Statistical noise. If you pull 1000 people aside, randomly selected off the street, and ask them "Would you like me to hit you over the head with a mallet, right now?", at least ten of them will say yes. Every time.
Is It Unethical For Companies To Misrepresent Their Products?
- Thread starter Hardknock
- Start date
So your point is that they should be thankfull for all the great games and go by YOUR list and not their personal taste. I think there must be a PR job for you, call Sony!
No matter how you spin it, XBOX owners were left out to dry.
For the record, though no-one wants to hear this point, I'll retierate that one concern with showcasing a new product is showing it's abilities, and in the case of a console where those abilities are going to improve over the years of the product's life, do you show people what it can do now, or what you expect it to do in 3-4 years time? The PS2 demos were, as I understand it, a good example of the latter method. The early games didn't attain that level of detail, but the later games surpassed it. XB360 was a perfect example of the former. At E3 '05 MS only showed titles in development, showing what the hardware was currently achieving.
Both are ethically legitimate, though trying to predict what your hardware will produce is open for miscalculations. And if you are doing the latter method, it should be made clear that you're showing targets or visions rather than actual current-engine stuff.
Both are ethically legitimate, though trying to predict what your hardware will produce is open for miscalculations. And if you are doing the latter method, it should be made clear that you're showing targets or visions rather than actual current-engine stuff.
edit: wow, this turned into quite a rambling post - sorry folks!
Lying is wrong. That's what my mum always told me. Well, actually it might have been Sesame Street, but it's still true.
Company representatives really ought to learn that today, with everything having access to this interweb thingy, their words will not be quietly forgotten after getting everyone hyped up, but rather will be recorded and dissected and challenged - they will come back to haunt them. So they ought to be a lot more careful to only actually say things that can be backed up later.
That aside, much of what is said probably isn't a lie, per-se. During the initial E3 launch of PS3 for example, they were careful not to state at the time that anything was real (except the bits that definitely were). So while some people might get that impression, technically they haven't lied. Whether they have mislead or not is another matter - I tend to think that people really need to take a bit more personal responsibility when it comes to advertising (which is effectively what any launch or press-conference really boils down to). If it's not overtly stated that something is realtime, assume it isn't. But you can't claim it's a lie either.
After the fact, you do get less well briefed members of the company making stupid comments. For example I've seen people from Sony, subsequence to the slick launch, come out and say things were real that (pretty clearly) were not. I really don't know what was going on in their heads at the time, and it's entirely possible they knew this and were lying, but I would also think it entirely possible that they simply don't know, or themselves misinterpreted the information they were given. Or they're just not used to being spokesmen and aren't thinking before they speak.
I think this latter type of statement is what needs to be cleared up - companies internally need to give much clearer briefs to all staff on exactly what can and can't be said.
Meanwhile, as a developer, I've been on the other side of the fence. I've seen people outright lie about a render actually being a screenshot, and so I know it happens. But I've also seen rampant incompetence where people will simply just ramble on about something they actually know nothing about, but where they clearly actually believe that they do.
These people aren't liars - they're just idiots - but both probably need to shut up.
So would I doctor a screenshot, or be a party to that kind of thing? Yes - yes, I would. Only, I might add, if I was confident that the result could and would ultimately be achieved - but otherwise, yes.
Sometimes the results will fall short of that, which I suppose in some eyes will make me a liar. Other times, we'll exceed it - am I also a liar there? Or is the lie acceptable if I've underestimated?
I'd be happy to say to people "this isn't a real screenshot, but actually a mockup of what we think will be achieved" (though you'd have to make it a bit more concise than that I suppose). Paradoxically however, I think you'd get even *more* people calling you a liar, if you were open about it not being real. So I'd probably be just as happy to play it down and simply say "here's what the game will look like", provided we didn't go too far and say "this is a 100% realtime shot from the engine".
Let me just tell you why I'd be willing to do this though...
A while back I worked on a game where early on in development, we were asked to explain the title to the marketing people so they could put together a campaign for it. We provided them with some material that explained the various aspects of the game, combined with some screenshots - taken directly from the game - to show everything in action. These screens were pretty dreadful - nothing was finished, so half the art was missing, stuff wasn't textured, lots of place-holder graphics and stuff... generally bad. But you could see how the game would be played, which was kind of the point.
Except the marketing department promptly released the screens to the press. We were slated, the game disappeared off everyone's radar, and we never really recovered. We never got any more marketing because they'd written it off so despite good reviews, it bombed. The screens were certainly real - but at anything but a near-final stage of a game, a screenshot is quite often going to look pretty poor compared to the finished product. Certainly in our case the finished game looked vastly better than the early screenshots - I'd have to say that I'm quite proud of what we achieved - but no-one really noticed. Complete honesty served no-one.
So in that same situation again, I'd happily provide doctored shots instead. And then I'll work my arse off trying to make the game look as good or better.
Lying is wrong. That's what my mum always told me. Well, actually it might have been Sesame Street, but it's still true.
Company representatives really ought to learn that today, with everything having access to this interweb thingy, their words will not be quietly forgotten after getting everyone hyped up, but rather will be recorded and dissected and challenged - they will come back to haunt them. So they ought to be a lot more careful to only actually say things that can be backed up later.
That aside, much of what is said probably isn't a lie, per-se. During the initial E3 launch of PS3 for example, they were careful not to state at the time that anything was real (except the bits that definitely were). So while some people might get that impression, technically they haven't lied. Whether they have mislead or not is another matter - I tend to think that people really need to take a bit more personal responsibility when it comes to advertising (which is effectively what any launch or press-conference really boils down to). If it's not overtly stated that something is realtime, assume it isn't. But you can't claim it's a lie either.
After the fact, you do get less well briefed members of the company making stupid comments. For example I've seen people from Sony, subsequence to the slick launch, come out and say things were real that (pretty clearly) were not. I really don't know what was going on in their heads at the time, and it's entirely possible they knew this and were lying, but I would also think it entirely possible that they simply don't know, or themselves misinterpreted the information they were given. Or they're just not used to being spokesmen and aren't thinking before they speak.
I think this latter type of statement is what needs to be cleared up - companies internally need to give much clearer briefs to all staff on exactly what can and can't be said.
Meanwhile, as a developer, I've been on the other side of the fence. I've seen people outright lie about a render actually being a screenshot, and so I know it happens. But I've also seen rampant incompetence where people will simply just ramble on about something they actually know nothing about, but where they clearly actually believe that they do.
These people aren't liars - they're just idiots - but both probably need to shut up.
So would I doctor a screenshot, or be a party to that kind of thing? Yes - yes, I would. Only, I might add, if I was confident that the result could and would ultimately be achieved - but otherwise, yes.
Sometimes the results will fall short of that, which I suppose in some eyes will make me a liar. Other times, we'll exceed it - am I also a liar there? Or is the lie acceptable if I've underestimated?
I'd be happy to say to people "this isn't a real screenshot, but actually a mockup of what we think will be achieved" (though you'd have to make it a bit more concise than that I suppose). Paradoxically however, I think you'd get even *more* people calling you a liar, if you were open about it not being real. So I'd probably be just as happy to play it down and simply say "here's what the game will look like", provided we didn't go too far and say "this is a 100% realtime shot from the engine".
Let me just tell you why I'd be willing to do this though...
A while back I worked on a game where early on in development, we were asked to explain the title to the marketing people so they could put together a campaign for it. We provided them with some material that explained the various aspects of the game, combined with some screenshots - taken directly from the game - to show everything in action. These screens were pretty dreadful - nothing was finished, so half the art was missing, stuff wasn't textured, lots of place-holder graphics and stuff... generally bad. But you could see how the game would be played, which was kind of the point.
Except the marketing department promptly released the screens to the press. We were slated, the game disappeared off everyone's radar, and we never really recovered. We never got any more marketing because they'd written it off so despite good reviews, it bombed. The screens were certainly real - but at anything but a near-final stage of a game, a screenshot is quite often going to look pretty poor compared to the finished product. Certainly in our case the finished game looked vastly better than the early screenshots - I'd have to say that I'm quite proud of what we achieved - but no-one really noticed. Complete honesty served no-one.
So in that same situation again, I'd happily provide doctored shots instead. And then I'll work my arse off trying to make the game look as good or better.
As a ramblng post, you covered all the points I've raised before on various other threads (and got negative rep for even
). Seems a lot of people have a very black and white view that anyone spouting info that isn't 100% accurate is a dirty rotten liar, without considering there's plenty of reasons that the info may not be right. Being a dirty rotten liar is just one possibly explanation, but the only one some people are willing to accept as possible. I'm also glad you mention the idea that not everyone who speaks for a company knows what they're talking about. That's another point I rasied to fall on deaf ears. Apparently if one Company X spokesperson mentions something was realtime when it wasn't, even if before her/him a few other Company X spokespersons said it wasn't realtime, that one spokesperson's comment turns the entire corporate entity of Company X into lying scum. I don't know what companies some of these compainers work for, but I've never worked for, nor known anyone work for, a company with perfect communication where everyone knows exactly what's happening. Invariably the left hand knows not what the right hand does, and even the middle finger doesn't know what the tumb is trying to do, or even if they're connected to the same hand or not! Even with good communication you get individuals misunderstanding, and the bigger the company, the more the problems with communication both due to company communcation channels (Chinese Whispers down the different management layers changing the story between iterations) and more individuals with personal interpretations. Chances of someone speaking ill-informed about a product or service are quite high, without it ever being deliberate and with that person speaking honestly to the best of their understanding.Regards target renders, anyone who's ever had to try to sell an incomplete idea to someone will know how important presentation is. The average person has no vision at all, and can't see potential. You need to show what the finished project is like. Showing them a rough WIP and letting them imagine what the finished project will be like by explaining where improvements will be made just doesn't work. That's also very different to using CGs depicting gameplay to advertise finished games, which is a far bigger 'crime' but one which gets much less attention.
So what do you think about the Alfred Molina, 8 days, getaway, duck, FFVII, Lair, Eyetoy, and Leaves tech demos? And lets not forget the ps2 tech demos Sony got backlash from, for many years. Are they misleading? or will/did games accomplish what they did?
also gears of war/ killzone2 / halo2 etc
ala if everyone does it why cant I syndrome? jump on the bandwagon
personally i loath this type of lying/misrepresentation, we as consumers shouldnt accept it, its like saying heres my ass, do with it what u will.
i cant understand why ppl here on b3d will talk up a product (even though theyve been obviously lied to) just cause its on their favourite platform. get some balls make a stand
ala if everyone does it why cant I syndrome? jump on the bandwagon
personally i loath this type of lying/misrepresentation, we as consumers shouldnt accept it, its like saying heres my ass, do with it what u will.
i cant understand why ppl here on b3d will talk up a product (even though theyve been obviously lied to) just cause its on their favourite platform. get some balls make a stand
Technically I feel PS3 demos are attainable. But some (like FF7 for instance) I doubt a developer has the time nor willing to spend the resources to create an entire game with such a high level of detail throughout....
PS2 demos were far exceeded if you ask me. Looking back at them now they aren't very impressive at all. Same for the Xbox 1 tech demos.
@Zed I agree 100%.
inefficient
Veteran
advertising
an expensive and revolutionary method by which companies improve your opinions.
an expensive and revolutionary method by which companies improve your opinions.
It didnt end just there. I remember that something else was stated by MS when they showed this. They said that tech demo used something like only 10-30% the performance of current unfinished state of the hardware which was around 50% finished at that time or something along these lines. I cant remember the exacy percentages
Great points you ve got there
No need to be sorry. Based on my own experiences and friends I have talked to, it is an accurate account of the challenges a PR department (and the people they work with) face.
If your personal taste is such that you find the existing Xbox library lackluster and boring and were expecting a radical shift in the genres available over the next two years, you need your head examined. So yes, Xbox owners who bought one 6 months ago who hate sports, racing, shooting, and other action games and were expecting a glut of turn-based JRPGs from Square-Enix to be released in the next 2 years really got the shaft. For everyone who bought the machine with their eyes at least half-open, there's a fairly large library of games with enough compelling titles to keep anyone occupied for a good long time.
Last edited by a moderator:
Well many of those demos are actually being used for games minus a few (leaves/molina/ducks). The FFVII demo was actually a display of the White Engine by Square Enix, which will be used in FFXIII.
Interesting. Do you have any links to details on the White Engine? I've been hearing that name thrown around and didn't know it was used for FFVII Demo??
I think that's derailing the argument. The idea was that someone bough an xbox 2 years ago thinking they were going to be able to go to the store ever once in awhile and see what new games are coming out. Which they couldn't do for very long.
And all the people that are buying PS2s this year will be disappointed in two years aswell no?
Sure.
Heres the wiki link on it...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Engine
some other links..
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/705/705652p1.html
http://www.gamepro.com/news.cfm?article_id=54069
Which is why I'm pointing out that rather than thinking the way marketers want you to think, new system owners should wise stop ignoring perfectly good games they've never played just because they're not on the "new releases" shelf. And if they'd take that plunge, they'd find out that playing games is a lot more fun than either looking at the new release shelf or complaining that there aren't enough new releases. If your friend has just bought an Xbox, there are several hundred games he hasn't played. I'm sure he can find at least a dozen among them that he'd enjoy. How does an Xbox game's release date intrinsicly affect how fun it is?
Now I know how my mom felt when I was 16 and would stare at a full refrigerator and say "There's nothing to eat!" People complain too much.
Last edited by a moderator:
Or I could have just steared the guys towards a PS2 instead of an XBox and they could still be looking forward to new games. My bad.
Similar threads
