# Funny Email From a Publisher re. Reviews



## Morrus

Simon Collins forwarded me this amusing email.  I've edited out the company's name.  The funniest part of the email is where they claim that a reviewer who gets his copy for free does not have the right to give a bad review.  Yes - they actually directly say that!!! 

Of course, this is made funnier by the fact that said publisher has received two 4/5 scores from EN World staff reviewers, a 3/5, along with two 2/5 scores.  Average score = 3/5, which does not constitute,as they put it, "disturbingly unfavorable reviews
our products received up to, and including XXXXXX".  Here's the wonderfully amusing email Simon received:



> I am afraid, Mr. Collins, that the message had not been passed on
> that XXXXXXXXXX is no longer supporting ENWorld with review
> materials.  Our reason for such is the disturbingly unfavorable reviews our products received up to, and including XXXXXXX.
> 
> While we are not opposed to constructive criticism, and
> appreciate the objectivity of a professional reviewer, we find it quite disagreeable to support a publication that continues to publish negative reviews of our product, esspecially since said products were not paid for by the reviewer.  A customer who has paid for the product has every right to complain as much as they want about the product, and its value.  Someone who got it for free does not reserve such judgement.
> 
> Thank you, but no thank.  We are quite happy to support
> GamingReport.com, BeyondAdventure.com & Games Unplugged Magazine.




Of course, that's OK by me. Those other sites don't get EN World's traffic between them, so this company is cutting off its own nose to spite its face.


----------



## Piratecat

Wow. A professional company expects that giving a review copy entitles them to a biased review?  That's... just sad. Whoever it is, I can't say I think much of their ethical standards.


----------



## Darkness

Good riddance to them.


----------



## alsih2o

what a load!

 are they completely unaware of the standards used in almost every literary review process?

 heck many reviewers of books outside of the d20 realm can get the book on tape, even if a "book on tape" hasn't been made for release yet just to make it easier on the reviewer.

 and do they think movie reviewers are just waiting to get into the theater opening night to do their review?

 the should be sending out the books with free gifts just for the attention.

 some of the galleries i work with will arrange a car and a private viewing of any art, as well as a meal and a sit-down with the artist.....whenever it is convenient for the REVIEWER.

 man, that is gall, that is actually funny. i just wish i knew who it was so i could avoid them at all cost.


----------



## Morrus

Exactly - like the reviewers are quaking in their boots that they won't receive any of XXXXX's products.  The publisher actually appears to be under the impression that they're doing the reviewers a favour... sorry, guys - news flash: reviewing stuff is a chore!  They don't _want_ to review your products - they do so as a service for the community.  

Of course, I'm going to have to explain at some point on the publisher's review page exactly why it is that no more staff reviews will be available for their products.


----------



## EricNoah

Moronic ... to the extreme!


----------



## Crothian

That was funny, but it is a shame that they just don't get it.


----------



## JoeGKushner

It is interesting.  Now if we were talking 50K sports cars, then yes, there might be some outrage by the company but even if said company was providing EN World with four copies (one for each staff reviewer and one for Morrus) of hardcover products, that's still not reason to think that the reviews would be positive.

Now I'm curious as to which company it is.  I've got a few ideas but it could just be thatther'es more than one company like this.


----------



## ColonelHardisson

Petulant, unprofessional, corrupt, snide, clueless...man, they run the gamut, don't they? How naive or cynical must they be to think they are buying good reviews with review copies? Are they unaware of screenings of films done especially for critics, or books sent to newspaper reviewers, or...well, you get the idea. They can't seriously believe that all those reviewers pay for what they review, can they? And, as Morrus points out, they apparently get decent reviews at EN World. What do they want, uniform 5s?  Are they seeing negative posts on the message boards and counting those as bad "reviews" also?

I have my own guess as to who it is. I won't say who, but I can say that, as a consumer, if I knew for certain who it was, I would almost certainly never buy one of their products ever again, on pure principle. They're that disgusting to me.


----------



## Crothian

Drat it, I can't figure out who it is.  Anyone with a guess e-mail it to me?  My curiosity is getting the better of me here.


----------



## tleilaxu

Let me be a voice of dissent here. I'm not sure what position the person who sent  Morrus the email has, but we can't assume that a whole company is unprofessional just because one email implies that they were doing ENworld a favor. I'm not saying that as an excuse for them (like I care, right?) but I know that in businesses sometimes what the PR say isn't necessaryily the intention of the high ups. Granted, I assume this is a small business, so such stuff shouldn't be very common.


_editing out ^most^ horrendous grammer mistakes_


----------



## Dinkeldog

I'm with ColHardisson, Tleilaxu.  It looks like they thought they were buying good reviews, or at least investing in good reviews.  It would be better to invest in better products.


----------



## ColonelHardisson

tleilaxu said:
			
		

> *Let me be a voice of dissent here. I'm not sure what position the person who sent  Morrus the email has, but we can't assume that a whole company is unprofessional just because one email implies that they were doing ENworld a favor. [/i] *




Not to be argumentative, really, but that's exactly what makes them unprofessional. Why is someone who obviously is "in the know" or in a position of authority with that company sending out such e-mails if that isn't the company's position? Now, perhaps the e-mail should be forwarded to the CEO of that company for clarification - how that person handles it would be further indication of how professional the company is.


----------



## Khan the Warlord

Oh my.

While I have no idea who this publisher is, I have a number of ones that I hope it _isn't_.


----------



## Grazzt

Wow. I don't know what to say, other than two things:

"Would they like some cheese to go with their 'whine'?" and

Match up the reviews (publisher has received two 4/5 scores from EN World staff reviewers, a 3/5, along with two 2/5 scores. Average score = 3/5) and see if ya can figure out who it is.


----------



## Khan the Warlord

Grazzt said:
			
		

> *
> Match up the reviews (publisher has received two 4/5 scores from EN World staff reviewers, a 3/5, along with two 2/5 scores. Average score = 3/5) and see if ya can figure out who it is.  *




I'm doing that now. The funny and shocking part was when I first did it, I came up with Necromancer, lol. Due to a scroll of the wheel gone awry, I missed a few reviews of them, so Necro is safe.


----------



## Grazzt

Khan the Warlord said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I'm doing that now. The funny and shocking part was when I first did it, I came up with Necromancer, lol. Due to a scroll of the wheel gone awry, I missed a few reviews of them, so if Necro is safe.
> 
> *




Ha.  It's not Necromancer Games, I can assure you of that.


----------



## Khan the Warlord

Grazzt said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Ha.  It's not Necromancer Games, I can assure you of that. *




Hey, I know you, Clark, and the rest pretty well... I never doubted you guys -- just missed a couple staff reviews for Necro.


----------



## Morrus

No, it's not Necromancer.  I can't imagine Clark sending an email like that even in my wildest dreams.


----------



## Grazzt

Khan the Warlord said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Hey, I know you, Clark, and the rest pretty well... I never doubted you guys -- just missed a couple staff reviews for Necro.  *




Someone will figure out who it is eventually I would imagine. I myself am most curious as to which company actually did that.


----------



## Morrus

Grazzt said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Someone will figure out who it is eventually I would imagine. I myself am most curious as to which company actually did that. *




Oh, you can find out easily enough, Scott.  Just look in the right place.


----------



## Grazzt

Morrus said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Oh, you can find out easily enough, Scott.  Just look in the right place.  *




Ha! Well, I'll be damned.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

I would love to know, too. 

I am curious what the rationale is behind not simply saying who it is. They have obviously chosen to take a stand, I see no reason not to disclose that stand publicly.

Certainly it is "news" for a review site, no matter how you slice it.


Wulf


----------



## Khan the Warlord

Morrus said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Oh, you can find out easily enough, Scott.  Just look in the right place.  *




Bad form, I say!

Not all of us have access to the Moderator forum.


----------



## Femerus the Gnecro

Logically, it would follow that the publishing company in question would be the one with a 3.5 review average and 5 total reviews of their products.  

Easy enough.

-F


----------



## ColonelHardisson

I actually have a few guesses now, but I know it'd be bad form to post 'em. Still, I think Wulf's right - such a stance should be public knowledge. If they feel their beef is legitimate, then they would go public. If they felt their beef was not legitimate, then they wouldn't.


----------



## Morrus

Actually, I will tell you all who it is.  But first, I'm going to give them a couple of days to clarify their position.  I've sent them the URL to this thread.


----------



## ColonelHardisson

Well, I did the detective work suggested above, and if it's who I think it is, then I'm surprised. Well, maybe "bemused" is the more proper word.


----------



## the Jester

Wow!

What a load of bullpuckey!

It isn't often that you see such... well.. corporate arrogance from a small company.  It's like they think you guys are politicians and they're buying your votes with campaign contributions or something.  

Er, not that that kind of thing goes on, of course.

Now I'm often to the reviews section to see which co. to avoid...


----------



## Morrus

This is the email I just sent:



> Subj: A chance to clarify/comment?
> 
> Mr. XXXXXXX,
> 
> Simon Collins has advised me of your recent email exchange with him.  I will be explaining in EN World's news in a couple of days why it is that visitors will no longer be able to read staff reviews of XXXXXXXXX's products.  However, before I do so, I felt it was fair to give you chance to clarify your position in case of any misunderstanding and to rebuke any intimations of dishonesty which may arise from an initial reading of your email.
> 
> I have posted the following thread on my messageboards, and I feel that this would be the ideal place for you to make any comments you feel relevant.  The news item will be appearing early in the coming week.
> 
> http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=418683#post418683
> 
> I have copied Simon in on this thread; however, please address future correspondence on this matter to me.
> 
> Thanks for your time,
> 
> Morrus
> EN World
> www/enworld.org


----------



## Martin

It's Natural 20 Press, isn't it? <grin>

[edit=clarification]


----------



## Khan the Warlord

OK, I know who it is now.

And with only a small, $20 donation to my PayPal account, you can too!



And yes, it was a surprise.


----------



## Ghostwind

My research keeps coming back to a pdf publisher but my gut feeling is that it is someone publishing print and not pdf...


----------



## AaronLoeb

I feel your consternation, Morrus. I had this happen to me a lot in the past from computer game companies -- though not to this extreme a degree. When I was at Next Generation, we once posted the first review of a game that everyone was expecting to be the game of the year -- and it was an utter dog. We kicked it around, called it names, made fun of its parents, etc. The PR guy ended up leaving a message on voice mail accusing us of severe bias and saying that his company would never support Next Generation ever again as we were clearly insane. 

Then everyone else reviewed the game and also slaughtered it. He never followed through on his threats.

The truth is, people get really upset about negative reviews, and they have some good reasons. Sometimes they've worked for years on a product and it hurts to have a critic just tear it to pieces in 600 words. But that's the game you play, and one just has to accept it as reality. All that said, it is really rare for someone to determine they'll no longer support a publication. It's poor form -- especially to try to go to war with a pub as large as yours.

The main concerns for me, were I in their shoes, would be backlash from readers (they've gotta know it's going to get ugly when you reveal who they are) and backlash from the other publications they list in their letter to you. If I were an editor for GamingReport.com, I'd take pretty serious umbrage at the implication inherent in the letter -- that GamingReport's reviews are for sale in return for free stuff, so publisher XXXXXX will continue to support them.

With an attitude like that, XXXXX may find itself in a complete review blackout. That can't be good for business.

AJL


----------



## Morrus

AaronLoeb said:
			
		

> *If I were an editor for GamingReport.com, I'd take pretty serious umbrage at the implication inherent in the letter -- that GamingReport's reviews are for sale in return for free stuff, so publisher XXXXXX will continue to support them.
> *




I hadn't thought about that - but you're right.  That email does imply negative things about other sites which I'm sure aren't true.  Were I running one of those sites, I would be pretty upset.


----------



## Ghostwind

Morrus-

Perhaps you should forward the initial letter, your response, and their response to each of the other sites mentioned.  It would be very interesting to know their response.  Interesting enough, the same company also refuses to deal with my site after a not so favorable review... (Yes, I've figured it out).


----------



## Umbran

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> *I am curious what the rationale is behind not simply saying who it is. They have obviously chosen to take a stand, I see no reason not to disclose that stand publicly.*




As has been mentioned by others, the fact that one person at a company says a thing is not necessarily reason to paint the whole company with that brush.  

ColonelHardisson asked, "Why is someone who obviously is 'in the know' or in a position of authority with that company sending out such e-mails if that isn't the company's position? "  The answer could well be that one person there is a putz.  While _somebody_ seems to be acting in an unprofessional manner, a single e-mail is not really sufficient evidence to say the whole company is such.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Femerus the Gnecro said:
			
		

> *Logically, it would follow that the publishing company in question would be the one with a 3.5 review average and 5 total reviews of their products.*




Not at all a safe leap of logic, Watson.

Morrus only referred to reviews from ENworld staff (two 4s, one 3, and two 2s). There could be any number of reviews from fans mixed in there, and it could be spread among any number of products. 

Err, not to mention the fact that 4+4+3+2+2 / 5 is 3.0, not 3.5...

The only safe way to know without jumping to unfortunate conclusions is for Morrus to tell us.

Wulf


----------



## Buttercup

Good Lord!  Their stance is really disturbing.  In my professional life, I've been receiving review copies of books for years, and never has any publisher even hinted that the free copies construed any sort of contract.  They give you the book, you write what you think.  Period.  Suggesting that free copy=bribe for good review is just not done.  

If this is not some sort of mistake, then once Morrus spills the beans, I won't be purchasing any more of their products, no matter who it is.  I hope it isn't one of my favorite companies, because that would suck.  Nonetheless, I really can't give money to a company that thinks it is reasonable to purchase good reviews.


----------



## ColonelHardisson

Umbran said:
			
		

> *
> 
> As has been mentioned by others, the fact that one person at a company says a thing is not necessarily reason to paint the whole company with that brush.
> 
> ColonelHardisson asked, "Why is someone who obviously is 'in the know' or in a position of authority with that company sending out such e-mails if that isn't the company's position? "  The answer could well be that one person there is a putz.  While somebody seems to be acting in an unprofessional manner, a single e-mail is not really sufficient evidence to say the whole company is such. *




I'll agree, to a point. However, many d20 companies are rather small, so this may be the stance of one of the main people, perhaps a CEO. If so, then the company is, indeed, unprofessional. Doesn't mean everyone working for them is.


----------



## Femerus the Gnecro

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Not at all a safe leap of logic, Watson.
> 
> Morrus only referred to reviews from ENworld staff (two 4s, one 3, and two 2s). There could be any number of reviews from fans mixed in there, and it could be spread among any number of products.
> 
> Err, not to mention the fact that 4+4+3+2+2 / 5 is 3.0, not 3.5...
> 
> The only safe way to know without jumping to unfortunate conclusions is for Morrus to tell us.
> 
> Wulf *




Jeez.  I hope the LSAT people didn't notice my aforementioned leap of silliness.  

On the other hand, my trust in Morrus' simple math is obviously flawed as well.  And is that can't be trusted... well... then... what can?  WHAT!?!   

-F


----------



## Buttercup

Pssst!  Morrus didn't say 3.5, he said 3/5.  The company in question received 4, 4, 3, 2, 2 on a 1-5 scale, which means their overall is a 3 or 3 out of 5 or 3/5.


----------



## Crothian

Buttercup said:
			
		

> *Pssst!  Morrus didn't say 3.5, he said 3/5.  The company in question received 4, 4, 3, 2, 2 on a 1-5 scale, which means their overall is a 3 or 3 out of 5 or 3/5. *




And we all know three divided by five equals point six (3/5 = .6)


----------



## Eosin the Red

Great thread. 

Like others it baffles me what some people think. Others have noted that the publisher mentioned other sites that they will support because they get good reviews.

Makes me wonder how good those reviews are? Suddenly everything from them is suspect. Do they just not give bad reviews? I would be jumping mad if I was a reviewer at one of the sites that "understand" their position in the scheme of things.

I think someone stuck a size 10 in their mouth.

It is at moments like these that I wish Morrus was less professional and just posted the dang name


----------



## Dragongirl

Geeeeez.  Shall I give em my patentented _Gaze of Ire_ for ya?


----------



## boothbey

If it will make publisher XXXXXX happy.  I will start a site and give good reviews in exhcange for free stuff.  

I'm not proud.  More importantly, I'm not rich.  heh


----------



## Teflon Billy

Absolutely baffling.

I mean, I'm not in the industry and it would have never occured to _me_ that a review copy insured a positive review.

Wierd.

I have my suspicions as to who it is. We should start a pool


----------



## Eosin the Red

Billy, a pool sounds like a good idea, but I think some companies would get unduely slandered. Some might walk away thinking someone was guilty of something they are not.


PS - Change your sig, it is still disturbing after a year!


----------



## Orcus

Holy cow! If I knew that all it took was free stuff to get good reviews I would have been sending out more free copies! What an idiot I am!

On a more serious note...

That was really disturbing to read. That a publisher thought they could only get good reviews if they sent out review copies. 

I'll go on record and say that obviously wasnt me (or Psion wouldnt keep slamming Maze of Zayene products  ) or anyone that works for Necro.

The problem with posting it anonymously is that it damages other publishers as a result of speculation. 

I suggest this:

If after investigation the person who sent the email is actually someone who can speak on behalf of the company and they refuse to come in and personally and publicaly acknowledge their conduct and appologize then Morrus should post the name of the company. If you dont, then you will be harming companies who are wrongly suspected of being the culprit when they in fact are not.

Frankly, you (Morrus) would be within your rights to post it in the reviews section or to delete them as a company from reviews. This is a reviews site after all and YOU cant run the risk of the implication that your reviews are purchased.

That was really crappy of that company to do. But lets make sure it was someone from the company and not just a pissed off freelancer or something...

Clark


----------



## Orcus

You should move this to the Publisher forum.

Clark


----------



## tleilaxu

Morrus said:
			
		

> *Actually, I will tell you all who it is.  But first, I'm going to give them a couple of days to clarify their position.  I've sent them the URL to this thread. *




i think this is a most enlightened position.


----------



## Janos Antero

I for one would like to thank the publisher for the best laugh I've had in quite some time.  The fact that they can be THAT unprofessional doesn't do much to reassure me of the future of d20 in the decline of WotC, but it does remind me all over again why I am glad I read and post here.

Knowing a company thinks and treats others like that is a good insight to how they also evaluate and market their products.  Marketing yourself is the first step to a good product.

And I wouldn't buy this guy for a nickle, let alone one of their products.  Now the question is, who is it so I don't waste money?


----------



## Morrus

Orcus said:
			
		

> *
> That was really crappy of that company to do. But lets make sure it was someone from the company and not just a pissed off freelancer or something...
> *




I think we're safe there.  The person in question is the contact point for review copies (amongst other things) and holds the title "Sales Manager".

I'll give this another day or so before making it a bit more public, just in case the company wishes to respond to my email.


----------



## Umbran

Morrus said:
			
		

> *I'll give this another day or so before making it a bit more public, just in case the company wishes to respond to my email. *




Yeah, also remember - for many in the US, this is a three-day weekend.  Monday is the observance of Columbus Day.  You e-mailed them on Saturday?  You may want to wait until close of business on Tuesday befoure you bring on the Holy Smite


----------



## ColonelHardisson

Umbran said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Yeah, also remember - for many in the US, this is a three-day weekend.  Monday is the observance of Columbus Day.  You e-mailed them on Saturday?  You may want to wait until close of business on Tuesday befoure you bring on the Holy Smite  *




Assuming it's an American company...


----------



## Telgian

A similar note: it is the Thanksgiving long weekend in Canada, should the unfortunate party be situated here.


----------



## Dinkeldog

Umbran said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Yeah, also remember - for many in the US, this is a three-day weekend.  Monday is the observance of Columbus Day.  You e-mailed them on Saturday?  You may want to wait until close of business on Tuesday befoure you bring on the Holy Smite  *





A non-government agency that gives its employees Columbus Day off?  Do such beasts exist?


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> *A non-government agency that gives its employees Columbus Day off?  Do such beasts exist? *




HASBRO!


----------



## tleilaxu

Coincidentally, it is also the Chung Yeung festival in Hong Kong. (People go up on mountain tops to light fires because there was a plague a long time ago and the only ones to survive were the ones who ran for the hills, or something like that).


----------



## Knight Otu

The whole world is having a festival today, it seems.


----------



## Dragongirl

Bruahahhahaha I figured out who it is!


----------



## Inez Hull

Maybe the original email failed to mention the wads of cash taped to the inside cover......

Hope some word comes on this soon as I'm really trying hard to suspend judgement here.


----------



## chatdemon

Well folks,
I must agree that this mystery publisher is completely out of line in expecting preferred treatment in exchange for  promo products, but there are two points I must address:

1.> It wasn't stated explicitly, but the wording of the email seems weird. 'it seems you were not informed of our policy' or some such...
Sounds to me like a reply to someone asking for promo material. If, and only if, that reviewer has a habit of contacting publishers and saying 'hey, send me a free copy and ill post a review of it on enworld!' and then gets into the habit of trashing some of that material, I think the attitude of the publisher is understandable, if still unjustified.  If, on the other hand, the relationship with that publisher and the reviewer is a more traditional book review set up, where the publisher contacts the reviewer and says 'hey, weve got a new book and value your opinion and respect the weight your opinions carry, heres a copy for you to review and enjoy' and then they get mad because they get 'dissed', oh well, that's their problem. Honestly though, as I said, the verbiage of their email makes me wonder about how this publisher's relationship with this reviewer works. (NOTE, I am commenting ONLY on this email and the reviewer in question, this is NOT a disparagement of ENWorld or its reviews policy, thank you  )

2> Reposting private email to a public forum is extremely bad netiquette and very unprofessional, no matter who the guilty party is.


----------



## Umbran

chatdemon said:
			
		

> *2> Reposting private email to a public forum is extremely bad netiquette and very unprofessional, no matter who the guilty party is. *




Reposting _personal_ e-mail in a public forum is extremely bad netiquette.  But that's not what happened here.

A corporate representative sent a message to an employee of a news service, detailing corporate policy and the reasons behind that policy.  What the corporation does behind it's own doors may be it's own business, but when a company states openly how it interacts with others, and why, that's official public policy - fair game for news.

If the original author had said, "Simon, I'm sorry, but I can't send you the product.  Off the record, the boss doesn't like how poorly EN world rates our products..." you might have an argument that this was a message from one private individual to another.  But the author seems to treat Mr. Collins as an EN World representative, and seems to retain his stance as a corporate representative.


----------



## Morrus

Well, folks, the company in question has replied:



> Avalanche Press, Ltd. respectfully declines to comment.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Marcelo A. Figueroa
> Sales Manager
> Avalanche Press, Limited


----------



## alsih2o

wow, have to be pretty flexible to kick yourself in the 'nads like that.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

That would have been my guess, based on ColonelHardisson's "bemused" comment. I don't know if that's who he had in mind when he said it, but for some reason it struck me.

Now that I know, the next juicy bit of gossip to watch is how those "other" sites respond to being defamed like that... OR ARE THEY? (cue ominous music!)


Wulf


----------



## JoeGKushner

You know, I thought it was them because I asked if they wanted me to add to the reviews and they said no pretty much for the reasons statted here.  No biggie for me personally as I do reviews for some other sites, some of which do get this material or buy it.  Now the strange thing is they wouldn't provide product blurbs or cover scans either.  Ah well.  Not going to lose sleep over it.


----------



## ghoti69

*Ahhhh*

Well, now that I know who it is, I know who's products to avoid despite any positive reviews they may have received.  I gotta tell you, I read the negative reviews those products received and I thought they were fair.   Oh, well, I would've probably avoided them solely to protest the obvious pandering to "pathetic geek losers who play role-playing games and would buy our products solely because we show a lot of skin on the covers".  

Or, at least, that's what their covers say to me...

Morrus, think we can start a poll as to how long before they a) relent or b) are out of business?


----------



## MeepoTheMighty

Hmm, that's a shame, I had been thinking about buying a few of their products.   Oh well, if they want to shoot themselves in the foot like that, I guess they don't mind losing this customer...


----------



## Teflon Billy

well, looks like I owe the Colonel a dollar, I didn't guess it was *Avalanche*.

Wierd behaviour though. I always thought (from the endless threads decrying Avalanche's "stripper" covers) that they had a pretty good following amongst the folks here. There are always tons of people leaping to their defense in such threads, claiming the high quality of their historical supplements.

Even during the ENnies I know that Psion and I were solidly behind *Black Flags* for the setting category, and, had it been up to me, *Blood Prince of Wallachia* would've gotten the nod as well.

They don't *need* guaranteed positive reviews. Their products hold up.

Odd


----------



## Simplicity

Well, I think whoever wrote that email chose their words EXTREMELY poorly.  I can certainly understand if Avalanche
Press no longer wants to provide ENWorld with advance, free  copies for review purposes.  That's a courtesy, and it's something
they don't have to extend if they don't want to.

However, the email seemed to imply that because they were 
providing free copies, the reviewer is no longer allowed to 
express negative criticism of the product.  That is just idiotic.
Because it boggles my mind so much that any publisher could
be THAT corrupt, I think I'll just have to go on the assumption
that they didn't mean what they actually said.

It would be a shame if they dropped out of the d20 on-line community, since they seem to be a rather prolific publisher 
(not that I buy any of their T&A-encased trash, but someone must be buying them).

Speaking of which, I wonder what they would think of Mialee's Fashion Platemail reviews?  The guys at Avalanche would probably blow a gasket if they saw those.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

*Re: Ahhhh*



			
				ghoti69 said:
			
		

> *Morrus, think we can start a poll as to how long before they a) relent or b) are out of business?  *




First of all, that's in bad taste; and second of all, you severely overestimate the impact of the internet to "make or break" any RPG company.

Well, ok, it can make or break ME, but not Avalanche. 


Wulf


----------



## Simplicity

alsih2o said:
			
		

> *wow, have to be pretty flexible to kick yourself in the 'nads like that.   *




LOL!


----------



## Eosin the Red

> Wierd behaviour though. I always thought (from the endless threads decrying Avalanche's "stripper" covers) that they had a pretty good following amongst the folks here. There are always tons of people leaping to their defense in such threads, claiming the high quality of their historical supplements.




Sad thing is they do have a pretty big following here. I can name at least 10-15 folks not counting the good Col and yourself who regularly bought their product. I know that each time I pick up one of their product, I will think of this thread and wonder if I really need it. Unfortunatly, I won't be able to base the decision off of reviews unless they have been bought. The covers do little for me (34 years old with a wife and two kids. I no longer need T&A).  The layout and design has been subpar upto this point so it is going to be awefully hard figure out how good the product is except by word of mouth.

Maybe Earth 1066 will finally come out and I can replace my need for semi-historical fantasy through them or I could finish off my 7th Sea collection (don't play just read). AEG has put out a few new books in the line.


----------



## The Sigil

In a word, reprehensible.

I was stunned to see this kind of letter from a company - essentially implying that their understanding of the review process is that "companies that give out freebies should get better reviews than companies that don't because freebies should never get bad reviews."

I am speechless.  Does it not occur to these folks that there is a difference between a REVIEW and an ADVERTISEMENT?  The moment a reader starts to feel that a "good review" is the result of bias on the part of the reviewer and not on the merit of the product, the impact of that review is lost.  That doesn't mean that if a reviewer says, "I may be biased on this because I like alternative magic systems" that the review becomes worthless, because that is an admission of the personal preferences of the reviewer - if my personal preferences are the same (or different), I know to pay particular attention (or give less weight to) that portion of the review.

However, the instant I think that "this guy is giving the product a good review because he got it for free" I have to throw everything said about the product completely out the window (unless it's a freebie for everyone).

In my mind, there is an obligation that exists when a reviewer accepts a free copy of a work from a publisher.  That obligation is to give a review of the product.  In other words, "feedback" is the price the reviewer is expected to pay.  Whether that feedback is positive or negative is of course the realm of the reviewer.

I haven't bought anything from Avalanche yet (their T&A covers left me nonplussed and I found the work within even less appealing to me - though admittedly I am not a historical buff and therefore probably not in the target audience).  Looks like I don't need to plan to either - any company that confuses REVIEWS for ADVERTISING apparently does not understand that the credibility of the reviewer is what makes reviews much more persuasive than advertising and if they attempt to undermine the credibility of the reviewer, any positive reviews they may receive are nothing more than wasted type and actually wind up having a NEGATIVE effect.  At least with me.

--The Sigil


----------



## enrious

Morrus, 

Did you realize you forgot Psion's 3-star review of Twilight of Atlantis?


----------



## Morrus

enrious said:
			
		

> *Morrus,
> 
> Did you realize you forgot Psion's 3-star review of Twilight of Atlantis? *




So I did.  Average score still works out the same, though.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

enrious said:
			
		

> *Morrus,
> 
> Did you realize you forgot Psion's 3-star review of Twilight of Atlantis? *




Heh heh... I actually started my search with Avalanche, and noted the 4/4/3/3/2/2 staff reviews. Rather than continue searching B-Z, I assumed Morrus had overlooked one. 


Wulf


----------



## herald

I for one will now avoid purchacing any Avalance products. It really doesn't matter how good their product is now, they have marked themselves as a company that could be duplicitous and untrustworthy. I feel about they they same way I feel about Sony Pictures. Sony created a phony Movie Reviewer just to get "blurbs" on thier posters. I have to wonder if Avalance will pursue this now. 

I feel bad for the otehr web sites that now have been besmirched with Avalance's implications and for the products creators who now are stained with this business entity.

Why is there always someone around to poison the well of free enterprise?


----------



## mroberon1972

*Hmnnn...*

Hmnnn...

Unprofessional behavior...

Immature T&A covers on thier products...

Heck!  Looks about right to me!


----------



## Orco42

Well. Never mind then.

I am glad this was just a mix up.


----------



## ColonelHardisson

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> *well, looks like I owe the Colonel a dollar, I didn't guess it was Avalanche.
> 
> Wierd behaviour though. I always thought (from the endless threads decrying Avalanche's "stripper" covers) that they had a pretty good following amongst the folks here. There are always tons of people leaping to their defense in such threads, claiming the high quality of their historical supplements.
> 
> Even during the ENnies I know that Psion and I were solidly behind Black Flags for the setting category, and, had it been up to me, Blood Prince of Wallachia would've gotten the nod as well.
> 
> They don't need guaranteed positive reviews. Their products hold up.
> 
> Odd *




Wow. Avalanche had been fading down my list of suspects...I really am bemused. Y'know, I thought "Blood Prince of Wallachia" was great, as is "I, Mordred" - the latter of which I bought with my own money (they sent a number of books for the ENnies). Matter of fact, I was going to write a good review for both, and I still will (EDIT: on second thought, I think I won't. This situation is too messed up for me to even come close to wanting to be involved with it). Why they are taking this stance, I don't know. I'm extremely disappointed, considering how much they've been improving the content of their books of late. I just mentioned them in a positive way on a thread in the Publishers forum.


----------



## Ghostwind

Avalanche's behavior really doesn't surprise me. As a company, they have issues that go beyond those implications presented here. People directly involved in the industry will know what I am talking about.  This only blackens their reputation further in my book.  

They sent me one product to review several months back (Black Flags).  My review wasn't glowing, but neither was it ripping them apart.  I called it as I saw it, which was a product with limited applications but that it had several good points (along with a few bad). After I sent them a copy of it, I received no further communications from them.  No 'thank you', no nothing.  Furthermore, additional attempts to contact them also resulted in silence.  Apparently, given the letter Simon received, if you can't say something good, then you aren't allowed to say anything at all.

Considering that the d20 market is a small percentage of Avalanche's income (they are more geared towards historical wargaming) I doubt any backlash from all of this will affect them in the big picture of things.  The most that could possibly happen is that they drop the d20 line, however, it is unlikely.  But it would be nice if their people skills improved as a result.  But even that's probably wishful thinking...


----------



## Knight Otu

enrious said:
			
		

> *Morrus,
> 
> Did you realize you forgot Psion's 3-star review of Twilight of Atlantis? *



Grrr... No wonder I couldn't find them.


----------



## Khan the Warlord

Well, I created a poll here (tried to be as tactful as possible), to find out how everyone will act towards Avalanche Press after this.

I'm really not wanting any "mass-bashing" of AP, just honest opinions -- my own curiousity, if you will.

Thanks.


----------



## NeoMunchkin

I wont be buying their stuff either.

I also wrote them and told them as much. 

-Neomunchkin


----------



## jezter6

I was going to withold judgement and see some of their products before jumping on the "never buy again" bandwagon. That is, until I did a little research on the company just tooling around after reading the last few posts.

It honestly seems to me like Avalanche has a "better than thou" attitude towards everybody. I happened to come across an interview with one of their writers (and general manager as of last year), and was appalled at the kind of rude answers he gave his interviewer. He was of no help answering questions, just telling everyone his short opinion of how things were. When asked questions about OGL and the d20 liscence, his answer was: I'm not a lawyer, go pay money and find out for yourself.

If this is the quality of a majority of their upper management, I can understand why everyone will stay away from their products. I for one, will not purchase anything from them from this point forward.

http://www.gamegrene.com/interviews/d20_questions_with_avalanche_press.shtml

Above is the link to this interview.


----------



## JoeBlank

I just want to say thanks to Morrus for taking a stand on this, and for filling us in on the details. If the integrity of this site's reviews were called into question I for one would have a much more difficult time making ANY d20 purchases.

For example, I recently received an unexpected (but well-deserved) bonus from my generous employer. Of course, I decided to spend a little of the money to support my hobby/habit, and this site. I popped into the ENWorld reviews site, and started getting the scoop on a few products on my wish list. Then over to the messageboards for more info. Then over to the ENWorld Online Store to place my order.

On the boards, one publisher (Wulf of BadAxe) directed my attention to reviews here and elsewhere. One of his products has received a 3/5 from two different reviewers (neither of them ENWorld staff reviewers). However, he had taken the time to respond to the reviews (the comments are a handy feature), and one of them had even been increased from a 2 to a 3, thanks in part to his explanations. Of course, his products both average a 4 or better. Still, he was not afraid to point me to a source where I would read negative comments, and he took the time to address those comments. That is the right way to handle negative reviews.

I placed an order yesterday for 10 different d20 products. Among my choices were HOHF: Dwarves and HOHF: Half-Orcs (the entire BadAxe library!). I had only actually seen 2 out of the 10 products in stores (both WOTC publications), so I was purchasing a lot of stuff sight unseen. But thanks to the reviews here, and the info on the messageboards, I was able to make an informed decision as to what to buy.

So, short story long, thanks to Morrus and the others here for maintaining the integrity of the reviews on this site. And thanks for linking to this thread from the news page, as I doubt I would have found it otherwise. I feel even better about the money I spent, and can't wait to receive my order.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Well, for the most part I didn't think the interview was all that bad, until I got to this part:

"When you do this for a living, you find that you just don't play games for fun any more."

I have never been so in need of a free pass on the profanity filter before. Holy crap. More than anything I have seen yet, this to me is the definitive reason not to buy from them.

THEY DON'T EVEN PLAY THE GAME.


Wulf


----------



## Dragongirl

*Re: Ahhhh*



			
				ghoti69 said:
			
		

> *Oh, well, I would've probably avoided them solely to protest the obvious pandering to "pathetic geek losers who play role-playing games and would buy our products solely because we show a lot of skin on the covers".   *




AMEN!


----------



## jaults

JoeBlank said:
			
		

> *I just want to say thanks to Morrus for taking a stand on this, and for filling us in on the details. If the integrity of this site's reviews were called into question I for one would have a much more difficult time making ANY d20 purchases.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> So, short story long, thanks to Morrus and the others here for maintaining the integrity of the reviews on this site. And thanks for linking to this thread from the news page, as I doubt I would have found it otherwise. I feel even better about the money I spent, and can't wait to receive my order. *



    Exactly... I never considered that the reviews here at ENWorld might be anything other than fair and unbiased, so its very nice to see my thoughts reinforced.
    Yeah, Morrus!

Thanks,
    Jason


----------



## Psion

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> *Even during the ENnies I know that Psion and I were solidly behind Black Flags for the setting category, and, had it been up to me, Blood Prince of Wallachia would've gotten the nod as well.*




Yup. And were I to review those two products now, I could comfortably give either one a "4". The main reason I only gave Twilight of Atlantis a 3 was the expensive ("per word") format. And I gave Jade & Steel a 4 DESPITE that format; I think Mr. Lai's d20 work is pretty good. Their format has improved in value singificantly since their first round of d20 books.

We did have some yuks about the cover of the Ragnarok book in the ENnies forum, though.


----------



## orphius

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> *Well, for the most part I didn't think the interview was all that bad, until I got to this part:
> 
> "When you do this for a living, you find that you just don't play games for fun any more."
> 
> I have never been so in need of a free pass on the profanity filter before. Holy crap. More than anything I have seen yet, this to me is the definitive reason not to buy from them.
> 
> THEY DON'T EVEN PLAY THE GAME.
> *




I was, absolutely shocked to read that statement.  I do a bit of playtesting for Steve Jackson Games, and I am a regular reader of Pyramid, the online gaming magazine run by SJGames.  There you can chat with the writers of a great many of their worldbooks.  All of them, without exception, still play games.  If not every week, then at least once a month.  Steve Jackson, the OWNER of the company, still plays games regularly.  If you do not play the games, how would you know what does and does not work?


----------



## Umbran

herald said:
			
		

> *It really doesn't matter how good their product is now, they have marked themselves as a company that could be duplicitous and untrustworthy. *




While I don't particularly like their position, it is not indicative of duplicity.  

Publishers are not required to give out review copies.  They do so only because they hope it will give them good exposure - it's a form of advertising.  If they find that doing so here is not good, effective advertising, then _of course_ they'll stop asking for reviews.  That's only good business.  No duplicity in that at all.  

And, honestly, I am not terribly surprised that they now decline comment.  If Morrus e-mailed them a link to this thread, I can fully understand.  There's been a strong negative sentiment from the very start of this thread - if you were a corporate person looking at that, it might well seem like a good move to keep your mouth shut.  If it looked to them that the court of local popular opinion had already convicted them, it makes sense not to continue to stir the waters.  

*shrug*.  I've never bought an Avalance product.  If I have money, and it's a really good product, I don't see how their review copy policy is relevant.   Just don't listen to reviews that come from folks who've gotten free copies, and you're set.


----------



## Feaelin

*Re: Ahhhh*



			
				ghoti69 said:
			
		

> * Oh, well, I would've probably avoided them solely to protest the obvious pandering to "pathetic geek losers who play role-playing games and would buy our products solely because we show a lot of skin on the covers".
> 
> Or, at least, that's what their covers say to me...
> *




They do to me, also.  I bought the first product "Last Days at Constantinople" (spelling?).  It was "okay".  I loved the idea, I wasn't impressed with the presentation.

I had plans to pick up some of the others, but I was too disappointed in the first to take the rest seriously, and my d20 dollars are getting tighter and tighter...


----------



## Ghostwind

_'GamesGenre: How would you rate the overall quality of d20 products that have hit the marketplace so far? Who's doing the best job?

AvalanchePress (specifically Mike Bennighof, CEO of Avalanche): I see a lot of garbage. A LOT of garbage. There are some gems among the bilge, with Atlas' Penumbra books really standing out. In economic theory, there's the principle known as "Gresham's Law," that the bad will drive out the good. I think we're about to see this in action.'_

My first thought was how this will most likely apply to Avalanche themselves, especially given their industry business practices and attitudes towards others.  While the interview itself doesn't necessarily come across as demeaning or rude, there are a few points where I could see that Benighof's straightforward attitude could be taken as rudeness.


----------



## Corwin

For the most part, I have to agree with what *chatdemon* said a page or so ago.

I, too, would like to take the Devil's Advocate position. (Don't shoot me)

First, although technically "legal", I think Morrus' decision to post this publicly was a bit tacky.

Also, I think there is a lot of implication by some detractors that they feel the letter was somehow stating that APL no longer wanted ENWorld to review their products. This doesn't seem to be the case, from what I read. It seems to me that this Sales Rep. sinply said they didn't want to give ENWorld any more free copies. They never asked not to be reviewed anymore by them. If you want to review the next APL book, get yourself a copy and go for it.

I will state, however, that the part about having to pay for it to complain was a bit odd. That could have probably been worded a bit differently... OK, a lot differently. 

The beginning of the letter seems to clearly be a response to a request for a free review copy. If they felt the reviewers here were more likely not to like it, why give it out. I don't think it's hard to understand that there are different kinds of gamers out there. Likewise, these different styles of gamers are also reviewers. Perhaps it may have seemed apparant to APL that the reviewers of ENWorld may not be the kind of gamer they are writing for. If this was the case, giving them free review copies would be just bad logic. That would be like Spike Lee screening a review of his latest movie to a KKK representative. (OK, maybe not that extreme, but you get the point... I hope... ).

I would be interested to know the context of this correspondence (what happened to prompt it). Was it a reply for a request for a free review copy? If it is, and I believe it may have been, that would place the response in a slightly different light (to me, anyway).

I just find the lynch mob mentality of this thread a bit disturbing. Sure, there may have been a falling out between these groups. Sure some words were exchanged, questionable words. But this (thread, etc.) seems to has been set up, from the beginning, to be one-sided bashing, IMO. Of course they won't get involved at this point. Pretend you are them for a second and go back and re-read this thread from the beginning. Regardless of your position, opinion or explanation, you'd get hammered the second you showed up.


----------



## Corwin

Ghostwind said:
			
		

> *'GamesGenre: How would you rate the overall quality of d20 products that have hit the marketplace so far? Who's doing the best job?
> 
> AvalanchePress (specifically Mike Bennighof, CEO of Avalanche): I see a lot of garbage. A LOT of garbage. There are some gems among the bilge, with Atlas' Penumbra books really standing out. In economic theory, there's the principle known as "Gresham's Law," that the bad will drive out the good. I think we're about to see this in action.'
> 
> My first thought was how this will most likely apply to Avalanche themselves, especially given their industry business practices and attitudes towards others.  While the interview itself doesn't necessarily come across as demeaning or rude, there are a few points where I could see that Benighof's straightforward attitude could be taken as rudeness. *




Agreed. And I can't see how you could fault him for what he said. I'm no economist, but if there is a "named" theory to explain what he is talking about, maybe he is making some sense. _[shrug]_

And is anyone going to try and argue that there *isn't* a lot of junk out there? Remember, "junk" is reletave to the beholder (not the monster ). To him, there may very well be a pile o' garbage. I could probably say the same... I think.


----------



## Psionicist

Why bother? There are plenty of companies that stinks, just look at Microsoft Corporation. As long as these guys write good material, I will use it, no matter what this salesman people person writes in his emails...


----------



## seankreynolds

:: sigh ::

Well, that's just strange. If you're that miffed about negative reviews, just do what the movie companies do: use ellipses to make a bad review sound like a good one! Most people won't know that the quote "Holy crap ... I can't believe it ... this book is great" comes from a review that actually says "Holy crap! That's what this book is. I spent $5 on this 320-page hardcover and I feel cheated, I can't believe it. I guess if you run out of toilet paper, this book is great. Otherwise, don't bother."

(Note: The above is not a review of any Avalanche book ... I haven't even _read_ any of their books, so I'm not making any comments on their book quality.)

Anyway, when dealing with reviews, I have to remember something Monte said long ago back in Lake Geneva, WI: "Good reviews count double."

Focus on the good reviews, learn from the bad reviews. And hopefully your next book will do better.


----------



## Morrus

Psionicist said:
			
		

> *Why bother? There are plenty of companies that stinks, just look at Microsoft Corporation. As long as these guys write good material, I will use it, no matter what this salesman people person writes in his emails... *




Absolutely!  This is not about their products.  This is merely about the validity of reviews of their products.  It doesn't even mean that the reviews are all biased - just that people should bear that in mind when reading the reviews.

If you don't use reviews to make purchasing decisions, then this whole thing doesn't apply to you.


----------



## Toscadero

Avanlanche stated in their e-mail, "A customer who has paid for the product has every right to complain as much as they want about the product, and its value. Someone who got it for free does not reserve such judgement."

I always thought that it was a reviewer's job to give an honest opinion of the item being reviewed.  Talking about the product's value for your dollar is part of the review.  It should be reviewed in such a way to be informative to the reader.  I'm not getting the product for free so I want to know if I'm getting bang for my buck.  Whether the reviewer got the product for free or paid his own hard cash for it should not be a consideration when he is rating it for the consumer.  

When Avalanche says that they will continue to provide free copies to other sites (which I also read), they imply that that is only as long as they are happy with the reviews.  I had been considering some of their product after reading reviews both from this site and others.  If Avalanche wants to play favorites with  reviewers that is their decision.   Not buying their products is my decision.


----------



## Mialee

Wow, makes this article I did earlier this year seem kind by comparison to the reviews and feedback they'll be receiving now...

http://www.enworld.org/nutkinland/fashion/plate001.htm

This whole fiasco reminds me of the time when... 

...

...oh, wait, I'm mistaken. I've NEVER seen a comparable act of such jackassed forehead-smackworthiness. 

Here's hoping they'll put down their copies of Cracked magazine and Swank so they can take a look here for a moment and see how much business they've lost.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Mialee said:
			
		

> *...oh, wait, I'm mistaken. I've NEVER seen a comparable act of such jackassed forehead-smackworthiness.
> 
> Here's hoping they'll put down their copies of Cracked magazine and Swank... *




DAMN but I love snarkiness in my women. ROFL.

On the strength of this post alone, Mialee has just usurped Lidda's spot in my heart.


Wulf


----------



## Buttercup

Well, I don't purchase products from Avalanche anyway, since the covers are so gratuitous.  I just always assumed that any company that used covers like that probably wouldn't write material that would appeal to me.  So it's no hardship for me to swear off them now.

I did want to reply to the 'Devil's Advocate' posts.  If they didn't want to give out any more review copies to ENWorld staff reviewers, for whatever reason, the sensible way to go about that would have been merely to say, "I'm sorry, but we aren't giving out free products anymore.  If that policy changes, we'll let you know."   They would then have been able to keep their reasons private, and not appear to be unsavory.  In publishing, it is standard practice to give out review copies, if you are going to give them, with no strings attached.  They may be inexperienced enough not to have known this, or they may have been under the impression that review copies were a bribe of some sort.

And besides, a review score of 4,4,3,3,2,2 isn't so bad.  Sure any company would want it to be higher, but I can think of more than one company on the reviews page whose average is much worse.  The fact that they did get some good numbers should have shown them that the staff reviewers were not out to get them.

The whole thing is just perplexing.  And inexcusable, IMNSHO.


----------



## Crothian

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> *
> 
> DAMN but I love snarkiness in my women. ROFL.
> 
> On the strength of this post alone, Mialee has just usurped Lidda's spot in my heart.
> 
> 
> Wulf *




I'l second that.  And follow the link and read her reviews on those covers.  Fantastic!!


----------



## Selvarin

Hmm, reviewers get to keep the copies? Dang. When I used to do occasional reviews (years and years ago) they'd send a book and I'd have to send it back afterwards.  

Anyhow...perhaps the reaction from others will give Avalanche reason to reflect on how they think things are vs. the way it really works. There are some critics who will never be satisfied, just as some companies won't be happy unless the reviews go their way. However, if a reviewer gives good reasons for why something received a poor rating then it's hard for them to gripe.

Oh, and by the way...I've never purchased an Avalanche Press book. I'm a full-blooded male (and then some) but their choice of cover art turns me off completely. Jade & Steel is the perfect example. They may as well have airbrushed Betty Boop on the cover, it has little to do with the contents and it gave me a bad impression.


----------



## Morrus

Important update: Avalanche have now replied.  I have posted this on the main site and also in the other thread in Gen Disc.:



> Gentlemen,
> 
> I tried to send this shortly after I replied "no comment" to your past e-mail but have had e-mail trouble most of this day.
> 
> Having recovered from a tremendous bout of stupidity, I owe you a tremendous apology. The result of our recent conversations regarding reviews of our product on your web site was driven to this point by a ridiculous case of coincidence & mistaken identity. I take full responsibility, and you have my sincerest apologies. Please allow me to explain:
> 
> Back in March of this year, there was posted to a d20 review web site (off the top of my head I forget, but I will find the URL for you as proof of my statement) that we supported with review copies, a review of Black Flags. This review was quite unfavorable, and even went so far as to suggest to the reader to not purchase this product unless they could get it heavily discounted on e-bay or in a game store bargain bin. I am afraid that this is where I had to draw the line. A bad review is one thing, basically telling people not to buy our product is ridiculous - especially since we were of the opinion that this was our very best d20 product to date. The mistaken identity stems from the fact that this reviewer's name is also Simon, and his last name also begins with the letter "C." This is made worse by the fact that this reviewer also uses a 1-5 scale of grading a product, and gave Black Flags a 2, as well. I was foolish to immediately associate this bad review with Simon's review, without first going back to read what you said about Black Flags. I write this letter today, because I did go back to re-read your review, and apologize for my error.
> 
> Simon, while I may not always agree with the opinions you have expressed in your reviews, you have never told your readers to not buy our product. While I may not always agree with your opinion of our books, your reviews have always been objective, balanced in their criticism, and fair in judgement. I apologize that I associated your name with this other reviewer.
> 
> 
> Furthermore, I apologize to all of the staff at ENWorld for making unwarranted statements about your review practices. I do not in any way perceive a complimentary review copy as a bribe for a favorable review. I began my career in this industry as a reviewer for Space Gamer/Fantasy Gamer Magazine, and Shadis Magazine, so I am angry with myself that I even made such a statement in the first place. With so many products out there to review, we do appreciate that you take the time to review our products so thoroughly.
> 
> Gentlemen, this situation has been an unfortunate accident (misidentification of the reviewer & web site), and a lesson in poor research on my part. Again, I do apologize for the inconvenience. Avalanche Press is totally in favor of re-establishing our relationship with ENWorld. I do realize that we are currently at the mercy of your good graces, but if you are still interested supporting Avalanche Press products, we are still in favor of supporting ENWorld.
> 
> I thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this matter, and look forward to hearing from you very soon. If there is anything else I can do for you, please feel free to contact me anytime.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Marcelo A. Figueroa
> Sales Manager
> Avalanche Press, Limited
> "Walk with heroes."


----------



## Ashtal

Buttercup said:
			
		

> *I did want to reply to the 'Devil's Advocate' posts.  If they didn't want to give out any more review copies to ENWorld staff reviewers, for whatever reason, the sensible way to go about that would have been merely to say, "I'm sorry, but we aren't giving out free products anymore.  If that policy changes, we'll let you know."   They would then have been able to keep their reasons private, and not appear to be unsavory.  In publishing, it is standard practice to give out review copies, if you are going to give them, with no strings attached.  They may be inexperienced enough not to have known this, or they may have been under the impression that review copies were a bribe of some sort.
> *




Exactly.  I don't think Morrus, or any of us here who have reacted negatively to this exchange, would have cared one way or the other if they had simply said, "Hey, we're not able to send out review copies," and left it at that.  That was what they should have done.

But instead they made a point of saying that people who do not pay for the item do not deserve to criticize them, something completely against the whole point of reviewing. Do people not let Ebert into a movie screening, because he gave the director's previous movie a bad review?  No - you put out your product and you take it, good and bad, and work with the good, improve the bad. The position is assinine, and I am not surprised they aren't commenting on this matter because it's one hell of a P.R. hole they dug for themselves, especially over what appears to be a  very broad range of ratings ... looks like a regular bell-curve of results to me!  If we were talking nothing but a slew of 1's here, I could see taking umbrage ... but not those scores.

Edit: *after Morrus's post, which I didn't see until after I posted* Looks like they've found a way out of the hole.


----------



## EricNoah

Hey there folks -- 

If you check out the current news, or if you look up to Morrus' most recent post, you'll see that by and large much of this has been cleared up. A case of mistaken identity and other mistakes on the part of Avalanche Press. 

So, what do you say -- is the question moot now? Or do we need some further discussion?


----------



## Khan the Warlord

Sorry for the re-post, but I think my original post in my poll thread got buried in an onslaught of other posts.

-----

Well, while I'm glad that an official apology was given to Simon Collins and the rest of EN World, I'm still kinda miffed.

1. How can anyone in the industry confuse EN World for any other site?

2. If this was indeed a hastily-made e-mail intended for another reviews site, so what? The only thing that has changed is that EN World is being placed with the other "favorable" review sites that he mentioned in the original e-mail. Just because he says now that "good reviews for free product" isn't what AP desires, doesn't excuse or explain why he says the complete opposite in the first e-mail.

3. I don't like or agree with the statement he made about how reviews suggesting *not* to purchase a particular AP product are bad. If I were given a free review copy of a product and I honestly thought it rated a "1" (Appalling), then why shouldn't I state in my review that the product isn't worth a gamer's hard-earned cash? Once again, we're seeing a mentality that says "you're ok to say you don't like it, but since it was free, we're limiting HOW you state your feelings about it".

If anything, this second e-mail just dug them a bigger hole in my eyes.

But what do I know.


----------



## Crothian

Mistakes happen, give them the benefit of the doubt.  I really feel that this negative backlash is because Avalanche didn't have a solid reputation to beigin with since so many people seem to find disdain with their covers.


----------



## Dragongirl

Whether the first email was intended for ENWorld or another site changes nothing.  They still come off sounding like they are buying reviews and saying that some sites are more cooperative in that.  IMO

Everything is ok now because they didn't mean ENWorld??


----------



## Khan the Warlord

Dragongirl said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Everything is ok now because they didn't mean ENWorld?? *




Exactly.

As I said in my other thread about this, if an apology was to be given, it would probably be just to field off the negative responses by this being brought to the public's attention.

Just because the original e-mail wasn't intended for EN World (which I have problems accepting fully), doesn't change the original intent and suggestive nature of the e-mail.

In fact, the second e-mail only adds to the questionable nature.


----------



## Crothian

Dragongirl said:
			
		

> *Whether the first email was intended for ENWorld or another site changes nothing.  They still come off sounding like they are buying reviews and saying that some sites are more cooperative in that.  IMO
> 
> Everything is ok now because they didn't mean ENWorld?? *




No, everythongs okay because they explained the situation.  They got rid of a reviewer who was blantantly telling people not to buy their product.  That I can understand.  Also, Marcelo A. Figueroa apologized for it.  No harm no foul in my book.


----------



## Teflon Billy

Psion said:
			
		

> *...We did have some yuks about the cover of the Ragnarok book in the ENnies forum, though.  *




Oh hell yeah


----------



## HellHound

Hmmm...

As someone who actually LIKES Heavy Metal magazine and the art thereof (which uses the same artists and styles as AP's material), I get tired of the constant bashing of their product covers. I'm 31, married, 2 kids... But this is a "classic" form of art that I enjoy, just not one that was ever before seen in the RPG industry.

But aside from that.

The apology sent to Morrus doesn't cut it. The fact of the matter is that the initial email to Simon makes a series of statements that should never have been made, *no matter who was the recipient of the email*. 

_"A customer who has paid for the product has every right to complain as much as they want about the product, and its value. Someone who got it for free does not reserve such judgement."_

Right there, the writer of the initial email has damned himself. Even if that wasn't intended for Simon Collins or ENworld, it openly states that the company feels that reviewers of free copies *do not have the right to make a comment on the value of the product*. True, it comes off in a better light after reading the response, but it still reads as buying reviews.


Hell, ask Collin what my response was to his harsh review of Librum Equitis volume 1. I thanked him and sent him a copy of Librum Equitis volume 2.


----------



## AaronLoeb

"A customer who has paid for the product has every right to complain as much as they want about the product, and its value. Someone who got it for free does not reserve such judgement."

Right, but put that quote in this context: as a response to the statement 'DON'T BUY THIS BOOK! GET IT CHEAP!'

A person who actually paid cash money for a book has a very good reason to say, "I paid too darn much for this book." A person who got it for free is being disingenuous (at best) making such a statement.

Not actually taking a stand on this issue -- but I think that this is what Mr Figueroa meant to explain. A person who gets free books can't complain personally about the price of the books he got; in fact, it is ethically incumbent upon him or her to say "I got this for free." Which is a good idea anyway, because then you can follow it up with the evergreen, "And even at free, this book was too expensive."

Anyway, I think this was what he was getting at. Just a post for clarification, not meaning to espouse an argument.

Aaron


----------



## Khan the Warlord

HellHound said:
			
		

> *Hmmm...
> 
> As someone who actually LIKES Heavy Metal magazine and the art thereof (which uses the same artists and styles as AP's material), I get tired of the constant bashing of their product covers. I'm 31, married, 2 kids... But this is a "classic" form of art that I enjoy, just not one that was ever before seen in the RPG industry.
> 
> But aside from that.*




I see your point, Jason, but AP cannot be honestly shocked by the throngs of people upset by this stance. They knew before they ever printed their first d20 cover what would happen and they chose to do it anyway. So basically, right or wrong, they have no room to be alarmed at the general public disapproval.



> *The apology sent to Morrus doesn't cut it. The fact of the matter is that the initial email to Simon makes a series of statements that should never have been made, no matter who was the recipient of the email.
> 
> "A customer who has paid for the product has every right to complain as much as they want about the product, and its value. Someone who got it for free does not reserve such judgement."
> 
> Right there, the writer of the initial email has damned himself. Even if that wasn't intended for Simon Collins or ENworld, it openly states that the company feels that reviewers of free copies do not have the right to make a comment on the value of the product. True, it comes off in a better light after reading the response, but it still reads as buying reviews.*




BINGO. We have another winner!




> *Hell, ask Collin what my response was to his harsh review of Librum Equitis volume 1. I thanked him and sent him a copy of Librum Equitis volume 2. *




I respect you all the more for that, Jason, as we discussed his review and I know that it was unsettling for you. However, you sucked in your gut, created LE2, and zipped another free copy his way.

What is the BEST thing a publisher can do after receiving a scathing review?

Receive a better review on the next project from the same reviewer. If you can win someone over that really disliked your first offering, you have accomplished a lot.

Every publisher should have this positive mentality.


----------



## HellHound

BTW, has anyone done a search for the other Simon who reviewed this product so badly?

The closest review I've found for it along these lines was the review at the d20 magazine rack, which concludes with:

"This book has some useful information, but I wouldn’t pay full price unless you really wanted it. Wait for a clearance or shop for it online if you can. "

But which also completely defends the cover, and rates it a 3.6 out of 5 (hardly a bad review).


----------



## Khan the Warlord

Actually Jason, Steve and I were just talking about that.

"Simon Collins", "SC", "Steve Creech" -- see a pattern?

And the last sentence in Steve's review are *kinda* like what AP suggested, but *BADLY* butchered.

Steve gave a wonderful review and his words were far from out of place. If AP can't accept that review, they need to quit reading reviews of their products period -- no matter the source.


----------



## Ghostwind

Just so the review isn't taken out of context, and since I suspect I am the person Marcelo believes unjustly did them wrong, here is the text of the entire review I did.

Black Flag: Piracy in the Caribbean
Welcome to The Critic's Corner. This review is for Black Flag: Piracy in the Caribbean by Avalanche Press. This is a 64-page supplement that uses historical material and references to give players a high seas flavor that is designed to be more historically accurate than other d20 seafaring books available. It retails for $16.95. 

The first three chapters give a historical accounting of life in 18th century Caribbean waters. From discussions of the economy of gold and silver, to the cultural issues of slavery, to the prevalent attitudes towards religion, you get a fairly reasonable understanding of what really went on during this time (and it certainly wasn’t Errol Flynn style swashbuckling). A basic course in sailing and shipboard life is also covered fairly effectively. 

Much ado has been made about Avalanche’s choice of covers for this particular book. While they are consistent with their presentation style (primarily fantasy women with exposed skin), this particular cover does symbolize the historical elements of the period. Fact: High leather boots were worn by some ship captains. Fact: Sailors often wore their clothes until they were nothing more than rags since they did tend to own only a single set of clothes. Fact: Sailors often wore few clothes when sailing on the open seas, preferring to go shirtless and barefoot. Fact: The choice of weapons was indeed musket pistol and rapier. Fact: Although extremely rare, there are records of women becoming pirates, even captains, and were sometimes more bloodthirsty than their male counterparts. When all of this information is considered, the controversial cover should be seen in a new light. However, I do agree with one criticism; I sincerely doubt the female pirate captains of the 18th century were a size 2 with 36-38D’s who wore four-inch heels. Perhaps growing up admiring the fantasy art of Frank Frazetta, Boris Vallejo, Michael Whelan, and others give me a jaded perspective, but I’ve never really felt that this particular style of art was ever intentionally meant to be offensive to women. Rather, it stems from the fantasy and science fiction stories of the 30’s through the 60’s that ingrained the images of the damsel in distress or the Amazon warrior who could wage war better than any man. The art emphasizes the “fantasy” aspect of the story. As a final word on this subject, I have to wonder if there would be as much criticism and outcry if the model on the cover of Black Flags were male instead. 

The last three chapters (4-6) delve into the fantasy gaming aspects and mechanics. All of the information in these chapters has been declared Open Content and present a more realistic slant to seafaring. For starters, the only acceptable standard character class from the Player’s Handbook is the rogue. New classes that fill the voids are: Merchant, Noble, Priest, Sailor, and Soldier (who are treated like fighters). In addition, Class Templates have been developed to add more flavor to your character. These are: Escaped Slave, Carpenter, Cook, and Officer. Four new prestige classes round thing s out with Captain, Cardinal, Navigator, and Physician. 

The ever-tricky question of alignment is redefined for this setting. Avalanche’s first suggestion is to drop it all together. Having said that, their second suggestion is to keep it but remember that character class and profession are not tied to alignment. It’s the character’s actions that determine what his alignment may be. Nine new feats, three new skills and a revised equipment list finish out everything needed to create a character for this setting. 

The final chapter addresses new rules for the period setting. Rules on grievous body harm, gangrene, firearms, cannons, and ship AC/damage resistance are laid out. While this chapter is by far the weakest in the book, it does have a new method of adding flair and swashbuckling (ala Hollywood pirate movies) to the setting through a system called panache. Every character gains the panache ability at first level and builds this up as they progress in levels. Attempts at performing a wild stunt use panache to determine its success. All in all, rather interesting. 

In conclusion, Black Flag: Piracy in the Caribbean is a decent resource if you are running a very low or no magic campaign and want to add a naval flavor. However, you will need an additional sourcebook for naval ship rules since they are pretty much non-existent here. This book has some useful information, but I wouldn’t pay full price unless you really wanted it. Wait for a clearance or shop for it online if you can. 

The Critic's Rating: (maximum 5 pts for each category) 

Amount of Open Game Content: 3.5 
d20 Compliance: 4.0 (Several class abilities should be skills instead) 
Originality: 4.5 
Playability: 3.0 (Low magic or no magic world) 
Value for the dollar: 3.0 
Overall Rating: 3.60 (Decent but not outstanding)


As you can see, the "facts" as they are represented in Marcelo's letter of apology do not bear out the facts of the review. Again, assuming I am the one he is referring to...


----------



## ColonelHardisson

HellHound said:
			
		

> *Hmmm...
> 
> As someone who actually LIKES Heavy Metal magazine and the art thereof (which uses the same artists and styles as AP's material), I get tired of the constant bashing of their product covers. I'm 31, married, 2 kids... But this is a "classic" form of art that I enjoy, just not one that was ever before seen in the RPG industry.
> 
> But aside from that.
> 
> *




Hey, I wasn't bashing Heavy Metal _or_ Avalanche's choice of cover subject matter. I was comparing the art of Avallanche's covers - the _quality_ of which I think is not-so-hot - unfavorably to those of Heavy Metal, which I generally think are quite well-done.


----------



## Fred Delles

Ghostwind, I read your review (good, but still won't quite get me to grab AP's product). Like I reiterated on previous posts, I think that those women on the cover do NOTHING to enhance the "historical" aspects of such fantasy. There isn't any evidence of them ANYWHERE in the sourcebook itself! It is almost contradictory, if you ask me. (They're not bad, just have no place whatsoever in the product AP is selling.) We are NOT those geeks of the Boris Vallejo era any longer. Besides, his artwork is a lot better.

Had the cover chick been a male pirate instead, it would make a lot more sense. Necessary for something tied to history.

BTW, checked out Nutkinland's wacky AP d20 cover art commentary. Most excellent!


----------



## Grazzt

Dragongirl said:
			
		

> *Whether the first email was intended for ENWorld or another site changes nothing.  They still come off sounding like they are buying reviews and saying that some sites are more cooperative in that.  IMO
> *




Yeppers- agreed.



> *
> Everything is ok now because they didn't mean ENWorld?? *





Of course it is.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Ghostwind said:
			
		

> *Just so the review isn't taken out of context, and since I suspect I am the person Marcelo believes unjustly did them wrong, here is the text of the entire review I did. *




Steve, I have to admit I suspected the same. Your review of my book _Heroes of High Favor: Dwarves_ ended with much the same admonition-- don't buy the book unless you find it discounted.

I felt at the time that was a bit over the top, but I just chalked it up as your own particular style of review. Certainly I can concede that some of your readers may appreciate that kind of advice.

Of course I still disagree with your review on its merits. 


Wulf


----------



## LightPhoenix

Now, please forgive me if I've misinterpreted something, but I always thought the idea of a review is to give an honest opinion.  If the reviewer feels the book is not worth the cost, I would expect them to say so.

Don't cry a river, write a better book.


----------



## SurgicalSteel

AaronLoeb said:
			
		

> *
> *snip*
> 
> Right, but put that quote in this context: as a response to the statement 'DON'T BUY THIS BOOK! GET IT CHEAP!'
> 
> A person who actually paid cash money for a book has a very good reason to say, "I paid too darn much for this book." A person who got it for free is being disingenuous (at best) making such a statement.
> 
> *snip*
> 
> Anyway, I think this was what he was getting at. Just a post for clarification, not meaning to espouse an argument.
> 
> Aaron *





Aaron,

I have been reading your stuff for a long time, and I appreciate that you are trying to be fair on this matter.

The thing is, I think you are just wrong in this instance.
The two statements seem to indicate that reviewers *in general* are constrained due to the fact that the item is free.

If true, this is absolutely unacceptable.

Its one thing if the quality of the review is poor (i.e. This sux d00d.) and insults the creator.
Its another if someone asserts that a reviewer is under an obligation to not speak freely because the item was free.


There are several websites I no longer read because they are simply hype machines that don't break things down and expose the glaring flaws.

Thats why I go to usenet and sites like this.
Most official sites no longer have any credibility.
I suspect there is a kind of "scoop blackmail" at work here, an informal but real pressure.

And statements like this serve simply to confirm such morbid suspicions.


----------



## HellHound

> I respect you all the more for that, Jason, as we discussed his review and I know that it was unsettling for you. However, you sucked in your gut, created LE2, and zipped another free copy his way.




Actually, the Simon review wasn't the unsettling one, the one discussed was the Archer review. Simon's I actually expected, I know he was no fan of LE1 in the original electronic incarnation, and wasn't expecting that much improved of a review from him for the print product.


----------



## Ghostwind

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> *Steve, I have to admit I suspected the same. Your review of my book Heroes of High Favor: Dwarves ended with much the same admonition-- don't buy the book unless you find it discounted.
> 
> I felt at the time that was a bit over the top, but I just chalked it up as your own particular style of review. Certainly I can concede that some of your readers may appreciate that kind of advice.
> 
> Of course I still disagree with your review on its merits. *




Wulf, I still maintain Dwarves could have been much better , but at least you had the integrity to personally contact me and discuss our differences over the review and the book.  Those conversations made me re-evaluate the score in the long run. And it made me respect you all the more because you approached things from an intelligent and sensible perspective.  And so far, from what I've read of Half-Orcs, you took some of those criticisms under consideration and made a better product.  This is the mark of a good publisher in my book.  He listens, learns, and speaks up in a polite manner when errors are made by the reviewer and he uses the feedback he receives (whether it be positive or negative) as a way of tempering future products. 

(Besides, your legions of fans who loved the book also let me know exactly what they thought of the review and where I should put it...  )


----------



## Corinth

Now I have something of consequence to relay to all of my gamer friends when I make the rounds later this week.  This is a story that ought to spread faster than a wildfire in a bone-dry grassy plain.


----------



## JoeGKushner

*So What NOw?*

Alright, I guess the real question is what now?  When I contacted Avalanche they completely blew me off and claimed that they wanted nothing to do with EN World due to the poor review.  I believe I sent Morrus a copy of that e-mail a while ago and asked him what to do about it.

I'm not hunting down 72 dpi (200 * 260) images for Avalance.  If they want to send them, that's fine.  If they want to send the product blurbs I asked for that's fine.  I'm not going out of my way.

My gut tells me that Avalanche didn't expect the response they got and now have to do a quick retraction due to a 'mistake'.

I'm up for whatever the boss of the site wants though.


----------



## AaronLoeb

SurgicalSteel said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> Aaron,
> 
> I have been reading your stuff for a long time, and I appreciate that you are trying to be fair on this matter.
> 
> The thing is, I think you are just wrong in this instance.
> The two statements seem to indicate that reviewers in general are constrained due to the fact that the item is free.
> 
> If true, this is absolutely unacceptable.*



*

Yeah, I tend to agree with you. I was trying my hand at the old "benefit of the doubt" game. The prevailing mood seems to be that the two statements have nothing to do with each other -- letter number 1 appears to say 'you can't be negative if you get it for free,' whicle letter number 2 appears to say 'that was a misunderstanding; I was being critical of a reviewer saying not to buy a book or to buy it cheap or used.' I was trying to reconcile those two statements.

At the end of the day, though, a reviewer's only duty (and folks who aren't getting paid to do it don't even really have a duty, unless they want to) is to her readers. If her readers are consumers (and they always are), the first question that they will have is "should I spend money on this?" To say that it's dirty pool to tell people not to spend money on it, the instruction that is the hallmark of consumer criticism, does seem to be missing the boat entirely. 

That said, this is not the first time I've heard that complaint. Many publishers of entertainment products feel like reviewers should constrain their comments only to the product and its merits or faults, as though it's in a hermetically sealed universe. I've been complained at countless times simply for comparing two products (ala "well, Bonker Jerks is a good FPS, but Doom III just came out and it's better in ever way, so why would you buy Bonker Jerks?"). Many publishers feel that's unfair -- their product should be judged solely on its own merits, as if that's even possible in a world with competition.

So, I agree with you Steel; I was just trying to point out that perhaps the original comment really wasn't quite as bad as many people (including me) originally felt it to be. Then again, maybe it is!

Aaron*


----------



## tleilaxu

I have always found message board communities have the tendancy toward hysterics, though this impression is no doubt do to large amounts of people expressing the same sentiments.


----------



## Buttercup

*Re: So What NOw?*



			
				JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> *My gut tells me that Avalanche didn't expect the response they got and now have to do a quick retraction due to a 'mistake'.
> *




I think you've hit the nail on the head, Joe.  However, I suppose the grown-up thing to do is to just go on as though this whole unsavory incident never happened.  Let them rise or fall on the quality of their products (including their tarted up covers.)


----------



## Ashtal

Would people be as upset if it were a guy?   I dunno ... I highly doubt that if it were a guy, he would be depicted as sexualized as a Playgirl cover model.  He'd probably look aggressive, powerful, and lethal, not sexy.  Very rarely are men ever depicted as sexy in gaming art.

The wonderful Sun-God cover on Dragon recently being a beautiful exception ... and check out the letters from men that they received about it ... rather telling, IMO.

To me, the covers boil down to this:  If you had an historical book solely about Motel T-cars, it would look damn silly to have a 2003 Jaguar on the cover.  It would be laughed at.  Why? It's out of place; it doesn't jive.

The fact that they are putting fantasy skin-shots up there (which I have no problem with - they really aught to put out a collection as a calender or art book or something) on their historical books says to me this is their primary means of advertizing. Nothing wrong with liking the skin, but if they think this is the only way to promote their materials ... well, it too is rather telling, IMO.


----------



## JoeBlank

New here is a funny coincidence. I said earlier, about my recent research before my buying spree:



			
				JoeBlank said:
			
		

> *On the boards, one publisher (Wulf of BadAxe) directed my attention to reviews here and elsewhere. One of his products has received a 3/5 from two different reviewers (neither of them ENWorld staff reviewers). However, he had taken the time to respond to the reviews (the comments are a handy feature), and one of them had even been increased from a 2 to a 3, thanks in part to his explanations. Of course, his products both average a 4 or better. Still, he was not afraid to point me to a source where I would read negative comments, and he took the time to address those comments. That is the right way to handle negative reviews.*




The review that was modified after Wulf's interaction with the reviewer was Ghostwind's review of HOHF: Dwarves.

Also funny to point out that, while I had never considered buying Black Flag, after reading the reprinted review by Ghostwind I would actually consider it. A fair review, and mostly favorable. Taking the cost of a product into account when reaching a conclusion in a review makes a lot of sense, similar to a movie reviewer suggesting that you wait for the video release or the discount theaters. I have seen plenty of reviews that say "Well worth the price," so it is only natural for some reviews to say "Not worth the cover price, but still worth some money."

For what it is worth, I agree with those who are still not certain about buying AP products now. My reasons are not to punish them for their actions. Like others have said, either here or in the GD thread, there are some artists who are jerks and yet they do good work, and create a good product. However, as I said before, I rely heavily on reviews and comments on this messageboard when I am deciding how to spend my money. If I feel, even just a little, like I can't trust the reviews, then it is all the more difficult to make the decision to buy a product. At this point, I still feal like I can't entirely trust reviews of AP products. Maybe that will change over time.


----------



## Dagda

AaronLoeb said:
			
		

> *
> At the end of the day, though, a reviewer's only duty (and folks who aren't getting paid to do it don't even really have a duty, unless they want to) is to her readers. If her readers are consumers (and they always are), the first question that they will have is "should I spend money on this?" To say that it's dirty pool to tell people not to spend money on it, the instruction that is the hallmark of consumer criticism, does seem to be missing the boat entirely.
> *




A review shouldn't ignore cost of the item.  Wether a consumer is happy with a purchase is often based upon what they paid for it and if they feel it was a good value at that price.

Here's an interesting off topic story to illistrate:  A year or so ago my wife and I were in the market for a new washing machine and checked into the front load type.  Well, Maytag sold one that was significantly more expensive than the competitors.  All the review and comments we found on it were either "this is the best purchase I ever made" or "this is the worst purchase I ever made".  Nothing in between.  I theorize that after spending top dollar, you want to justify it.  So you need to really love the product.  Or, if the product has not lived up to that, then you feel totally ripped off.  Consumer reports rated it as good, but not as good a value as the competition (if I remember correctly).

So if a review ignored price and just said "this is a good product to have" it misses the point of what the customer is giving up.  

I was just looking at reviews of Gaming Frontiers, and none of the ones I saw mentioned the price!  They said it was a good read.  At the time I felt, well, they got the magazine for free, of course they enjoy it.  But would they still enjoy it after paying $20?  That's a question that cannot be ignored.

I'd think if someone getting all their review products for free, they'd risk falling into a trap of forgetting that the readers will be paying and that the price aspect can't be ignored.

At the same time, whether or not a review would buy something isn't an indication that the reader wouldn't want it.  So saying "Dont' buy this" could be unfair.  But saying "I wouldn't buy it at full price." seems part of what a reader wants from a review.


----------



## JacktheRabbit

Actually it is. The company with that email pretty well came out and said that their free copies to reviewers are in fact bribes given to get good reviews. If you don't give good reviews then they stop giving out the bribes (ie new products).



			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> *
> 
> While I don't particularly like their position, it is not indicative of duplicity.
> *


----------



## Vanye

NeoMunchkin said:
			
		

> *I wont be buying their stuff either.
> 
> I also wrote them and told them as much.
> 
> -Neomunchkin *




Does anyone have their snail mail address?  I'd like to write to them and let them know my opinion as well.


----------



## Khan the Warlord

Vanye said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Does anyone have their snail mail address?  I'd like to write to them and let them know my opinion as well. *




The following is the only contact info I could find at the AP site:

Marcelo A. Figueroa
C/o Avalanche Press, Ltd.
West Coast Division
1463 West Cypress Avenue
San Dimas, CA 91773
Ph: 909-592-4314
Cph: 909-322-1526
Fax: 413-618-1583
Em: squidguru@adelphia.net
Hours: 9:00am - 5:00pm Pacific Standard Time


----------



## frankthedm

SurgicalSteel said:
			
		

> *
> There are several websites I no longer read because they are simply hype machines that don't break things down and expose the glaring flaws.
> 
> Thats why I go to usenet and sites like this.
> Most official sites no longer have any credibility.
> I suspect there is a kind of "scoop blackmail" at work here, an informal but real pressure.
> 
> And statements like this serve simply to confirm such morbid suspicions. *




most?

You think there are *ANY* credible official sites? By being "official" they have already stated who butters thier bread. [Not to mention who has the piano wire wrapped around thier spheres.]


----------



## tarchon

HellHound said:
			
		

> *BTW, has anyone done a search for the other Simon who reviewed this product so badly?
> *




I think I've seen one related to it.  I got the same wrong impression about the Simon/Simon Collins issue when I first went looking at the reviews to see what the fuss was about, and it really was a useless and perhaps somewhat mean-spirited review.  
http://www.enworld.org/d20reviews.asp?sub=yes&where=currentprod&which=ROAGN


> 'Ragnarok: Tales of the Norse Gods' (Avalanche): worthless, contains almost nothing of any interest.   There are free .pdf downloads with better info on the Norse gods, or read any book on Norse mythology. The idea of deities as low-level PCs is interesting but not developed (the sample arch-nemesis is a deity 5th level Rogue). Nice cover though.




This review was obviously written in October (apparently) but perhaps it represents a pattern of this "Simon" slamming Avalanche products?  It's also possible the apologist is getting a couple different reviews confused.   (One might note that the Anti-Simon actually compliments the cover   ).
On the other hand, the reaction was definitely a bit out of line.


----------



## Ghostwind

AP did specifically mention that the bad review was of their product Black Flags. So the "anti-Simon" cannot be the culprit unless his review was removed for some unknown reason.  The only review of Black Flags posted on EN World is by Simon Collins (who did rate it a 2).


----------



## Umbran

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> *Actually it is. The company with that email pretty well came out and said that their free copies to reviewers are in fact bribes given to get good reviews. *




Wow.  Unforgiving crowd.

If you ignore the _second_ letter, and the context it claims for the statement, then perhaps.  So you have to ask yourself - do you wish to say that Mr. Figueroa was _lying_ in this second letter?  

Personally, I'll sit on the side of "reasonable doubt".  Is it possible that Avalanche is now lying, trying to cover it's own rear?  Yes, I suppose that's possible.  Is it possible that there was misunderstanding?  Also yes.  

Given that, I'll stand by the Golden Rule, and give them the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## Corwin

I side with Umbran. Let's all take a breath and put things in a bit of perspective.

I think the beauty of the internet is it's anonimity. But that can also be a liability. Many of the vicious/derogatory comments are able to be expressed becuase people can hide behind their monitors and keyboards. Moreso, however, is the fact that the rhetoric can quickly compound by the tendancy of groups to bandwagon and/or escalate in an effort to one-up each other. This can lead to a lot of nasty remarks and lynch mob behavior.

Whether APL is in the wrong, or everything is being blown out of proportion, who knows for sure (other than the parties directly involved). But some of the people posting here are a bit extreme, to say the least.

Anyway _[shrug]_, I guess I'm just not seeing things as terribly as some would suggest.


----------



## Decamber

Yeehaw - nice mail...


----------



## Psion

HellHound said:
			
		

> *As someone who actually LIKES Heavy Metal magazine and the art thereof (which uses the same artists and styles as AP's material), I get tired of the constant bashing of their product covers. I'm 31, married, 2 kids... But this is a "classic" form of art that I enjoy, just not one that was ever before seen in the RPG industry.*




So you like the Heavy Metal look then? Sure, fine.

But how would you feel if your National Geographic came wrapped in a heavy metal cover? That is the effect of most Avalanche books that most people complain about...


----------



## HellHound

You are asking the wrong man, Alan.

I would cheer if my National Geo had a cool Heavy Metal cover on it.


----------



## 2WS-Steve

The other way to make the content fit the cover would be to include a bit more "Heathcliffe crushed Rebecca to his heaving hairy chest and ravished her with his probing lips" in the text...


----------



## Khan the Warlord

2WS-Steve said:
			
		

> *The other way to make the content fit the cover would be to include a bit more "Heathcliffe crushed Rebecca to his heaving hairy chest and ravished her with his probing lips" in the text... *




Ugh, couldn't you have used a different male name, Steve? Now my sick, depraved mind is picturing icky cartoon kitty love...


----------



## Psion

HellHound said:
			
		

> *I would cheer if my National Geo had a cool Heavy Metal cover on it. *




Sigh. You would. 

Just for that: Die Vecna Die sux! So there. 

[/in joke]


----------



## ced1106

Dagda said:
			
		

> *A review shouldn't ignore cost of the item.  Wether a consumer is happy with a purchase is often based upon what they paid for it and if they feel it was a good value at that price.*




This doubly applies to d20 products! O:

With publishers of different scale in the d20 market, you can get some books with a lot of content and little content (information, hours of game play, whatever) differing by only one or two dollars. (At least in adventures, which compete for both time **and** money, I've noticed this.) Sure, quality is important, but when a consumer sees Product A costing 10% less than Product B, someone has to warn them when Product A has 50% less... product! If it's not the reviewer, who should it be?


Cedric.
aka. Washu! ^O^


----------

