it anyway and caused you a bunch of headaches. Wouldn't you got pissed about it? Are you going to do that guy any special favor from now on?
The only dumb part about this is Sony goes about it publicly. They should have just written off that guy internally and drop him off from all their invitation lists.
Mythical Man Month and Game Systems (Score:5, Insightful)
The second generation system is better, you have things under control, learned from your first system, make things a bit better, etc. The SNES had a nice lifespan, could do more out of the box (didn't need lots of custom controllers, etc.), was the NES but better. Genesis was an awesome system, it was a lot of fun, had awesome games, awesome controllers, a good stretch, made Sega money. The PS2 and Xbox 360 were good sequel systems. Backwards compatible, did what the old one did plus more, etc. They learned along the way (Sony came out the gates swinging, fought for each franchise, etc., pushed Nintendo out of several large chunks of the market), MS realized that you need parts where you get price breaks or can buy on the open market, otherwise you can't win the marathon.
The third system is over engineered, over thought, rediculously complicated, expensive, beyond schedule, and a disaster.
The N64 had plastic parts everywhere to put upgrades in, stuff hanging out of controllers, etc. It was shipping cartridges that cost serious money to produce (and had limited space), everyone else CDs that cost next to nothing, etc. While they made money, it was a disaster for a market that they were the leader of... didn't help that Sony was competing with a second system, so they weren't idiotic. The Saturn was the best 2D gaming system ever made, just as console games moved to 3D. It was ridiculously expensive from throwing everything in to avoid a Sega-CD and other upgrade fiasco, and set the stage for Sega's exit from consoles. Sony's third system IGNORES everything that got them there (cheap systems, easy to crank up production, granted the PS2 had some custom hardware, but NOTHING like the PS3), playing around with Blu-Ray, etc. In short, Sony is making every third system mistake, and we're watching it in the marketplace.
I predict that Sony will lose a LOT of money this round, but maintain a leadership position. They need to start selling the machines for $299 and not care how much they lose, and they'll do it, but it will be a REALLY REALLY expensive mistake. The PS worked because it was cheap and the R&D was already sunk. The PS2 carried the first gen system forward as just a better Playstation. The PS3 is a third system nightmare.
Re:Close to the mark? (Score:2, Insightful)
If they really were planning that from the start they might have told developers a bit earlier than two weeks before E3, barely enough to hack some motion controls into one demo.
The reason you don't see Microsoft doing this is that they already tried it a few years ago with the Freestyle Pro and realized that tilt sensors in a traditional controller shape suck.