Obviously either way (shop open all the time vs limited release) you are going to upset someone, but at least with the shop being down, you upset someone who has never tried the game, and IMO they are more likely to still come back and give the game another chance. Much harder to bring someone back once they have been burned.

“(I can’t say why, but trust me when I say that’s EXACTLY their rational behind what they are doing with the shop. They might be fools for this, but they honestly believe in DarkFall so much that they are willing to give up some gains right now to ensure its solid for the ones playing right now)”

Oh, I don’t doubt you. That’s what they’re trying to do. I just completely fail to see how, if the game (design/mechanics-wise) “works” today at 300k, and will work in 6 months at 600k, it won’t work today at 600k.

Keeping the tourists out may or may not be a good move. Don’t know. Don’t have an opinion on that one way or another right now. But the problem is that they have no damn clue out of that potential big ball of customers who’s a tourist and who will stay. The problem is not that they’re keeping tourists out. The problem is that they’re keeping -people- out.

The whole thing leans on the counterproductive side because -people-, both potential tourists and faithful alike, will see they’re having problems just getting the game to begin with, and they will lose interest.

Besides, and correct me if I’m wrong since I haven’t played it, if the game is critically dependent on a mass of players at any given time, it stands to reason that you want that mass to be bigger, not smaller. Doesn’t matter if it’s now, in six months or in a year. For that type of mechanics, more players is always better. It doesn’t make a lick of sense to keep that mass of players artificially smaller than it could be unless they’re sabotaging themselves.

Also, if people screw the game by leaving (which is correct), then they screw it whether they leave it now, in six months or in a year. They might be trying to ride out the massive and natural influx of tourists at launch, which is an original idea, but ends up not making much sense either.

“300k tourists leaving would be really bad, because that’d leave us with only 300k faithful”
“But you already have only 300k faithful. Right now.”
“*crickets*”

–

“In this case, the flood would likely be 100-200k or so, and in the long run the damage they would do would be greater than the initial cash boost.”

See, this is the part I’m not getting. Where is the damage in 100-200k people getting the game, playing it for a while, and leaving? Still leaves you where you were before they joined, there’s always the chance a few of them will stay, and you make some extra money. What’s the damage? That they don’t like the game, they leave and then they badmouth it? Well, they’re already badmouthing it -now- because they can’t get in. Damage in the sense that 200k people leaving breaks the critical mass of players that the game needs to “work”? That implies the game doesn’t work -now- because those 200k players are not there. 300k now = (500k – 200k) in (x) months because you might patch it up, but the game remains the same.

“About metacritic: A second review would be added to the current 2/10 score, which is part of the reason Tasos wanted the first one retracted.”

A silly short-term reason, because more reviews will definitely start coming in and Metacritic being an aggregator of everything, if this offending 2/10 review is taken off, chances are next month another 2/10 review will take its place rendering the whole thing moot. What’s Tasos going to do, chase after every bad review that shows up in Metacritic like Don Quixote? No, of course not. The point is that this review was bad and misleading in its own right, so it had to be re-reviewed in its own right, Metacritic be damned. If what bothers Tasos is Metacritic, then he should whine about every bad review that will hit it, not just this one regardless of how sleazy it is.

I swear I’m beginning to think they’re schizophrenic.

“Take that review down, because it impacts people’s opinions now and they influence their decision to buy the game.”
“Can they buy the game anyway?”
“Probably not. We’re not letting many people buy it, really.”
“I’ll call the men in white coats now.”
“Fair enough.”

In this case, the flood would likely be 100-200k or so, and in the long run the damage they would do would be greater than the initial cash boost. Obviously if it was 1 million, Aventurine would likely take that money, shut DF down when the majority of the million leaves (they would, regardless of how good DF is/was since it’s not WoW), and call it a day.

(I can’t say why, but trust me when I say that’s EXACTLY their rational behind what they are doing with the shop. They might be fools for this, but they honestly believe in DarkFall so much that they are willing to give up some gains right now to ensure its solid for the ones playing right now)

About metacritic: A second review would be added to the current 2/10 score, which is part of the reason Tasos wanted the first one retracted.

I argue against myself all the time!

What I mean by not productive is exactly that. Not productive. I say this because I start from the (relatively safe, I think) assumption that Tasos and Adventurine want more players and not less players. I don’t care about the Darkfall fans or the Darkfall haters. They’re already set and done. But again, there are a lot of people in the middle, lots of potential Darkfall players and lot of EG readers, that would surely benefit from a better review. Saying “Bah, humbug, fuck off” is not productive. It does not allow for the record to be set straight, it does not allow for a second review, it does not allow to correct any mistakes.

If I were someone that’s looking for info on Darkfall and so far had remained oblivious to this mess, I dig around and I find two things: That EG published a very lacking review of it (that’s being nice) and that Adventurine is refusing to have a second review. Doesn’t speak well of either party, so I’d lean to not play Darkfall and not read EG a little more. How’s that productive? That’s me. Other people might find Tasos’ valiant stand in the face of something or other to be noble and/or EG’s mistake to be a small one.

“You can’t say ’screw metacritic’ and at the same admit SOME people might be influenced by it.”

I say screw metacritic in the sense that it doesn’t have any incidence on whether there should be a second review or not. There should be one because the first one was lacking in everything, not because it shows up on metacritic. I’m arguing from the point of a publication and how it should treat its content, nothing more. Besides it pisses me off as a former reviewer to see a bad piece still up there.

“DarkFall already has enough players trying to get in to flood the shop anytime its up. They don’t need ‘buzz’ now to generate some quick sales.”

Are you saying that if I go over to Adventurine, today, and tell them “I am the owner of the such and such social network. I brainwash my users and they do my bidding. In one month I can come back and drop a bag on your table with a million Darkfall players in it. All you gotta do is scramble to get enough servers up to hold them”…

… they wouldn’t do it?

I don’t buy that they don’t want ‘buzz’ or that they’re dead set on keeping things ‘niche’. Design-wise, maybe. But they’re not going to turn a massive influx of players away. Nobody will. Nobody should.

“If an potential player is on the fence, or simply giving the game some time (as many are doing), this type of slander might hurt that interest.”

Exactly why a second review is needed. To correct this.

“(I’m enjoying the debate btw, and I hope everyone here at KTR takes it as just that, and not some personal attack on anyone here.)”

For sure! I’m enjoying it too :)

“DarkFall already has enough players trying to get in to flood the shop anytime its up.”

Sounds like there is no reason to care about the review then. Because even if you want to play – you can’t. It’s not for sale EVERY time I have checked. If anyone could be blamed for killing Darkfall’s popularity, it is Aventurine itself. This review has done nothing but generate MORE interest in the game, so who is the loser here? People that want to play Darkfall but can’t because IT’S NOT FOR SALE MOST OF THE TIME, that’s who.

Allowing everyone that wants to pay them money to do so should be their number one priority. All hands on deck!

P.S. Posts at KTR before the “review”: 1. Posts after: 6. ‘Nuff said.

300k subs for a niche title unproductive? Come on now, you are arguing against yourself :)

You can’t say ‘screw metacritic’ and at the same admit SOME people might be influenced by it. Even if only one person decides not to try DF because of it, the slander piece has caused Aventurine harm. DarkFall already has enough players trying to get in to flood the shop anytime its up. They don’t need ‘buzz’ now to generate some quick sales. They are trying to establish a solid niche title (like EVE), and part of that is having positive player experiences within the game, ones that will naturally draw people to the game. If an potential player is on the fence, or simply giving the game some time (as many are doing), this type of slander might hurt that interest.

As for proof, it goes beyond the logs, check my site today for a breakdown. The point of the logs is its a clear-cut example of dishonesty by the writer, and something only Aventurine had access to. Any fan (like myself) can point out the actual errors in the review itself.

Finally, while I agree with you that EG would hurt itself financially if it took down the slander piece, that does not justify it being an unethical move. Furthermore, a re-review would not replace the slander piece, just supplement it, which is not good enough in this case. When you have the power to fix a mistake, offering to sugar coat it is not going to help.

(I’m enjoying the debate btw, and I hope everyone here at KTR takes it as just that, and not some personal attack on anyone here.)

But screw Metacritic. I’m not gonna say it’s not a valid meter that some people use, but it’s not the final and absolute arbiter of anything. If the review was controversial and erroneous it should be amended or re-reviewed because that’s in the best interests of both EG and Adventurine. Metacritic doesn’t enter the picture. Can’t have erroneous content up there, but can’t take it out and leave a hole without something else to replace it.

Most people would have jumped at the chance of, first, having a controversial piece done on your thing, accidentally or not, and second having a second review done that has no possible option but to improve on things because the first one was terrible. If there are two things that Darfkall needs right now they are eyeballs and numbers. But Tasos in his reply pulls a move that’s borderline out of the CCP PR handbook and prefers to look tough in front of his own players than making a choice that would benefit the game in the long run.

As far as why the thing is not taken down, there are a few reasons I can think of: First and foremost, numbers. That thing is bringing in the hits. Second, they are not going to kill that hit generator without having something to replace it with.

Third, and we’re entering into opinion here, so we might disagree: EG’s editors don’t believe server logs (or at least -those- server logs) are incontrovertible proof of anything. I don’t know myself. It’s hazy either way. So they won’t take it down on the basis of that evidence alone, that’s their choice. I haven’t seen the logs myself. Maybe they’re bogus and EG decided not to mention this to avoid adding more fuel to the fire, or maybe they’re genuine but EG decided to back their writer anyway until further evidence came along. I don’t know. I haven’t seen the logs and I don’t know anyone inside EG to ask.

Fourth: I think EG is re-reviewing it anyway no matter what Tasos says because at this point what he says is almost inconsequential. EG can run as many reviews of Darfall back to back as they want and Tasos doesn’t enter the picture. But EG knows (or should know, summoning that rare ghost known as integrity) that you can’t keep a bad piece up. EG needs the re-review as much as Adventurine, even if Tasos gets cranky about it.

Fifth: Stranger things have happened, but I’d be willing to bet the second review is being made right now and EG is already seeing that, yes, the first one was bad, full of hyperbole (deserved or not) and had errors in it, but the spirit of it may be in the right place. Maybe the second reviewer is already telling them that – “I can sure give you a better review, but as far as the score I can tell you right now, it ain’t going up more than a point. Two tops.”

So you’re an EG editor in charge of this thing. What do you do? You have a bad review, bombastic, trollish at times, with some errors, but essentially (as almost confirmed by the second review in progress), right. You do what most editors who value their content would do: You do -not- take the first one out until the second one is ready, you publish the second, and you amend/apologize where needed. You talk about mistakes, standards, procedures, trust, and move on because the whole thing is not the death of anyone.

You do not retract or take content out without incontrovertible proof, and right or wrong, EG didn’t feel the logs they got from Adventurine were solid proof of anything. Without that, they’re in the middle of a he said, she said between Ed Zitron and Tasos. The only sensible course of action at that point is to re-review, whether the parties like it or not. I mean both parties, because I’m sure Zitron is none too pleased about having his piece redone since it’d do wonders for his future assignments (read: people will think three times before assigning him anything, and rightly so).

Tasos needs to drop the CCP method of PR. I’m sure it’s all the rage in Europe, but it’s not productive.