HereForTheBeer: I can go with that, though I will add that the last one looks like tone-deaf professional incompetence, while the one for the Postal-series game was just plain poor judgment.
RWarehall: I guess you think Linko should have halted the GoG release
No, the release could go on as scheduled.
RWarehall: and asked the developer to send him a new gif then, right?
Exactly yes.
IF the publisher sent that .gif to gOg - and gOg did not actually make it themselves - then they would have done well to reconsider and ask for some other promo material - there are hours and hours of other content from which to snag a quick 3-5 second .gif. The POSTAL folks could try to advertise elsewhere with that .gif, but it was really dumb for whomever at gOg to say, "Yeah, let's go with that!"
----
Are you positive that the .gif was sent to gOg by the publisher, or is it an assumption of yours that gOg themselves didn't come up with this from within the game?
RWarehall: This was a tweet promoting POSTAL 2: Paradise Lost. Two "gaming " magazines gave the game 0 on a 1 to 10 rating scale. Wonder why the game publishers might be pissing on games journalism? There are 100's of things people can choose to be offended by in that game if one "wants to be". But let's blame Linko, right? He should have overruled the game publisher, right?
First, this doesn't mean I don't think the .gif was a funny bit of satire. Sometimes noses need to be tweaked.
But it's not the fight of gOg. It's the fight of the developers of the game. gOg, by using that material, had chosen to make their twitter account the battleground for someone else's fight. And if they thought nothing bad was going to come from it, while at the same time relying on those in game journalism to help make positive stories about the company... at best that's just very naive and short-sighted.
You've said that it's not offensive. Well, it's not offensive to YOU. I'm pretty sure it offended the daylights out of some folks who take their game journalism jobs seriously. And those are the same people that gOg wants to have saying good things about their company on occasion, to hopefully give them any kind of positive mention at all in a Steam- and AAA-dominated marketplace.
They got a mention, that's for certain.
----
Would I not be crazy to think I could place an ad for my company in a magazine, for instance, that bad-mouthed in a fairly vulgar way some competing company or other entity with which I was unhappy, without the magazine's advertising people saying, "Um, wait a sec. You need make some changes, because we're not going to attach our name to this."?
----
The bit about game journalists... maybe they're creating a problem. The company should be smart enough not to drag themselves to that level and poke the bear. gOg are not here to make some commentary on journalism, or equal rights, or whatever issue du jour. They are here to sell games to dorks like me and you. I don't need their advertising feeds to take sides on the journalism issue, and I don't need it to link me to some gay / trans rights issue. Promote games and leave that side BS out of it.
----
Just curious: did the publisher put out any kudos or support to gOg after the urination tweet?