By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
EpicRandy on 12 June 2023
Edit Thread
the-pi-guy said:
EpicRandy said:

Sony /  PlayStation /  PlayStation's social media channels are unaffected by those supposed embargoes as they are presented online. Those only affect actual third parties that have shown content during the main show. Nothing prevents Sony from posting the very same trailer shown and adding 'also coming to PlayStations' and reaping the exact same benefits with/without embargoes. So really doubt your sources' conclusion on this.

It only prevents said thirds party from marketing the titles themselves for other platforms or for coordinating with other entities to market said material on other platforms for 2 days. This is only logical when considering this kind of exposure for 3rd parties is a huge opportunity and this embargo only ensures that there's reciprocity with said opportunity in the vicinity of the show itself.

I kind of get why you have this idea. I'm assuming that you are under the impression that say Sega and Microsoft made an agreement to not advertise a PlayStation version until after they're announced, and Sony doesn't have to abide by that agreement because they're not the ones who signed that agreement.

But that doesn't make any sense when you look at the market. It would completely undermine pretty much every marketing deal in the gaming industry. By that argument, platform holders could reasonably announce games before the third party publisher does. It also would undermine exclusive marketing campaigns. 

It would be tenuous for Sony/MS to announce a game for their platform before the publisher for a number of reasons.

Legally, it's questionable to steal a publisher's trailer for a game, to edit your name onto it; which is basically what you're suggesting.

It would also make it hard to trust Sony/MS with those trailers. If a company you are working with is sharing privileged information, that's not good. 

ok got it, yeah it makes more sense this way.

But what I'm getting at is that it's kinda expected that when you provide such beneficial exposure to 3rd parties that said exposure is also beneficial to the one providing it. And on that front asking simply for a 2-day embargo that will only protect the benefice in the exact vicinity of the show itself is very generous, and trying to draw other conclusions like (the company is insecure) from that is very much jumping to conclusions.