4 ms·

That chap is a marketing genius. Articles ostensibly about him are effectively a promotional tour for his new game (available in all good stores prices $xx.xx)

That chap is a marketing genius. Articles ostensibly about him are effectively a promotional tour for his new game (available in all good stores prices $xx.xx) If you're thinking of buying the game, though, read its reviews: https://store.steampowered.com/app/1299460/Wanderstop/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/1299460/Wanderstop/ And remember... it is a cosy game. That's what you'll be playing. If you like cosy games, then it's a good cosy game with an interesting Wredenesque storyline running through it. If you don't like cosy games, you won't like this game. It's not a deconstruction of cosy games. It is a cosy game.

qoez 2y ago
The new yorker wasn't tricked into marketing his game, they make marketing articles like this all the time. I feel like 9 times out of 10 when I see an article on HN it's some barely disguised ad for a book masked as a human interest story. (PG has a blog post about this.)
- Centigonal 2y ago
  https://paulgraham.com/submarine.html https://paulgraham.com/submarine.html
  - damnitpeter 2y ago
    It's fascinating to see how far the pendulum has swung since those days. Maybe there is no place for honest writing anymore, as he described it, in the blogs of that era, which suffered the same issues of PR and monetization.
  - the_gipsy 2y ago
    > At the other extreme are publications like the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. Their reporters do go out and find their own stories, at least some of the time. They'll listen to PR firms, but briefly and skeptically. We managed to get press hits in almost every publication we wanted, but we never managed to crack the print edition of the Times. I wonder if this holds true.
    - astrange 2y ago
      It is true, but sometimes in an evil way; the NYT literally has a policy that all stories about tech companies must be negative, and the politics section presents everything as the fault of whoever the editors are personally mad at that day. But the details are correct.
  - 11101010001100 2y ago
    I somehow doubt that this is read as much as it is posted on HN.
- malectro 2y ago
  Most of the book criticism they do summarizes to the point where I don’t feel the need to buy anything so I’m not sure it’s personally working as an ad for me.
  - fragmede 2y ago
    Some people want the gory details. Every non-fiction book can be summarized as (wo)man v something, but in doing so, you lose the plot. So while you may be satisfied with the summary (and you're not alone!), knowing that it's out there is more important for people to buy than the summarization.
- Animats 2y ago
  It's so New Yorker. They're partial to angst-heavy stories. If "retired fighter with a tea shop" interests you, try the "Legends and Lattes" stories.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
ajkjk 2y ago
Betting it's not him but his publisher. There is a massive industry dedicated to this sort of guerrilla marketing these days. If a company of a certain size is putting out a press release they will coordinate to have seemingly-unrelated articles show up in various news sources (think New Yorker but also, like, ArsTechnica, or even the HN frontpage.) Even though the articles aren't technically ads, they get the name out there so it's on people's minds, making them more susceptible to hearing about/engaging with the news. I've seen this happen internally at my last employer, but have the impression that it's standard operating procedure in corporate marketing these days. It is quite gross and I'd like to see it banned wholesale (or at least the relationship should be mandatorily disclosed). But... we would need to believe as a country in regulating ourselves to do that.
- edavison1 2y ago
  The idea that arts criticism is somehow 'guerilla marketing' is such a deeply cynical, HN brain take. Of course the people who make things want to get the word out about what they're doing. But The New Yorker doesn't collude with PR agencies to promote things. It's news when people make new things; that's literally the whole idea in coverage of the arts. Is it really your position that when a movie, game or book is reviewed in The New Yorker it's because some PR person told them to? Chris Bryd is a well-respected games journalist, not some industry shill. He's probably wanted to write about this topic for years, and the forthcoming game is part of what makes the profile newsworthy right now. Anyway if you believe arts criticism is 'quite gross' and want it banned, what does that world look like? Should people who make things not be allowed to tell publications about it? Will there be a cone of silence around new games?
  - ajkjk 2y ago
    You misunderstand. I'm not being cynical: it really actually does work this way. I'm describing a thing that I have seen happen from the inside. Paul Graham wrote about it here: https://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html https://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html
    - 2y ago
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

qoez 2y ago

The new yorker wasn't tricked into marketing his game, they make marketing articles like this all the time. I feel like 9 times out of 10 when I see an article on HN it's some barely disguised ad for a book masked as a human interest story. (PG has a blog post about this.)

Centigonal 2y ago
https://paulgraham.com/submarine.html https://paulgraham.com/submarine.html
- damnitpeter 2y ago
  It's fascinating to see how far the pendulum has swung since those days. Maybe there is no place for honest writing anymore, as he described it, in the blogs of that era, which suffered the same issues of PR and monetization.
- the_gipsy 2y ago
  > At the other extreme are publications like the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. Their reporters do go out and find their own stories, at least some of the time. They'll listen to PR firms, but briefly and skeptically. We managed to get press hits in almost every publication we wanted, but we never managed to crack the print edition of the Times. I wonder if this holds true.
  - astrange 2y ago
    It is true, but sometimes in an evil way; the NYT literally has a policy that all stories about tech companies must be negative, and the politics section presents everything as the fault of whoever the editors are personally mad at that day. But the details are correct.
- 11101010001100 2y ago
  I somehow doubt that this is read as much as it is posted on HN.
malectro 2y ago
Most of the book criticism they do summarizes to the point where I don’t feel the need to buy anything so I’m not sure it’s personally working as an ad for me.
- fragmede 2y ago
  Some people want the gory details. Every non-fiction book can be summarized as (wo)man v something, but in doing so, you lose the plot. So while you may be satisfied with the summary (and you're not alone!), knowing that it's out there is more important for people to buy than the summarization.
Animats 2y ago
It's so New Yorker. They're partial to angst-heavy stories. If "retired fighter with a tea shop" interests you, try the "Legends and Lattes" stories.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

ajkjk 2y ago

Betting it's not him but his publisher. There is a massive industry dedicated to this sort of guerrilla marketing these days. If a company of a certain size is putting out a press release they will coordinate to have seemingly-unrelated articles show up in various news sources (think New Yorker but also, like, ArsTechnica, or even the HN frontpage.) Even though the articles aren't technically ads, they get the name out there so it's on people's minds, making them more susceptible to hearing about/engaging with the news. I've seen this happen internally at my last employer, but have the impression that it's standard operating procedure in corporate marketing these days. It is quite gross and I'd like to see it banned wholesale (or at least the relationship should be mandatorily disclosed). But... we would need to believe as a country in regulating ourselves to do that.

edavison1 2y ago
The idea that arts criticism is somehow 'guerilla marketing' is such a deeply cynical, HN brain take. Of course the people who make things want to get the word out about what they're doing. But The New Yorker doesn't collude with PR agencies to promote things. It's news when people make new things; that's literally the whole idea in coverage of the arts. Is it really your position that when a movie, game or book is reviewed in The New Yorker it's because some PR person told them to? Chris Bryd is a well-respected games journalist, not some industry shill. He's probably wanted to write about this topic for years, and the forthcoming game is part of what makes the profile newsworthy right now. Anyway if you believe arts criticism is 'quite gross' and want it banned, what does that world look like? Should people who make things not be allowed to tell publications about it? Will there be a cone of silence around new games?
- ajkjk 2y ago
  You misunderstand. I'm not being cynical: it really actually does work this way. I'm describing a thing that I have seen happen from the inside. Paul Graham wrote about it here: https://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html https://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html
  - 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]