Slashdot Mirror
Sony Blackballs Blog Over PS3 Rumor
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.
Rule number one about secrets: If more than one person knows it, its no longer secret.
They said not to do it. They reinforce it. And yet they do it anyways. Makes sense that they get blackballed. If you want exclusive info, you play by their rules. If you want to be a "stick it to them" outfit, then they'd better be prepared to get their information from other sources.
This is a case of grey area if ever there was one.
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.
Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
Both sides have a point here. Sony depends on the media to generate buzz about their products and releases, and so provides them with a lot of exclusives and insider information. The flip side of this is, they do not expect information on a service that is in development to become public before they are ready to announce themselves However, Kotaku did not receive this information from Sony. They only went to Sony to confirm it, this was not something sony provided to them and so they had no right to ask Kotaku not to run it. I wonder how it would have played out if KT had not been so diligent, and just reported the rumor without attempting to confirm it.
They never told them anything "off the record". They just told them not to publish a rumor they heard from someplace else or else they would punish them. Big difference.
All Sony did was shoot themselves in the foot to the people most likely to buy their stuff. They could have simply had said "no comment" and be done. Now everyone knows Kotaku had solid info (and thus ruined the surprise tuesday), and Sonys PR people are a huge bunch of assholes.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
Why not just "no comment"? Would it have been quite as big a story if Sony had just refused to comment instead of throwing out lots of threats? Does Microsoft do this? I know Apple sues, but what do other companies do when faced with this kind of thing? Did Sony ask them to hold off on the story, or try to work with them, or just throw out threats?
Indeed it is. Thanks for the clarification.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
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...
Who is Sony to tell a website what not to publish? Kotaku wasn't breaking any NDA, they weren't even shown this stuff by Sony under some sort of verbal agreement to secrecy. They heard a rumor through unofficial channels, and when they called Sony to ask about it, they were threatened. Sony didn't politely ask them not to publish it, they placed demands on them. They were dicks about it.
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.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
"But Sony is right to black ball them. However instead of telling them they are blackballed, they should have done it subtly, not talked to them, never grant interviews to them and so on. Doing this just produces a PR nightmare that is added to the list of nightmares that they have to deal with.
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.
Worst BBC News Stories
First of all, I think the proper thing to do is to just stick with the standard "No comment" approach, which is what Nintendo and MS always do. Ask them something that's fairly obviously true, you'll get "No comment". Ask them something outlandishly false, you'll also get "No comment". That's pretty much been the MO of the industry, and we're all pretty used to it.
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.
-- jchenx
Okay, you admitted it's a bad analogy already, but let's finish it off:
;)
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.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
In the mythical man month, there is a talk of system generations. The first system you build kinda works but is kludgy, you fight to get it to do what you want, but it works. The NES was a CHEAP system to build, nothing fancy, but hacking processors onto cartridges kept it going long after the hardware was obsolete. Sega's SMS was better looking than Nintendo's offering, cartridges more reasonably sized, but didn't have the fun factor as nailed down, but they got cool games out there. Sony's first system, the PS, was similar, switched controllers in the middle, did whatever they could with their hardware, dumped it on the market (trying to recover SOME sunk costs, not even turn a profit originally, and pricing reflected that). MS figured out how to build a system for people that wanted the best graphics at a subsidized price, they never set out to make a profit, and succeeded at turning a nice loss.
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.
Right, because Nintendo invented motion sensing in video games. Just because they announced it first doesn't mean that Sony wasn't planning on including it also.
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.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.