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.

And then...

[elvum]

Dave Karraker, Sr. Director, Corporate Communications, Sony Computer Entertainment America, then picked up his ball and went home with it.

Re:And then...

[spun]

And thought to himself, somewhat sadly, "Why won't more people play with my balls? People used to love my balls! My balls were the best balls on the market. Now they just want to play with Bill's balls and Reggie's balls. Damn it! My balls are just sitting on the shelves collecting dust. I'm gonna get fired, and then I'm gonna have to play with my old, dusty balls all by myself."

Re:

[Secrity]

I certainly will not be buying any more of Sony's balls.

This story had nothing to do with my decision not to buy another Sony product, I have been not buying Sony products for over a year now.

Re:

[buffer-overflowed]

In a related note, Ken Kutaragi was heard to say, "The next generation doesn't start until Sony says Microsoft and Nintendo have started it."

Nutshell

[Shadow Wrought]

That'd be the difference between on the record and off the record. Now we need only await for the blogosphere's calm and reasoned response.

Re:Nutshell

[ninti]

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.

Re:

[Shadow Wrought]

Big difference.

Indeed it is. Thanks for the clarification.

Re:

[Aladrin]

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

Re:Nutshell

[nacturation]

So one week later everybody jumps in the new pool and gets leprosy, right?
 

Re:

[TeraCo]

Great analogy.. or GREATEST ANALOGY.

Waaaaaaah

[fotbr]

Rule number one about secrets: If more than one person knows it, its no longer secret.

Re:

[multisync]

I thought it was "wiiiiiiii"

Re:

[UbuntuDupe]

Or, to generalize Franklin's Law:

n people can keep a secret only if n - 1 are dead.

Re:

[Zantetsuken]

wouldnt it be paranoia?

Play by their rules, or else

[Erioll]

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.

Re:

[krakelohm]

Exactly. How many times do you need to warn someone? If you don't play by the rules sometimes you get your ass swatted.

Blackballed?

[Trillan]

I'm not sure even calling it blackballed is fair. When I think of blackballing, I think of someone deliberately trying to destroy the "blackballee" in an industry, not simply disconnecting them from a single "blackballing" company.

In other words, I'm totally justified in not letting you play with my ball. It's only when I try to stop you from using any balls, or play in any game I'm related to, that it becomes blackballing.

Re:

[apoc06]

i think the right term would probably be blacklisted.

Re:

[PeelBoy]

It wasn't exclusive content it was a rumor that Kotaku tried to confirm. Had Kotaku never tried to confirm the rumor and just published it then Sony would have never had a chance to ask them to please not publish the story. So what would you say if Sony blackballed a site for publishing a rumor and nothing more?

Re:Play by their rules, or else

[W2k]

The thing is, Sony has no right to tell another website what they may or may not publish. Sony even trying to tell a journalist what he may or may not write about them is unethical. Kotaku did the right thing by standing up for journalistic integrity, and Sony's PR department are a bunch of asshats. Keeping information from being leaked is an internal matter for Sony. Once it's out, it's out. Now they've left an influential gaming blog with nothing left to lose in terms of their relationship to Sony. And Kotaku no doubt still has whatever source they got the rumours from.

It can be argued whether Kotaku was smart to act the way they did, but they are certainly right - and Sony wrong - from a moral perspective. The big mistake was the Sony PR guy threatening to blackball. To Kotaku, that must have been a sure sign they were sitting on some hot stuff. It would have been stupid not to publish at that point.

Re:Play by their rules, or else

[feepness]

The thing is, Sony has no right to tell another website what they may or may not publish.

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

[seebs]

This is a good analysis.

Sony needs positive press a lot more than Kotaku needs help finding Sony stories; empirically, they were finding stuff Sony wasn't giving out even to the people they were supposedly helping out.

Sony just pissed off every video game blogger in the world. Kotaku just showed real class.

It's about relationships, and Sony doesn't understand any relationship but "you suck our cock and pay for the privilege". This is working against them now.

Re:

[feepness]

Sony just pissed off every video game blogger in the world. Kotaku just showed real class.

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:

[Cadallin]

It isn't really that Sony did anything wrong per se. Just that they done (yet again) something monumentally stupid and possibly suicidal. The thing I think people are really taking issue with is Sony's "Fuck you! I don't need you, Kotaku, I don't need anybody, and I don't care who Knows!" attitude. Had Sony done as you described it wouldn't have been nearly as big a deal. But they DID get all pissy about it, and that's the point.

Kotaku has a fair degree of credibility to the core gamer demographic,

Re:

[seebs]

What Sony did wrong was threaten a journalist.

Sure, they have no obligation to give out freebies and exclusives -- but saying they're being withheld just because they don't like a story the journalist ran? Petty and juvenile.

Of course, even past the threat: It is just plain dumb of Sony to deny information to a company that could be generating buzz for them.

Re:

[Aladrin]

I agree, Sony did nothing wrong. What they did was not smart. With all the trouble they've had in the last year, the last thing they want to do is piss off any gamers or gamer news sites.

If they'd done exactly as they did, but didn't TELL them they were doing it, none of this would be an issue. This is simple PR, and Sony has failed even in that arena.

2 years ago, I'd have been seriously considering getting in line for a PS3. I love(d) my PS2 and had a ton of fun with it. But their att

Re:

[cgenman]

Agreed. And Kotaku has no right to future insider information.

This isn't about rights, it's about relationships.

So Kotaku posts Sony's fluffy PR pieces an hour after everyone else, but in exchange gets to post any real news days before anyone else is "allowed" to? Sounds like a good deal to me.

Severing all relationships with an information portal is the nuclear option. Sony resorted to the nuclear option over a rumor that was already in the public eye anyway. Sure, Kotaku could have avoided publishing th

Re:

[khchung]

This isn't about rights, it's about relationships.

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 g

Re:

[TubeSteak]

Sony even trying to tell a journalist what he may or may not write about them is unethical.

I don't think the word 'unethical' means what you think it means.

PR is about three things:
1. Advocating and disseminating one point of view.
2. Crisis avoidance
3. Damage control

Sony's PR people were doing #2 when they first asked Kokatu not to publish that story and again when they threatened to blackball the site.

Kotaku did the right thing by standing up for journalistic integrity, and Sony's PR department are a bunch

Re:

[Lynxara]

Anything published on Kotaku ends up on every gaming blog on the internet. That's probably why Sony didn't want the rumor appearing on such a prominent and well-regarded site to begin with. It would repeatedly cited as fact even if it was not, and Sony has had previous negative experiences with similar blog-fueled rumors in the past. While their response is excessive, it's certainly not unexpected.

Kotaku won't really suffer for this; they're widely perceived as being very biased in favor of Nintendo's pr

Re:

[Shihar]

[quote]Sony has no right to tell another website what they may or may not publish.[/quote]

Sony didn't tell them what they can and can not publish. They just told them that there would be a consequence of they did publish... namely they would not get anything other then press releases from Sony from that point on. That is a perfectly fair thing to do.

I don't know what Sony said exactly to the blog, but what they should have done was offer a deal. In exchange for not publishing the rumor, Sony should have

Re:

[seebs]

I dunno why you're all fussy about him walloping her. He done told her she'd get a whuppin' if she kept carryin' on like that.

*spits*

Seems fair to me. She wants to get all up in her man's face, she oughta expect a couple black eyes. Yup!

Re:

[radish]

The smart move would have been to offer Kotaku an exclusive in exchange for an NDA. That way everyone's happy - Kotaku get a big scoop and Sony get to keep their secret. The dumb move would have been to threaten one of the most widely read news outlets covering your business with "not being invited to our next press conference".

I guess it comes as no surprise which Sony chose to go with. I don't think anyone's saying Sony weren't entirely within their rights, I think we're just saying they were really, real

Re:Play by their rules, or else

[Erioll]

And this is news?

That's the thing actually. In many cases (politics, news, etc), there's PLENTY of "we say there's going to be consequences, but actually we've never followed through... ever." But these guys did. Anybody may or may not agree with the initial decision to not release upcoming information, timing, etc, but it wasn't like it was a surprise to those who ran the story. Sony followed through on what they said, which is unfortunately a too-rare occurrence these days.

I wish honesty (harsh honesty, but honesty nonetheless) wasn't news, but these days it is.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Exactly. Mod up.

[PeelBoy]

Couldn't have said it better my self.

This wasn't some kind of exclusive content or interview. It was a rumor.

Re:

[eln]

Sony doesn't dictate anything, but it does determine how it will work with certain journalists. It's similar to the stories about the Bush White House: if a journalist publishes a lot of negative stuff about the President, that journalist is unlikely to be called on during press briefings, and can probably forget about getting any of the insider information that "senior White House aides" leak on a regular basis.

It's all politics, whether it's government or business.

Re:

[feepness]

Since when does SONY dictate what journalists (let alone BLOGS) publish?

Since when do BLOGS dictate who SONY gives non-public information too?

Re:

[feepness]

Sony never gave them anything.

And will continue not giving them anything. So what's the problem?

Re:

[Guysmiley777]

The problem, dear sir, is the threat. Trying to strong-arm a news organization with threats was just a Bad Idea.

#1: It is morally questionable. Yes, Sony is a big, evil corporation. That doesn't change the fact it was wrong.

#2: It was a stupid play on Sony's part. They were bluffing on the guess that Kotaku would fold and not publish. They didn't and Sony got nasty. Kotaku published that too.

#3: The best way to confirm a rumor is to threaten over its publication. If Sony would have said "No comment" or "

Re:Play by their rules, or else

[Tim C]

Since when does SONY dictate what journalists (let alone BLOGS) publish?

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:

[radish]

The point is that the secret was out. The story was going to get posted, Sony knew it and Kotaku knew it. Had Sony just stayed quiet it would have been buried under the days news like every other unsubstantiated rumor in the tech world and no-one would have thought anything else of it until the keynote where it's announced. But by making such a big issue of it they've done three things - (a) they've confirmed the rumor as 100% true, (b) they've given it far more publicity than it would have got otherwise an

Re:

[Lemmy Caution]

What I'd like to know is what outlets are withholding news stories from the public because they don't want to lose those special favors from the industry. And to blackball them.

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.

Re:

[Null537]

Since when does SONY dictate what journalists (let alone BLOGS) publish?

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:

[Tweekster]

I lack mod points at the moment, but 3 other people said the same thing as you did but your version was by far the best.

nicely done!

Re:

[apoc06]

you bring up a very important dilemma. is kotaku a blog or is it a journalistic site?

a blog has no responsibility to anyone, nor do they need to answer to anyone.

a journalistic site needs to remain professional and unbiased. they need to report the news, and maintain a certain level of integrity.

if kotaku is simply a blog, they did the right thing by not backing down. however, if they are simply a blog they should not be able to benefit from industry perks such as debug systems, prerelease games, exclusive

It doesn't matter if it's a blog or journalism

[jchenx]

if kotaku is simply a blog, they did the right thing by not backing down. however, if they are simply a blog they should not be able to benefit from industry perks such as debug systems, prerelease games, exclusive interviews, etc. these kind of perks are simply noncash bribes so that the product gets a mention.

if they are a journalistic entity, they should work with the press officers at sony and within the confines of journalistic fact. if they wanted to proceed, perhaps they could have offered a re-write

In other news...

[RingDev]

News at 11:00.

-Rick

Why say anything in the first place?

[betamaxV2.1]

If the information being discussed is so important to Sony's strategy or business, why discuss it with members of the MEDIA in the first place? It seems to me that if they wanted them to post a story or interview at a certain time or after a certain date they should have politely requested such an action.

Reacting the way that they did just isn't smart on any level. Something is really wrong with Sony. And I am not jumping on the Sony hating bandwagon either. With all of their problems (rootkits, batteries, flubbed product launches, etc) I don't see how any Sony investor could be happy with the way the company is headed. I would hate to see Sony go completely out of business. We all know that the more competition in the market the better. I honestly think that Sony has become to large. They need to split into separate entities and change their branding accordingly. The Sony name needs to refer to TVs, stereos, Walkmans, and other hardware since that is what Sony is/was originally known for.

Grey

[MeanderingMind]

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.

Re:

[The Ultimate Fartkno]

> It's in Kotaku's interest to publish rumors,

This is hardly "rumor," though.

FTA: "During their correspondence with Sony as preparation for the story, the company asked them very specifically not to run the story."

If they were actually corresponding with Sony about the story then I'd say this looks much more like "proprietary information that, if you guys will just sit tight on it for a few days, we'll show off to you at that conference we invited you to next week."

> to not be "under the thumb" of any

Re:

[GodInHell]

If they were actually corresponding with Sony about the story then I'd say this looks much more like "proprietary information that, if you guys will just sit tight on it for a few days, we'll show off to you at that conference we invited you to next week."

I think that's a mischaricterization of the story. The article says they got the rumor, and tried to confirm with Sony. That sounds like journalism to me. "So, Mr Chenny, we hear you leaked Ms. Plame's identity" "nyah.. if you print that.. we will cut you out of future information.. nyah". Sure, it's not an important story, but this is Kotaku's beat.. they report on video games. They did their job.

If I feel bad for anyone here, it's sony. They flubbed this one.. Kotaku has played their cards tight here,

Re:

[sumdumass]

I think that's a mischaricterization of the story. The article says they got the rumor, and tried to confirm with Sony. That sounds like journalism to me. "So, Mr Chenny, we hear you leaked Ms. Plame's identity" "nyah.. if you print that.. we will cut you out of future information.. nyah". Sure, it's not an important story, but this is Kotaku's beat.. they report on video games. They did their job.

I can see that as a responcible reaction. After all, it wasn't Cheney who outed Plame, It was long time dem

Re:Grey

[DingerX]

Er, "news" and "journalism" do not involve "rumor". Rumor can lead you to something, but if you are going to publish a "high ranking source" article, you better be sure that source is high ranking, and that your information is reliable. Otherwise, it is, as Kotaku stated, "a rumor". An "anonymous source" does not cut it: that could be my grandmother. Spreading rumors is neither journalism nor publishing news.

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.

Not a Big Deal

[Rycross]

Its Sony's right to give out information to whoever they choose.

I think the more interesting thing here is that they're planning on copying Nintendo and Microsoft's ideas. Its a pretty cool combination of the two ideas though.

Re:

[GrayCalx]

Yeah I agree. Someone dig up the quote from Sony before the PS3 release about how Achievements and Gamer Points are silly and aren't needed. I'm too lazy. And tired. And I might have dreamed it.

Re:

[rishistar]

Well what they should have done is copy Nintendo's approach to this: say the complete opposite is going to happen, and then proceed as planned anyway. Nintendo are great for doing this (eg we are not going to upgrade the DS) and in the long run people appreciate thats how Nintendo play the game. Its almost like Sony are going through the phase Nintendo were 10 years ago.

They're both right

[Vaibhav_Locke]

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.

Hate to say it...

[JRSchulke]

I hate to say it, but I have to side with Sony on this one. They had an agreement and it was broken. It sounds like Kotaku perhaps had some privaleged information and took advantage of it. I know Sony has been digging its own grave lately, but it seems like everyone jumps on any chance to report anything negative about them. And there's a lot of it out there. -justin

Re:

[ninti]

"They had an agreement and it was broken" What agreement? They got a rumor and went to Sony to ask if it was true. Sony could have just said "no comment", but they said "don't publish that or we will punish you", and then did so. WTF is that?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[slantyyz]

Yeah, but Sony brings on all the PS3 hate on themselves. Harrison and Tretton keep saying the dumbest things, which just compounds on the hate.

Personally, I really like the PS3 (enough to buy one), but I can also understand why everyone hates it. It's expensive (for a console, but not a BD player) and it seems like the Sony brass doesn't care about their core market, the gamers, who don't have loads of cash oozing out of their pockets.

Re:

[Jartan]

I hate to say it, but I have to side with Sony on this one. They had an agreement and it was broken. It sounds like Kotaku perhaps had some privaleged information and took advantage of it. I know Sony has been digging its own grave lately, but it seems like everyone jumps on any chance to report anything negative about them. And there's a lot of it out there. -justin

As usual RTFA. This isn't like some people are trying to spin it. Kotaku had a normal press relationship with Sony. They had a test unit (ko

Re:

[seebs]

What agreement? This was not information provided by Sony, but embargoed. This was a proper legitimate rumor.

Rumors are reported daily on every game blog

[Maddhatter1]

and this one was no different. It's not like Kotaku just had an interview with some sony higher ups and released information before they were told to. They reported a rumor and that's it. It would've just been seen as a rumor if Sony hadn't all my confirmed it with this overblown response.

Rumor and speculation?

[kjlong]

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?

Re:

[cowscows]

Exactly. If Sony had just said no comment, they still might have had their big announcement slightly ruined, but then at least we'd all be talking about these new features instead of talking about how Sony threatened and then blacklisted a video game website.

I guess they bet on Kotaku folding, but I'm not sure what made Sony think the odds were in their favor.

Typical Sony

[Tepshen]

I think that Sony will find this happening more and more as they continue to put out crazy marketing. Its gotten to the point that the PR that they dole out is so innacurate that bloggers find themselves actually researching stories on thier own to get accurate information. Sony doesnt want this because the actual news regarding thier plans is nowhere near as good as they would like us to belive.

actual room...

[wpegden]

They detail a form of Sony Mii, with achievements accruing in an actual room as you succeed in playing games.

I can't help but see this sentence as as indicator that the Slashdot crowd is a bit disconnected from reality. In what sense is this an "actual" room??

Re:

[kperson]

I've been to this "actual room", and when I saw it my head "literally exploded" with excitement.

Apple and Sony

[hansamurai]

Wow, Apple and Sony sound more and more similar every week with stories like these. Products going for "five hundred and ninety-nine US dollars", company getting pissed at bloggers for leaking stories, what's next? Maybe someone from Sony will diss DRM. We can only hope.

For this Sony went ballistic?

[Sarusa]

Who really couldn't have guessed that Sony would badmouth and then copy Xbox Live Achievements and Miis while passing it off as innovation? And of course several people have. Really, being dicks like this just adds more credence to the rumor than ignoring it would have.

Next up: WHOOPS I guess rumble isn't so last-gen after all.

Re:

[shimage]

Funny you should mention that. [kotaku.com]

The real news here

[oGMo]

I think the real news here is that Kotaku actually had a reliable source for one of their stories.

This is what journalism is about.

[Animats]

"What someone doesn't want you to publish is journalism; all else is publicity." -- Paul Fussell

sony is the britney spears of electronics

[swschrad]

they are bound and determined to kill themselves. and are hard on the right path.

Resolved

[StrahdVZ]

Dont know if this has been posted yet.

http://kotaku.com/gaming/sony/sony-and-kotaku-make up-240922.php [kotaku.com]

MOD PARENT UP!

[Siberwulf]

This is indeed resolved. Sony isn't the she-devil anymore. (Not reall, and yes I own a Wii)

Re:

[Dahamma]

I wish I had mod points... though knowing /. it would just get modded back down so that people ccould keep bashing Sony for another few hours.

Looks like they're friendly once again...

[Tronster]

Sony's PR contacted Kotaku, they talked, and while continued to disagree reverted on their decision to ban them from their press channels:

http://kotaku.com/gaming/sony/sony-and-kotaku-make up-240922.php [kotaku.com]

Everyone makes mistakes; I'm glad to see Sony realized their err and wasn't prideful about maintaining their snap decision.

Maybe Sony (and others) will learn from this?

[jchenx]

I am hoping that Sony (and other companies) will learn a few things from this whole experience:

1) The gaming community is extremely connected. Good news travels fast, but bad news is lightspeed. Wait before you do something stupid like blackball a popular gaming website. Maybe it's worth trying the "count to 10 before sending off a nasty e-mail" tactic?

2) More respect needs to be given to the gaming press in general. You can't push them around, just because you happen to be the content provider. Maybe that

Over and done with

[kamapuaa]

Interesting story, but it's over and through. Soon after, Sony called and retracted their statement [kotaku.com].

He told me his take on the story and his frustrations and I told him mine, in the end we agreed to disagree on some level, but also decided that our readers and gamers in general would be best served if Sony and Kotaku could still play nicely together.

In a nutshell: The story remains up and Sony has re-invited us to the meetings and interviews initially scheduled for the Game Developers Conference.

Re:Close to the mark?

[_xeno_]

I seem to recall Sony saying achievements were stupid and that they wouldn't bother implementing them because no one wanted them, or something to that effect.

Apparently this is more Sony innovation in the "SIXAXIS" sense: bad mouth the innovator when people praise the idea, and then come back and "invent" it themselves and pretend it's some huge new feature, that they'd been planning for years!

I can understand why the may not want "innovation" of that kind leaked, instead preferring to very carefully "manage" the PR to try and pretend this is some great new idea and not just a crappy knock-off of both X-Box Live and the Wii's online services.

Re:Close to the mark?

[PoderOmega]

I believe Sony also took a shot at Microsoft for poor backwards compatibility as well... and now they are releasing PS3s that play "only" 1000 games. I am not sure what that percentage is but I would guess it is only 50% of the PS2 library at most. I don't really care that much about BC, but I don't understand why they badmouth MS and Nintendo at first, then do the same thing later. However, having weak BC is not really "ripping off" MS or Nintendo like the achievements or motion controler.

Re:

[Rycross]

They literally said "over 1000" [gamespot.com] but speculation is that the number is fairly close to that.

Re:

[bogjobber]

Apparently this is more Sony innovation in the "SIXAXIS" sense: bad mouth the innovator when people praise the idea, and then come back and "invent" it themselves and pretend it's some huge new feature, that they'd been planning for years! I can understand why the may not want "innovation" of that kind leaked, instead preferring to very carefully "manage" the PR to try and pretend this is some great new idea and not just a crappy knock-off of both X-Box Live and the Wii's online services.

Right, because

Re:Close to the mark?

[kinglink]

There's two schools of thought. This idea is so amazingly better then their announcement this weekend that it screwed Sony. Or that it's exactly what it is and it makes people realizing they are ripping off the other two consoles.

Either way it's Sony doing what Sony does, finding new ways to create bad press. They wanted bloggers and grass roots stuff happening for them, hell they paid for a couple blogs through advertising, but they don't realize bloggers are gamers, not just the press and they'll give stories to gamers and not put up with Sony telling them not to publish a rumor that they might have.

Now Kotaku is NOT 100 percent right here.... well wait, yes they are, they got a rumor, went to sony for a comment, got none worth publishing other then Sony telling them not to publish it, and then published it. Perfectly fine. 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.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

"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 soci

Re:

[leadsling]

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?

Please go back and re-read your quote. Everyone knows social competency and geekness are polar opposites! Maybe Sony's problem is that it is too far advanc

Re:Close to the mark?

[krotkruton]

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?

I understand your argument and don't intend to argue about the rest of your post, but this comment really sounded wrong to me, especially the part I marked as bold. You use "the most socially inept geek" as an example of someone who could handle this decision better, but why would you trust someone to do PR for you when the person can't avoid making a complete fool of him/herself at a party? It really isn't fair to compare PR ability with software or hardware design, although it is more applicable to programmer/developer relationships. You made some other valid points, but this quote really detracted from them.

Mythical Man Month and Game Systems

[alexhmit01]

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.

Re:

[Southpaw018]

A direct ripoff of two major competitors and combining them into one idea is a trade secret?

Sony's in even more trouble than I thought.

Re:

[PopeRatzo]

Sony is acting exactly like you'd expect them to act after having their own way for so long. It's a recurring theme in the corporate world. They'd been given so much power over the consumer that the become outraged when people don't fall in line.

It's another story entirely, but I blame the privileged status given to corporations in this country (which is now the model for the world). A corporation gets all the benefits of the individual without any of the responsibilities. Sony tried to spin the release

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[cowscows]

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 v

Re:And I should care why?

[Tsiangkun]

Let me summarize the article for people who haven't read it.

This was not insider information.

This was not information from SONY.

This was information from an anonymous source.

This was reported as a rumor from an anonymous source.

They called SONY to inquire about the rumor before publishing.

SONY neither confirmed, nor denied, the rumor, but instead threatened the blog if the blog should run the article.

The blog ran the article.

SONY followed through on threat.

{-- end of story --}

{-- begin commentary --}
SONY should have confirmed the rumor, and then asked the blog to wait for the okay to run the story as being the official word of SONY, or else face the wrath of SONY and lose their insider access. That would have been in the spirit of the agreement between the blog and SONY.

Punishing a blog for publishing an rumor from an anonymous source is just another bone-headed SONY move.

Re:

[goatpunch]

They may have been afraid that it would be easy for Nintendo or MS to copy the concept for their systems once published.

They were terrified that in some unimaginable future, the Xbox 360 would have a universal Achievements system, and the Nintendo Wii would have customisable Avatars...

Re:

[seebs]

Um, Sony told them not to publish their article. I'd believe that Sony didn't want the news/idea out there yet. They may have been afraid that it would be easy for Nintendo or MS to copy the concept for their systems once published.

Well, who the **** cares what Sony wants? I don't recall asking my news sources to filter everything based on whether or not Sony wants it out there.

That said: Of course it would be easy for MS and Nintendo to copy the feature. It's easy because they already have these feature

Asked to remove, sure ... but blacklisting?

[jchenx]

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 ca

Re:

[mollymoo]

The corporate English was much better than the self-proclaimed journalist's English:

Know this, while I disagree with this decision and think it is a monumental mistake, it will not effect our continuing coverage of Sony and the gaming software and hardware your company makes and supports.

The first comma should be a colon and "effect" should be "affect". I love the way so many bloggers rant about being journalists without bothering to learn the most basic tool of a journalist's trade - the language.