The Daily Grind: Using a competitor's forum to recruit?

by Krystalle Voecks Mar 20th 2009 at 8:00AM

Filed under: Culture, MMO industry, Opinion, The Daily Grind

So we've heard confirmation that Cryptic did indeed use NCsoft's City of Heroes forums to attempt to recruit for the Champions Online beta. Public opinion varies pretty widely from it being a pretty underhanded move to use their forums, to people saying that's just the way business is done and anyone thinking otherwise is expecting too much. We don't think anyone wasn't expecting them to contact their competitor's players, but many were taken aback at the method employed - using the official NCsoft-run City of Heroes forums. After all, to use how Blizzard recruited from EverQuest guilds as an example, Blizzard contacted people on their guild forums and other sites not owned by SOE if they didn't know them personally. Why didn't Cryptic just head for Google and look up City of Heroes supergroups that way? A cursory search on "City of Heroes Supergroup" returns 59,300 hits, and that's not even drilling down into sites like GuildPortal and Guildomatic.

So with the above in mind, and the handling of the situation overall; this morning we wanted to dig a bit deeper into your thoughts about it. Do you think it's ever acceptable to use a game's official forums to recruit for your competing beta or product? Or do you feel that all is fair in love and MMOs, so yes - using a competitor's official forums is entirely acceptable? Is it fair to expect companies to act in a 'gentlemanly manner' while squaring off for a duel, as it were, or is the idea outmoded in today's business world?

Tags: beta, champions-online, city-of-heroes, city-of-villains, coh, competition, cov, cryptic-studios, forums, guilds, morality, ncsoft, recruiting

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)

Sterling said on 8:45AM 3-20-2009

I dont think it would be quite such an issue if the Community manager who responded to the whole thing for Cryptic wasnt such a complete douche about it.

Kilawhar said on 9:35AM 3-20-2009

This.

The "apology" was anything but and really made Cryptic look like jerks over the whole thing.

Halldorr said on 8:44AM 3-20-2009

I really don't see what the big deal is. People are treating it like they have killed somebody. Cryptic used to the the developers of City of Heroes and I'm sure some of the people contacted are ones they may have had some contact with before. I'm just annoyed that they didn't talk to others in the beta list :-P

Fnord said on 12:21PM 3-20-2009

So, according to this, it would be perfectly fine for the person who built your house to come back in at any time and use your bathroom, or raid your fridge? I mean, it was their house, after all.

Halldorr said on 12:27PM 3-20-2009

I think it's a bad analogy but if I had mailboxes on my house for neighbours I really liked and the builder wanted to inform them that they have a new development going up, I wouldn't mind.

I just feel people are way overreacting.

NekoAli said on 9:06AM 3-20-2009

I find it to be an extremely sleazeball maneuver myself. There are plenty of other sources of advertising out there, and certainly no lack of word of mouth about Champions Online. But this is like one store going into a competitor's store and trying to get people to shop with them instead of the store they're currently at. At the best, it's irritating to the customers. After all, if they wanted to shop at the other store, they'd go there. And you can bet that the owners of the first store would be throwing the people doing the advertising out as soon as possible.

The saying goes 'all's fair in love and war'. Well, this is neither. The fact that CoH/V used to be under the care of Cryptic only makes it seem a more sleazy trick.

kdolo said on 9:22AM 3-20-2009

The question is, "is it acceptable?" Just to clarify it, Cryptic didn't do anything actionable. EULA or no, there's nothing NCSoft can do unless Cryptic advertised a product with value, like a free trial for a completed game.

But in terms of ethics as opposed to the law, I think they acted unethically and any denial of intention of wrongdoing is a bold-faced lie. We all know that beta key equals game subscription eventually, at least for decent games, Cryptic knew it too.

If they were just looking for people to help beta test, their own forums are filled with people dying to test it with MMO experience that don't have a key yet. It's these people who they wronged the most, as it seems that the surest way to get a beta key is to not be signed up for a beta key.

derella said on 10:51AM 3-20-2009

That's where I take issue with it as well. They have thousands of experienced MMO players dying for the chance to beta Champions on their own forums. Rather than acknowledge them, they go after CoH players. Lame.

Jeni said on 9:58AM 3-20-2009

Good job Massively! Two posts and one topic! You guys ROCK.

/sarcasm

Can we please focus on some MMOs now?

Skypp said on 9:36AM 3-20-2009

I cared less about their tactics and was more put off by finding out who that assjack Mr. Sulic is, and what he's done in the past.

a "screw'em" attitude toward several things means he's gonna have the same attitude toward players. I'm beginning to see why Hellgate launched as it was, with a screw it attitude I'm sure they get alot done.

catwhoorg said on 10:11AM 3-20-2009

When a commercial entity breaks the Terms of Service in a rival commercial entity for their own gains, it is something to be concerned about.

How will Crytpic be able to take suitable actions about RMT sites on their own products in the future ?

Those RMT sites are doing exactly what Cryptic has done here.

Punkrockdiva said on 12:08PM 3-20-2009

That's my biggest concern as well. The gold spam advertisements we all receive in games are annoying enough, I don't need desperate game companies adding to that spam for me to try game X or come back to game Y for free trials.

Tom316 said on 2:31PM 3-20-2009

Last time I checked there was nothing in the Terms of Service that would keep you from asking or inviting someone to another game. Regardless if its a beta/alpha/ or finished retail product.

Because if that is the case then theres alot more people beside cryptic that has broken the rules many more times then this once.

Should they have used there own forums or have found other means? Maybe.

But I do not fault them for actively going out and finding the correct people to test there game(s). Something more devs should do is be activly involved in finding the right / correct people for the job of testing there game(s).

I don't fault them for what they did and they certainly did not break any rules / laws / or any of the such. Rather they used in-game means to contact someone, twitter, IM, or the forums of another game. It doesn't matter as its all just a means of communication where there is no law / rule that says what you are allowed to talk about.

Johnny_Velocity said on 7:33AM 3-21-2009

*yawn* Is this issue still alive? I guess there are enough (1) CoX fanbois and (2) EULA enforcement addicts to keep it alive another day.

In reviewing the EULA, the sole possible punishemnt is written right into the "contract" - termination of the account used to make the communication. That's it. no lawsuits, no nothing. If you, as a company, think it is a bigger issue that that, you should write a better EULA.

If you, as a customer of the infringed game (which may or may not be a game reduced to a small core of diehards and whatever transients that are on board for the given month) feel it should be a bigger issue, then all you can do is raise heck on various message boards and vilify the infringing company (which, in all likelihood, is what most of them will be doing in their spare time anyway, since a certain someone took away their precccciousss six-slotting, if you know what I mean).

If you, as the infringing company, didn't think it was a big deal in the first place (like most of the rest of the known universe), you simply put out an apology and bask in the knowledge that there is no such thing as bad press. (Just ask Charles Manson.)

Dragonblade said on 10:41AM 3-20-2009

I don't know the legality of it, nor would I really care.

To me, it's just bad form. I don't think it's an issue to go overboard blowing out of proportion, and it likely won't change the opinions of people playing the game one way or another, ultimately.

However, for me, it was the method of it being handled that was a little socially awkward by Sulic. You can't peg a company on a single person, but c'mon...

Surely in this day and age of the economy, there are people who can do a better PR job than the "witty, fresh internet cynical-with-charm" way he attempted.

I'm a bit embarrassed for Cryptic, if anything else. He's kind of like that guy who shows up at a party when nobody invited him, and he's loudly obnoxious and wearing an oversized foam sombrero.

You just facepalm and walk away.

Meanwhile said on 10:44AM 3-20-2009

Cryptic has just hammered the final nail into their own coffin as far as I'm concerned. I was already less than impressed with what I've read about the game, but now you can be sure I won't be trying Champs OR Star Trek.

I'm just so tired of companies resorting to sleazy marketing tactics in an attempt to make up for lazy design decisions, lackluster writing, inept programming, and nonexistent QA.

You want people to migrate from other games? MAKE A GOOD GAME. It really is that simple.

Jeni said on 12:00PM 3-20-2009

Luckily, I don't let this stop keep me from enjoying an enjoyable game. For the people that don't play? Oh well, we won't miss you. You, however, will miss out on the experience of what is shaping up to be the game that is finally going to take me away from WoW (as no other game has done yet). It's fresh, it's fun...and probably better off without the QQers.

Do you guys picket coke versus pepsi taste test commercials too?

Halldorr said on 12:28PM 3-20-2009

I agree completely Jeni. Being overblown big time.

Quinnae said on 3:28PM 3-20-2009

In the grand scheme of things this isn't such a tremendous deal, but as such fitfully passionate discussions always go, they seem to breed bad analogies like rabbits. This isn't like a Pepsi vs. Coke taste test.

It does undermine a sense of professional conduct on the part of the developers. It's a bit like bursting into a rival store wearing a sign and harassing the customers to come to your storefront instead. Technically free speech and advertising, yes, but it's not terribly ethical.

Strictly speaking it *is* a good idea to poach gamers from your competitor but as Ms. Voecks pointed out Blizzard went to private sites not owned by SOE to poach those players. There is also a case to be made that Champions Online will just about *automatically* grab loads of CoX players due to the fact that it'll be a sort of 'next gen' version of that game which will attract a lot of CoXers who feel the game is getting stale.

To continue with the tradition of bad analogies, this forum recruitment thing is a bit like bringing a tank to a knife fight.

Lastly this is more than appropriate discussion for Massively. I like the fact that the site reports on more than just gameplay aspects of MMOs. There's a lot that goes into making these games, and holistic discussion and consideration are only to our benefit.