631 réponses à ce sujet

[Jordy Laforge]

 I don't see what the big deal is. He states who he is and who he works for in the piece. I'm not in the game biz but if I make something I think is awsome, I think I would say so. I think it's dumb that this is blown so way out of proportion.

[Vice-Admiral von Titsling]

Wow, -that- was EA's response?

Guess I know whose games I'm not buying anymore.

[FearMonkey]

Jaradakar wrote...

If I post on a web site that lets ANYONE post reviews and does not require ANY credentials or history or background.

Then it's allowing users to post anonymous, correct?

(Posting as an anonymous person is legal, impersonating someone who you're not is illegal)

In which case it can be ANYONE posting, which means the post could be someone who worked on the project and is massively biased. It could be someone who works at a competitive studio and is massively biased against it.
Really as long as it's not 100+ reviews coming from massivly biased points of view and it's just individuals and it's not a company mandate, there is NOTHING WRONG.

The type of thing you're describing would be against the rules of the board system on which their posting. But if that board is a place where, as the FCC text says, was about discussing mp3 players and someone was pimping their own product without telling anybody that it was their product, that wouldn't necessarily be against the board rules (though it probably would) but they're breaking a Federal rule. Read the text of the rule I posted. It clearly says "message board" in it.

Modifié par FearMonkey, 15 mars 2011 - 10:35 .

[The Final Frontier]

Jordy Laforge wrote...

 I don't see what the big deal is. He states who he is and who he works for in the piece. I'm not in the game biz but if I make something I think is awsome, I think I would say so. I think it's dumb that this is blown so way out of proportion.

My thoughts exactly. What's so wrong with someone being proud of what they work on?

[FearMonkey]

Jordy Laforge wrote...

 I don't see what the big deal is. He states who he is and who he works for in the piece. I'm not in the game biz but if I make something I think is awsome, I think I would say so. I think it's dumb that this is blown so way out of proportion.

The problem is he DID NOT say who he worked for. He pretended to be just another gamer posting a user review. He was an employee of Bioware and DID NOT say who he worked for.

I don't understand how some of you aren't understanding this.

Modifié par FearMonkey, 15 mars 2011 - 10:38 .

[2papercuts]

Shepard N7 wrote...

Jordy Laforge wrote...

 I don't see what the big deal is. He states who he is and who he works for in the piece. I'm not in the game biz but if I make something I think is awsome, I think I would say so. I think it's dumb that this is blown so way out of proportion.

My thoughts exactly. What's so wrong with someone being proud of what they work on?

I guess it would be like using the directors quotes on a movie poster

Its not really your job to judge your own work, espcially if your trying to improve its sales through your opinion

that said, its not a huge deal i think, but unclassy

[Jaradakar]

FearMonkey wrote...

Jaradakar wrote...

If I post on a web site that lets ANYONE post reviews and does not require ANY credentials or history or background.

Then it's allowing users to post anonymous, correct?

(Posting as an anonymous person is legal, impersonating someone who you're not is illegal)

In which case it can be ANYONE posting, which means the post could be someone who worked on the project and is massively biased. It could be someone who works at a competitive studio and is massively biased against it.
Really as long as it's not 100+ reviews coming from massivly biased points of view and it's just individuals and it's not a company mandate, there is NOTHING WRONG.

The type of thing you're describing would be against the rules of the board system on which their posting. But if that board is a place where, as the FCC text says, was about discussing mp3 players and someone was pimping their own product without telling anybody that it was their product, that wouldn't necessarily be against the board rules (though it probably would) but they're breaking a Federal rule. Read the text of the rule I posted. It clearly says "message board" in it.

So you're posting some FCC text, sorry if I don't take that as fact or is 100% relivant to the case.  Put a link out that shows and proves 100% that this text is relivant to metacritics?  I've posted reviews a few times and I'm 100% positive that it does not give me any sort of legal disclamer that I'm required to do anything at all other than give my thoughts.

Modifié par Jaradakar, 15 mars 2011 - 10:41 .

[Maverick827]

2papercuts wrote...

I guess it would be like using the directors quotes on a movie poster

Its not really your job to judge your own work, espcially if your trying to improve its sales through your opinion

that said, its not a huge deal i think, but unclassy

Marketing is unclassy?

I'm not saying this would be marketing if true - far from it, in fact - but "trying to improve sales through your opinion" is pretty much what marketing is.

And I wouldn't say (again, if true) that his end-game was "improving sales;" how would it be his fault if gullible people regard the words of strangers so highly insofar as it affects their business decisions regarding such a subjective medium?

[FearMonkey]

Jaradakar wrote...

FearMonkey wrote...

Jaradakar wrote...

If I post on a web site that lets ANYONE post reviews and does not require ANY credentials or history or background.

Then it's allowing users to post anonymous, correct?

(Posting as an anonymous person is legal, impersonating someone who you're not is illegal)

In which case it can be ANYONE posting, which means the post could be someone who worked on the project and is massively biased. It could be someone who works at a competitive studio and is massively biased against it.
Really as long as it's not 100+ reviews coming from massivly biased points of view and it's just individuals and it's not a company mandate, there is NOTHING WRONG.

The type of thing you're describing would be against the rules of the board system on which their posting. But if that board is a place where, as the FCC text says, was about discussing mp3 players and someone was pimping their own product without telling anybody that it was their product, that wouldn't necessarily be against the board rules (though it probably would) but they're breaking a Federal rule. Read the text of the rule I posted. It clearly says "message board" in it.

So you're posting some FCC text, sorry if I don't take that as fact or is 100% relivant to the case.  Put a link out that shows and proves 100% that this text is relivant to metacritics?  I've posted reviews a few times and I'm 100% positive that it does not give me any sort of legal disclamer that I'm required to do anything at all other than give my thoughts.

I did post a link in this post.
I will repost it here for your benefit.

FCC rules
http://www.ftc.gov/o...ementguides.pdf

"§ 255.5. Example 8: An online message board designated for discussions of new music download technology is frequented by MP3 player enthusiasts. They exchange information about new products, utilities, and the functionality of numerous playback devices.

Unbeknownst to the message board community, an employee of a leading playback device manufacturer has been posting messages on the discussion board promoting the manufacturer’s product.

Knowledge of this poster’s employment likely would affect the weight or credibility of her endorsement. Therefore, the poster should clearly and conspicuously disclose her relationship to the manufacturer to members and readers of the message board"

User Reviews on Metacritic operate in much the same way a message board does. People go to Metacritic to get people's opinions on various things, including games. If someone is providing a review on something they themselves have a stake in, that is going against the FCC regulation.

It's pretty cut-and-dried.

Modifié par FearMonkey, 15 mars 2011 - 10:47 .

[Jaradakar]

FearMonkey wrote...

Jordy Laforge wrote...

 I don't see what the big deal is. He states who he is and who he works for in the piece. I'm not in the game biz but if I make something I think is awsome, I think I would say so. I think it's dumb that this is blown so way out of proportion.

The problem is he DID NOT say who he worked for. He pretended to be just another gamer posting a user review. He was an employee of Bioware and DID NOT say who he worked for.

I don't understand how some of you aren't understanding this.

Is it a little bit sneaky?  Sure.  Is it slightly unethical?  Maybe.  Is it an illegal act?  No.  Is it as big of a deal as you're making it?  No.

The only reviews and scores that count on metacritic are the ones by magazines and professional reviewers, neather of which we're talking about.  User reviews are just that, reviews by anonymous people who frankly you should not be trusting anyway.

[FearMonkey]

Jaradakar wrote...

The only reviews and scores that count on metacritic are the ones by magazines and professional reviewers, neather of which we're talking about.

Not true. A lot of people don't trust the magazine and professional reviewers because they think all the good reviews are money-hatted. They instead lend more credence to the user reviews because those are coming from fans who play the games.

[Lukertin]

FearMonkey wrote...
When people work for a company, the HR department makes employees sign certain legal forms. My company pretty much requires us to accept all the rules they have on record even if we don't know about such a thing. Like if they update the Jury Duty policy, we are required to read the new policy and agree to it. I'm sure Bioware works the same way. Although, being in Canada, maybe they don't have the same types of rules as we do in the states? Dunno. They do have offices in Austin though. So, probably.

That's between employee and employer, not between employee and Federal regulations.  There is a huuuuge gap in the latter, and the former has to do with the terms of your employment contract and is a completely different legal issue.

Also, if the Bioware employee acted alone, obviously it's not a case for the FCC. But if this was encouraged by EA or Bioware, then it can be pretty serious. I'm basing my post specifically because the EA PR guy speaking to Kotaku made it sound like it was no big deal and that it happened all the time. Well, clearly it shouldn't be happening all the time. That's my point.

Even if his actions were improper (not saying that they are, but if they were), people are permitted to speak their opinion on any matter they wishes, that is freedom of speech.  No Federal rule or law is so expansive as to curtail anyone's freedom of speech.  Is a review of a game an exercise of freedom of speech? I would think so.  Professional game reviews can act as advertising.  They often are adverts because the reviews in question are pandering to the publishing companies.  Individual opinions posted on a website that aggregates user reviews is generally not advertising. (To give an example of the difference, "This game is great, everyone should play it" is an opinion.  "If you're looking for a game that gives you a rich storyline, stunning visuals, compelling characters, try this game" is an advert.  Context would also be relevant.  An review that reads like an opinion posted on Amazon.com is clearly meant to be an advert even if it is just an opinion, but posted on a website meant for reviews is simply an opinion, nothing more). Until the employee's statements in question cross the line from expressing his opinion to advertising there is nothing to see here.  So of course it happens all the time, and it doesn't matter, because these exmployees are expressing opinions.  They assign a number from 1 to 10 representing what they perceive to be the numerical representation of the game's quality, and write a short blurb justifying it.  These reviews are not 'automatically featured' by the review website as some sort of 'review from a super-reviewer whose opinions matter lots!!' or anything of the sort.

Modifié par Lukertin, 15 mars 2011 - 11:00 .

[2papercuts]

Maverick827 wrote...

2papercuts wrote...

I guess it would be like using the directors quotes on a movie poster

Its not really your job to judge your own work, espcially if your trying to improve its sales through your opinion

that said, its not a huge deal i think, but unclassy

Marketing is unclassy?

I'm not saying this would be marketing if true - far from it, in fact - but "trying to improve sales through your opinion" is pretty much what marketing is.

And I wouldn't say (again, if true) that his end-game was "improving sales;" how would it be his fault if gullible people regard the words of strangers so highly insofar as it affects their business decisions regarding such a subjective medium?

I have no problem with marketing (except when done poorly), but i don't know if this qualifies as marketing

I would say that although he might not have made the review to directly get someone to buy the game, it is the indirect outcome. When defending the game he worked on, he created a positive reflection of it. Who's to say that this one review didn't affect someones decision to buy the game (although unlikely). Its the possiblity that he anomonously could affect someones decision is what is unclassy about his action.

To exaggerate this, would you say that if Bioware got all of its employes to spam positive reviews until it got a rating of 9 that it would be in bad taste? Although done on a much smaller scale, this is in effect what he did.

[LifeBlood]

[Jaradakar]

I did post a link in this post.
I will repost it here for your benefit.

FCC rules
http://www.ftc.gov/o...ementguides.pdf

"§ 255.5. Example 8: An online message board designated for discussions of new music download technology is frequented by MP3 player enthusiasts. They exchange information about new products, utilities, and the functionality of numerous playback devices.

Unbeknownst to the message board community, an employee of a leading playback device manufacturer has been posting messages on the discussion board promoting the manufacturer’s product.

Knowledge of this poster’s employment likely would affect the weight or credibility of her endorsement. Therefore, the poster should clearly and conspicuously disclose her relationship to the manufacturer to members and readers of the message board"

User Reviews on Metacritic operate in much the same way a message board does. People go to Metacritic to get people's opinions on various things, including games. If someone is providing a review on something they themselves have a stake in, that is going against the FCC regulation.

It's pretty cut-and-dried.

After reading it over, you are correct.  There is a federal rule and it does seem to apply, except that the poster is in Canada so maybe less so, but if it was all taking place in the states then it does look like a FCC regulation was broken.  That's most likely why it was edited to identify the connection.

Intresting.

Modifié par Jaradakar, 15 mars 2011 - 11:02 .

[Jaradakar]

Lukertin wrote...

FearMonkey wrote...
When people work for a company, the HR department makes employees sign certain legal forms. My company pretty much requires us to accept all the rules they have on record even if we don't know about such a thing. Like if they update the Jury Duty policy, we are required to read the new policy and agree to it. I'm sure Bioware works the same way. Although, being in Canada, maybe they don't have the same types of rules as we do in the states? Dunno. They do have offices in Austin though. So, probably.

That's between employee and employer, not between employee and Federal regulations.  There is a huuuuge gap in the latter, and the former has to do with the terms of your employment contract and is a completely different legal issue.

Also, if the Bioware employee acted alone, obviously it's not a case for the FCC. But if this was encouraged by EA or Bioware, then it can be pretty serious. I'm basing my post specifically because the EA PR guy speaking to Kotaku made it sound like it was no big deal and that it happened all the time. Well, clearly it shouldn't be happening all the time. That's my point.

Even if his actions were improper (not saying that they are, but if they were), people are permitted to speak their opinion on any matter they wishes, that is freedom of speech.  No Federal rule or law is so expansive as to curtail anyone's freedom of speech.  Is a review of a game an exercise of freedom of speech? I would think so.  Professional game reviews can act as advertising.  They often are adverts because the reviews in question are pandering to the publishing companies.  Individual opinions posted on a website that aggregates user reviews is generally not advertising. (To give an example of the difference, "This game is great, everyone should play it" is an opinion.  "If you're looking for a game that gives you a rich storyline, stunning visuals, compelling characters, try this game" is an advert.  Context would also be relevant.  An review that reads like an opinion posted on Amazon.com is clearly meant to be an advert even if it is just an opinion, but posted on a website meant for reviews is simply an opinion, nothing more). Until the employee's statements in question cross the line from expressing his opinion to advertising there is nothing to see here.  So of course it happens all the time, and it doesn't matter, because these exmployees are expressing opinions.  They assign a number from 1 to 10 representing what they perceive to be the numerical representation of the game's quality, and write a short blurb justifying it.  These reviews are not 'automatically featured' by the review website as some sort of 'review from a super-reviewer whose opinions matter lots!!' or anything of the sort.

I agree with this line of thinking.  It's why the FCC thing is not 100% given to apply to this case imo, as you're just sharing your thoughts/oppinion which you can do regardless of who you work for.  Of course it's biased but it's not like we're talking about paid advertising.

We're also not talking about 150 bioware employees righting reviews, just a couple of individuals.

[FearMonkey]

yeah, I'm not saying the offense is egregious enough for the FCC to pounce in and bust some heads. But if enough people bring it to their attention and they determine there is action to take, the guy might, at worst, get hit with a fine or something. It's not like he'll go to jail for this.

[PirateT138]

...and lulz were had.

[adriano_c]

Sleazy as hell.

[Cody211282]

LifeBlood wrote...

Or because they have a grand total of 4 locations.....

[Gatt9]

Jaradakar wrote...

I did post a link in this post.
I will repost it here for your benefit.

FCC rules
http://www.ftc.gov/o...ementguides.pdf

"§ 255.5. Example 8: An online message board designated for discussions of new music download technology is frequented by MP3 player enthusiasts. They exchange information about new products, utilities, and the functionality of numerous playback devices.

Unbeknownst to the message board community, an employee of a leading playback device manufacturer has been posting messages on the discussion board promoting the manufacturer’s product.

Knowledge of this poster’s employment likely would affect the weight or credibility of her endorsement. Therefore, the poster should clearly and conspicuously disclose her relationship to the manufacturer to members and readers of the message board"

User Reviews on Metacritic operate in much the same way a message board does. People go to Metacritic to get people's opinions on various things, including games. If someone is providing a review on something they themselves have a stake in, that is going against the FCC regulation.

It's pretty cut-and-dried.

After reading it over, you are correct.  There is a federal rule and it does seem to apply, except that the poster is in Canada so maybe less so, but if it was all taking place in the states then it does look like a FCC regulation was broken.  That's most likely why it was edited to identify the connection.

Intresting.

Actually,  there are several federal rules.  FCC being the least of them.  The SEC rules are a heck'uva lot more serious.  Posting "anonymously" can be seen as an attempt to increase stock price through message board manipulation,  an act very specifically legislated against by the SEC.  The law was ammended several years ago to account for the rise of message boards because message boards were seen as a contributing factor of the tech crash in 1999. 

Then there's the "Astroturfing" issue in the EU,  whereas a person who impersonates a "Grassroot movement" becomes liable.  As the poster specifically posited himself as a group member directly opposed to "Trolls" he may find himself targetable by those laws.

The issue becomes much more serious when one realizes that not one,  but 3 probable Bioware employees have been identified.  The one everyone knows about,  one reviewer's name is identical to a Moderater listed here,  and a third one used identical and relatively unique language both on the board and in the review.  So this is indictative of an issue on a much larger scale.  Some significant portion of those reviews are quite possibly Bioware reviews.

That crosses a very serious boundary.  Sony has been caught loading reviews before...

http://en.wikipedia....ctitious_writer)

As you can see,  this has potential serious legal ramifications.  When it's one guy,  it can be chalked up to a bad idea,  if it's three people it's starting to cross boundaries.  If it's company policy to permit or encourage the behavior,  it's illegal.

That opens doors to questions about critical review scores as well.  This is no small matter.  EA really needs to address the behavior quickly.

[Lukertin]

The SEC doesn't pass legislation, do you even know what you're talking about?

Also, a low-level employee anonymously making posts on the internet is far different than board members or corporate officers doing the same thing.  Far differently.  You cannot compare the two and equate them.  David Manning was an executive, this Hoban guy is a regular joe.  Do us all a favor and leave the lawyering to the lawyers.

Modifié par Lukertin, 16 mars 2011 - 08:14 .

[TwistedComplex]

LifeBlood wrote...