308 replies to this topic

[JaRDoS]

It would be better then, for IO to reveal reasons for not taking Bateson. That would clear up a lot of confusion.
Waiting for more news.... as that could resolve the worries of many people. Getting information, would only help, at this point.

Okay, quick challenge:

What answer from IOI or SquareEnnix would make you all happy and never want to revisit this topic of conversation ever again?

Because that's the only answer that it's in their best interests to give, anything else will be detrimental to their business as it will provide fresh news for people to focus their anxieties on and give some people the delusion that they now have the power to change.

I say his after nearly a decade of working in white collar where I dealt with both clients and customers directly: One of the golden rules of business is if you can't say anything to improve your situation - don't say anything.

What will make you all happier, resolve your worries and clear up your concerns is if people would realise that they are, in all likelihood, never going to find out he real reason unless Hitman somehow becomes iconic enough that ten years down the track someone does a documentary about it and interviews people who no longer work at these companies and are no longer bound by non-disclosure agreements.

Life's full of disappointments but if this is your biggest "It's just business" disappointment then you're a very fortunate person.

[Ostrich]

Okay, quick challenge:

What answer from IOI or SquareEnnix would make you all happy and never want to revisit this topic of conversation ever again?

How about the truth? That would be a good start.

[JaRDoS]

How about the truth? That would be a good start.

Read the above post. Unless "the truth" is a magical story which will make people all around world go "Wow, they're good people and this game will be awesome!" then there is no benefit to their business but potentially a lot of harm due to a feeding frenzy of bad press and fresh speculations about the explanation.

I'll put this more clearly:

They don't have to tell us anything. They certainly have no obligation to risk the future of their business and the jobs of the people who work there because you can't accept a decision somebody else made.

Nobody consulted you when they first hired David, what makes you think they have some obligation to hire someone other than him?

[music is math]

I don't care if Tore or someone else says, "yes, we flubbed on the issue of Bateson on this game. It was not in our hands. We promise to make it up in Hitman 6. Mmm Cheese donuts," or something. the silence on this matter is sickening.

Actually, I prefer silence to an obvious lie like "it was out of our hands, honest!" Tore Blystad is the game director. As far as I'm concerned, he has more direct control over the outcome of the product than any other single person. There isn't some shady group of suits pulling all the strings and crushing the desires of the people making the game. Tore and the rest of his crew are making the game they want to make, period.

[Sean Rubin]

Okay, quick challenge:

What answer from IOI or SquareEnnix would make you all happy and never want to revisit this topic of conversation ever again.

Something along the lines of, "We messed up. We didn't realize how many of you value David Bateson as 47. So we are going to fix the problem. We are going to re-hire David Bateson as the voice of Agent 47".

**********
p.s, "And, Vivienne McKee as Diana Burnwood. And music composed and produced by, Jesper Kyd".

[JaRDoS]

Something along the lines of, "We messed up. We didn't realize how many of you value David Bateson as 47. So we are going to fix the problem. We are going to re-hire David Bateson as the voice of Agent 47".

**********
p.s, "And, Vivienne McKee as Diana Burnwood. And music composed and produced by, Jesper Kyd".

Bullshit. All that would result in is you entitled little shits screaming and crying about how you were right all along and you know better than everyone else and now you have proof the game really is ruined because of lack of David, that they should have come forward etc.

That and it means you moronically assume that they didn't realise the value of David and had to make a choice anyway.

This is why they're not talking to you about it, because you think you know everything and you really know nothing - you're only interested in making self-righteous claims that you know best.

[Watson]

IOI seem to be very open about explaining the reasons behind some of the changes to gameplay. Instinct is a good example, often explained as a key tool used to compensate the player with additional features because of the more advanced AI system this game implements. If IOI say anything about the reasons behind Bateson's absence, the response from the fanbase will heavily depend on what the reason is itself. I understand that there will be no universal response from players based on what IOI could say about Bateson. In my opinion a majority of people accept the dropping of Bateson, but it's much harder to understand why such a decision was undertaken. I doubt there'll be a perfect answer to the 'why?' question, one that would satisfy everyone, there cloud be a whole lot of reasons, or just one, we don't know. When it comes to increased speculation as a result of a response from IOI, I would rather assume a response would put a lot of speculation out there to absolute rest. I recognize that it can come down to what would do more damage: staying silent or giving a response? The real and honest view I have supporting the need for a response of some sort is grounded in a simple matter of integrity, by having IOI simply state in a few words why such a decision came to be, it would only bring about a form of communication beneficial to one's view of the game.

However, that said I think there is a good point that perhaps knowing the full reason behind Bateson's absence could cause some further worry and damage in the sense that the response would not seen in a good light. For example, what would happen if we found out IOI decided that they wanted a more 'experienced' actor from Hollywood and that Bateson was not 'high-profile' enough for the game? I don't necessarily think such an explanation would be the most likely, but if it was, IOI certainly wouldn't be applauded by giving it. So in one sense it could be very beneficial to the game if an honest response was given about Bateson, but on the other hand you can't rule out the possibility of the content of such as response creating further problems, particularly making people feel worse about the game. I agree that it's important to recognise IOI are not in such an easy position when it comes to talking about Bateson, this is most likely why they haven't commented much on it.

Edited by Watson, 17 September 2011 - 09:09 PM.

[Ostrich]

Few fans (if any) have claimed that we are entitled to knowing IOI's reasoning; that's not the issue here. And there is tremendous benefit to IOI explaining their decision. You don't think there isn't a feeding frenzy of bad press and speculation already? We're talking damage control at this point, nothing more. At the very least, an explanation of why they fired Bateson the way they did ("unceremoniously," as he described it) would be a step in the right direction.

It seems like there are some common misconceptions among those who consider themselves more "reasonable" fans directed toward those of us who pursue this David Bateson issue. I think I speak for most of us when I say the following:

1). We don't expect Bateson, McKee, etc. to be reinstated for Absolution
2). We don't possess a sense of entitlement to knowing the reasons for the casting shuffle
3). We don't think IOI, Square Enix, etc are bad people and generally support them and give them the benefit of the doubt in most instances

Will telling us why Bateson was replaced be some sort of panacea and make us "all happy and never want to revisit this topic of conversation ever again?" Of course not. But keeping silent is making things even worse. I have a Master's degree in business administration and focused on marketing for the majority of my studies. I don't say that in an attempt to sound elitist or like I know more than the rest of the members here. I say it because I've read countless case studies that deal with other companies that faced negative customer reactions over decisions they made, and every fiber in my being is screaming that IOI is handling this in the worst way imaginable. "Owning the conversation" is very prevalent in PR and marketing, especially in relation to social media and the Internet. The idea is that, with blogs, forums, etc. being more and more influential in shaping customer opinions and perceptions, companies need to step up and control their message in ways that extend beyond merely throwing out interviews to magazines, which probably would have sufficed ten years ago. Mishandling of customer backlash results in serious brand damage (in this case, to both Hitman and IOI). This new requirement for some sort of greater community involvement is what Nick has been handling (very well, I might add) for some time here about most topics, but it looks like he's been forbidden from commenting on this situation at all. IOI isn't owning the conversation; they're running away from it covering their ears and pretending that it's not even happening. Again, I'm not trying to step in here and say they're running their company incorrectly or presuming that I could run it better than they can. Heck, it's still very possible this decision was out of their hands and they've been issued a gag order by the higher-ups, whoever they may be. What I'm saying is that, from what we know of the situation, the general response by the company who should have had this conversation under control months ago in one way or another flies in the face of common business sense.

No one except for those involved in Bateson's removal knows why it happened. To blindly defend or attack that which we do not know makes little sense at this point. What we do know is that Bateson found out about his removal roughly the same time we fans did, and it appears he was given the same explanation (at least initially) that we were given: nothing. I think that's another factor at the heart of why this seems so messed up and why we feel as passionately as we do about it. Anyway, I'm gonna hop off the soapbox. Sorry for my little rant here. One of the best things about this forum is that, even if I can't affect the change I want, I can still speak my mind and get everything off my chest.

And I don't have to immaturely refer to those who disagree with me as "entitled little shits" to make my point.

[Sean Rubin]

Bullshit. All that would result in is you entitled little shits screaming and crying about how you were right all along and you know better than everyone else and now you have proof the game really is ruined because of lack of David, that they should have come forward etc.

That and it means you moronically assume that they didn't realise the value of David and had to make a choice anyway.

This is why they're not talking to you about it, because you think you know everything and you really know nothing - you're only interested in making self-righteous claims that you know best.

Wow. Such fucking hostility.

I'm going to be the same "little shit" who fully intends to purchase Absolution regardless.

[Watson]

A well written post Ostrich.

You make many good points. I'm a little confused about what you say in the first part of your post, you say that knowing the reasons behind Bateson's absence is not the problem (?) and then you say it would be a step in the right direction would be knowing why this happened. Isn't this a contradiction as knowing why effectivley requires some sort of reason why something happened?

[Ostrich]

Sorry, that was a poorly written sentence. What I meant was that the issue of fans feeling entitled isn't the problem, as there aren't any posts that I can remember seeing where fans have claimed they're entitled to know why Bateson was let go.

Edited by Ostrich, 17 September 2011 - 10:15 PM.

[HitPro]

Thinking how obsessed fans are with David Bateson, IO seems to have back peddle in some ways.
Seriously though the fans said both sides of the argument better than IO has anything left to reply.
The Man himself, David Bateson may seem a little disjointed to what fanbase are attached over and above the liking for the game. His Silence hurts, for whatever reason though!
Either, it doesn't matter to any party. IO or Mr Bateson. OR all the whine and cry for Mr David Bateson shows a degree of limitations within fans to simply accept the game the way it is going to be presented and that was without all that shit introduced.
Yet, an answer from IO stands right to have and bad for them, sometimes fans get good exactly because the creators put all that terrible changes to completely wrong direction.

Edited by HitPro, 17 September 2011 - 10:39 PM.

[MrPistolLaw]

Few fans...my point.

I shortened the quote box by inserting an elipsis, but your entire post was all very nicely written, well said and I agree with you one hundred and ten percent! +1!

[Ostrich]

Thank you!

[JaRDoS]

Few fans (if any) have claimed that we are entitled to knowing IOI's reasoning; that's not the issue here. And there is tremendous benefit to IOI explaining their decision. You don't think there isn't a feeding frenzy of bad press and speculation already? We're talking damage control at this point, nothing more. At the very least, an explanation of why they fired Bateson the way they did ("unceremoniously," as he described it) would be a step in the right direction.

First point: They did not "fire" Bateson. They hired someone else instead of hiring him to do the job. If you have hired the same plumber to fix your sink four times and then you hire a new one you have not fired your plumber you have hired a different one. This the reality of contract work. To assume that you or someone you like will get the next contract because they got the last one is pretty much iconic "entitled thinking" in itself.

It seems like there are some common misconceptions among those who consider themselves more "reasonable" fans directed toward those of us who pursue this David Bateson issue. I think I speak for most of us when I say the following:

1). We don't expect Bateson, McKee, etc. to be reinstated for Absolution
2). We don't possess a sense of entitlement to knowing the reasons for the casting shuffle
3). We don't think IOI, Square Enix, etc are bad people and generally support them and give them the benefit of the doubt in most instances

Will telling us why Bateson was replaced be some sort of panacea and make us "all happy and never want to revisit this topic of conversation ever again?" Of course not. But keeping silent is making things even worse.

Well the person I was replying to did not meet criteria 3 so clearly you don't consider them reasonable by your own definitions. It's unclear then why you want to defend them.

I have a Master's degree in business administration and focused on marketing for the majority of my studies. I don't say that in an attempt to sound elitist or like I know more than the rest of the members here. I say it because I've read countless case studies that deal with other companies that faced negative customer reactions over decisions they made, and every fiber in my being is screaming that IOI is handling this in the worst way imaginable. "Owning the conversation" is very prevalent in PR and marketing, especially in relation to social media and the Internet. The idea is that, with blogs, forums, etc. being more and more influential in shaping customer opinions and perceptions, companies need to step up and control their message in ways that extend beyond merely throwing out interviews to magazines, which probably would have sufficed ten years ago. Mishandling of customer backlash results in serious brand damage (in this case, to both Hitman and IOI). This new requirement for some sort of greater community involvement is what Nick has been handling (very well, I might add) for some time here about most topics, but it looks like he's been forbidden from commenting on this situation at all. IOI isn't owning the conversation; they're running away from it covering their ears and pretending that it's not even happening. Again, I'm not trying to step in here and say they're running their company incorrectly or presuming that I could run it better than they can. Heck, it's still very possible this decision was out of their hands and they've been issued a gag order by the higher-ups, whoever they may be. What I'm saying is that, from what we know of the situation, the general response by the company who should have had this conversation under control months ago in one way or another flies in the face of common business sense.

They are owning the conversation, because the conversation everywhere else is about what an exciting game it's going to be, what changes are going to happen, etc. That's how you own a conversation when you have bad news - you change the subject. The only places people are going on about it being a problem are in small fan groups where the conversation is about Bateson and they are clearly not going to talk about anything else.

But thank you for writing everything I said in a much longer method and simply just assuming there's a good answer for IOI without stating what it would be. I don't know what PR disasters you've analysed - but this is not an oil leak, or someone got poisoned by their baby medicine, or a reveal that their products are made through blatant inhumane treatment of animals, or sexual harassment by the CEO, etc. This is they didn't hire who a fanatical portion of the fanbase wanted them to hire.

No one except for those involved in Bateson's removal knows why it happened. To blindly defend or attack that which we do not know makes little sense at this point. What we do know is that Bateson found out about his removal roughly the same time we fans did, and it appears he was given the same explanation (at least initially) that we were given: nothing. I think that's another factor at the heart of why this seems so messed up and why we feel as passionately as we do about it. Anyway, I'm gonna hop off the soapbox. Sorry for my little rant here. One of the best things about this forum is that, even if I can't affect the change I want, I can still speak my mind and get everything off my chest.

And I don't have to immaturely refer to those who disagree with me as "entitled little shits" to make my point.

You still didn't meet or attempt to meet my challenge. I said, come up with a statement that IOI or SquareEnnix could make that would make their situation better and despite your credentials etc you don't have one.

They can't say: "We didn't realise it would be such a big deal." because that makes the conversation about what they don't know about their fan base and makes it look like they don't care what their fanbase want. Also is incredibly unlikely they didn't know that for reasons previously stated.

They can't say: "It was an unfortunate business situation where interests clashed." because that makes the conversation about what they can't do due to business and invokes ideas about a game designed by accountants and lawyers rather than a creative team.

They can't say: "We didn't hire David because he did x." because that makes the conversation about them vs the voice actor for the past four games and invokes ideas about it being out of spite etc.

The only explanations they could bring that could have a positive conversation for them were if it were a creative decision or that David had been unable/unwilling to do the voice of 47. We all know for a fact David is very disappointed he's not getting the job and nobody from the creative department has given the slightest hint they wanted a different voice actor for a creative reason.

That leaves them with answers that create bad conversations - hence why they are saying nothing. So far the rest of the game world who are, not surprisingly, more interested in the game than who voices the main character, are happy to let them avoid that conversation so how could it possibly benefit them to bring it up? Do you think they want the next big feature on Hitman: Absolution to be about why they don't have the same voice actor? Why would they want to talk about and promote positive points that the game won't have?

They're building steam for an upcoming game, the conversation should have the audience looking only one way: Forward.

You don't accomplish that by talking about a things you like from the previous games that are not going to be in the new game.

[Ostrich]

First point: They did not "fire" Bateson. They hired someone else instead of hiring him to do the job. If you have hired the same plumber to fix your sink four times and then you hire a new one you have not fired your plumber you have hired a different one. This the reality of contract work. To assume that you or someone you like will get the next contract because they got the last one is pretty much iconic "entitled thinking" in itself.

Good point. That would be entitled thinking. He wasn't fired. I mean, it's not as if IOI asked him to go to an LA-based casting agency and audition for the part. And even if they had, they never told him he had the part. Oh, wait...

Well the person I was replying to did not meet criteria 3 so clearly you don't consider them reasonable by your own definitions. It's unclear then why you want to defend them.

You responded to a couple people so I'm not sure if I'm supposed to be defending Dev J Chand or Hitman_47x, but no matter. I'm not gonna defend either of them. You're absolutely right. Neither of them meet criteria 3. Neither of them are generally supportive of IOI, Square Enix,etc.

Spoiler

In my opinion, long term artistic value is more important than initial financial success.
But of course, there must be a balance. None wants to make something which only he/she can like.
I think it's better to give IO a chance- because they still would want to make it a stealth oriented game. I don't think the game would turn into a completely unrecognizable game, just for some changes and improvements..
I agree with you, Watson!

I really do appreciate Nick and the others from IOI coming on here to talk to us, but at the very same time I'm extremely frustrated with the whole, "We can't talk about this. We can't talk about that at this time", response we get from them.

I do understand and respect the fact that IOI wants to keep certain things under wraps until a certain point in time. But for crying out loud, not every single thing should be kept at a top secret level.

Oh, wait...

They are owning the conversation, because the conversation everywhere else is about what an exciting game it's going to be, what changes are going to happen, etc. That's how you own a conversation when you have bad news - you change the subject. The only places people are going on about it being a problem are in small fan groups where the conversation is about Bateson and they are clearly not going to talk about anything else.

They are owning a conversation. Several, actually. But not ones that control any of the damage that rampant speculation is causing. If you think HMF is the only place talking about it, a quick Google search should tell you otherwise.

But thank you for writing everything I said in a much longer method and simply just assuming there's a good answer for IOI without stating what it would be. I don't know what PR disasters you've analysed - but this is not an oil leak, or someone got poisoned by their baby medicine, or a reveal that their products are made through blatant inhumane treatment of animals, or sexual harassment by the CEO, etc. This is they didn't hire who a fanatical portion of the fanbase wanted them to hire.

So I should assume that IOI doesn't have a good answer? I guess I have more faith in them than you do. And poisoning babies isn't a prerequisite to have a bona fide PR disaster. Remember United Breaks Guitars? Granted, even this is (arguably) more severe than the Bateson situation, but it's not exactly of oil leak proportions either.

You still didn't meet or attempt to meet my challenge. I said, come up with a statement that IOI or SquareEnnix could make that would make their situation better and despite your credentials etc you don't have one.

They can't say: "We didn't realise it would be such a big deal." because that makes the conversation about what they don't know about their fan base and makes it look like they don't care what their fanbase want. Also is incredibly unlikely they didn't know that for reasons previously stated.

They can't say: "It was an unfortunate business situation where interests clashed." because that makes the conversation about what they can't do due to business and invokes ideas about a game designed by accountants and lawyers rather than a creative team.

They can't say: "We didn't hire David because he did x." because that makes the conversation about them vs the voice actor for the past four games and invokes ideas about it being out of spite etc.

Didn't know I was still in the running to win this contest. To be honest, any of the answers you gave would be better than silence if, for no other reason, they would end the speculation and salacious accusations thrown around by those who are simply guessing at what caused him to be replaced in the first place. Are any of those worst-case-scenario conversations you concocted worse than the conversations right now? They're each a fundamental improvement, if you ask me. I'm not going to play the guessing game and try to come up with some statement for them because I have no idea what the facts are. If you want to make up some story behind Bateson's departure and post it here, go ahead and I'll spin it for you and we'll see how things go.

The only explanations they could bring that could have a positive conversation for them were if it were a creative decision or that David had been unable/unwilling to do the voice of 47. We all know for a fact David is very disappointed he's not getting the job and nobody from the creative department has given the slightest hint they wanted a different voice actor for a creative reason.

That leaves them with answers that create bad conversations - hence why they are saying nothing. So far the rest of the game world who are, not surprisingly, more interested in the game than who voices the main character, are happy to let them avoid that conversation so how could it possibly benefit them to bring it up? Do you think they want the next big feature on Hitman: Absolution to be about why they don't have the same voice actor? Why would they want to talk about and promote positive points that the game won't have?

They're not the ones bringing it up; the fans are. And unless the reasoning behind Bateson getting replaced is truly horrific, how many legitimate gaming news entities are going to report on it? At the very least, they won't report it in a negative light, and if only the "fanatical portion of the fanbase" cares about the casting change to begin with, as you assert, casual readers wouldn't care about it anyway.

They're building steam for an upcoming game, the conversation should have the audience looking only one way: Forward.

You don't accomplish that by talking about a things you like from the previous games that are not going to be in the new game.

You're right. No one wants to talk about things you want to see in the new game. Oh, wait...

[JaRDoS]

Good point. That would be entitled thinking. He wasn't fired. I mean, it's not as if IOI asked him to go to an LA-based casting agency and audition for the part. And even if they had, they never told him he had the part. Oh, wait...

This effects that he is a contracted freelance voice actor how? Oh wait, it guarantees he wasn't fired because you can't be fired without cause... so he still wasn't fired he just got to see the artwork and signed a non-disclosure agreement - which many people who are considered for parts in games, movies, etc have to do because they need to know what the job is going to be before they can say if they can do it or

You responded to a couple people so I'm not sure if I'm supposed to be defending Dev J Chand or Hitman_47x, but no matter. I'm not gonna defend either of them. You're absolutely right. Neither of them meet criteria 3. Neither of them are generally supportive of IOI, Square Enix,etc.

It's good to know that you to respond to things without taking the time to scroll up to see what you're replying to and would rather fish around for quotes unrelated to the statement to try to put context spin on things. It means I can safely disregard what you're saying.

They are owning a conversation. Several, actually. But not ones that control any of the damage that rampant speculation is causing. If you think HMF is the only place talking about it, a quick Google search should tell you otherwise.

Googled "Hitman Absolution" and only mentions of Bateson are one line of Wikipedia (which one of the references points to Hitmanforum... Hi Mom!), one fan hosted promo video that links to the petition and two comments - one on a video and one on an article. So 70% of the links on the front page have no mention of him at all and the links that have a mention of him are brief. None of the major media, commentators or promoters are concerned. I certainly didn't read about it on Penny Arcade or see a news article pop up about it.

Duke Nukem Forever's low ratings was a PR disaster (as was the PR company's threatening reviewers) is a PR disaster.
Vampire: Redemption being unable to finish without cheats or a patch, then having the first patch released by a fan rather than the developer, was a PR disaster.

This is just an inconvenience. Much like the controversy with advertising and alarmist parents groups that Blood Money had.

So I should assume that IOI doesn't have a good answer? I guess I have more faith in them than you do. And poisoning babies isn't a prerequisite to have a bona fide PR disaster. Remember United Breaks Guitars? Granted, even this is (arguably) more severe than the Bateson situation, but it's not exactly of oil leak proportions either.

No actually I didn't know about United Breaks Guitars. I did have a look at the United wikipedia entry... and well lets say that incident was the least of their worries. Also, you didn't seem to notice what the common factor in PR disaster is vocal victims.

David's not going to be a vocal victim, it'd be unprofessional and would jeopardise his chances of getting future work. Fans who are crying that they don't get the voice actor they want are rather vocal but are apparently not making much of an impact since there's only about 2,358 signatures (including mine) which is a little more than 1% of total X-Box sales of Blood Money in the first ten weeks (sauce ).

And quite a few people who've signed the petition have already said they'll buy the game anyway. So in terms of PR problems this is pretty mild and looks to the world more obsessive fanboys than an actual offense by the creators.

Didn't know I was still in the running to win this contest. To be honest, any of the answers you gave would be better than silence if, for no other reason, they would end the speculation and salacious accusations thrown around by those who are simply guessing at what caused him to be replaced in the first place. Are any of those worst-case-scenario conversations you concocted worse than the conversations right now? They're each a fundamental improvement, if you ask me. I'm not going to play the guessing game and try to come up with some statement for them because I have no idea what the facts are. If you want to make up some story behind Bateson's departure and post it here, go ahead and I'll spin it for you and we'll see how things go.

So now you're completely contradicting the poster that you originally defended who complained he wanted "the truth". Now you're saying that they should completely spin out things and try to deceive people into thinking it's good.

Now, I'm not a PR expert but y'know what.... this is pretty much a terrible idea as far as I can see for a few reasons:

1. It spreads the news of swapping out voice actors to a wider audience, thus selling up that it's less authentic as a sequel to the previous games any way you cut it.
2. It attracts press attention to David, who is either going to have to tell them no comment or have his say... or have to explain the information on his responses that reporters find through searching archives, paying people for a copy of his emails, etc
3. It takes the focus of the game's selling points like the new technologies, artwork, story, etc
4. It creates spin, which is puzzles for fanatics to unravel, twist and analyse.

Versus now, when all we have is a small percentage of the old fan base who are angsting over it and have no information to analyse, elaborate on and no fresh news on it.

You're right. No one wants to talk about things you want to see in the new game. Oh, wait...

Is this one of your attempts to show how you can spin things? Because it's not going to go well.

They're building steam for an upcoming game, the conversation should have the audience looking only one way: Forward.

You don't accomplish that by talking about a things you like from the previous games that are not going to be in the new game.

You will notice two things about the Wishlist.

It is for posting ideas about things that are not in Hitman games but people would like to see in upcoming games.

It is not for talking about features that were in previous games and won't be in upcoming games.

So, since you tried to change the topic without addressing it. We can safely say you agree with me and how they're handling the Bateson situation.

Isn't that wonderful?

[JaRDoS]

Good point. That would be entitled thinking. He wasn't fired. I mean, it's not as if IOI asked him to go to an LA-based casting agency and audition for the part. And even if they had, they never told him he had the part. Oh, wait...

This effects that he is a contracted freelance voice actor how? Oh wait, it guarantees he wasn't fired because you can't be fired without cause... so he still wasn't fired he just got to see the artwork and signed a non-disclosure agreement - which many people who are considered for parts in games, movies, etc have to do because they need to know what the job is going to be before they can say if they can do it or

You responded to a couple people so I'm not sure if I'm supposed to be defending Dev J Chand or Hitman_47x, but no matter. I'm not gonna defend either of them. You're absolutely right. Neither of them meet criteria 3. Neither of them are generally supportive of IOI, Square Enix,etc.

It's good to know that you to respond to things without taking the time to scroll up to see what you're replying to and would rather fish around for quotes unrelated to the statement to try to put context spin on things. It means I can safely disregard what you're saying.

They are owning a conversation. Several, actually. But not ones that control any of the damage that rampant speculation is causing. If you think HMF is the only place talking about it, a quick Google search should tell you otherwise.

Googled "Hitman Absolution" and only mentions of Bateson are one line of Wikipedia (which one of the references points to Hitmanforum... Hi Mom!), one fan hosted promo video that links to the petition and two comments - one on a video and one on an article. So 70% of the links on the front page have no mention of him at all and the links that have a mention of him are brief. None of the major media, commentators or promoters are concerned. I certainly didn't read about it on Penny Arcade or see a news article pop up about it.

Duke Nukem Forever's low ratings was a PR disaster (as was the PR company's threatening reviewers) is a PR disaster.
Vampire: Redemption being unable to finish without cheats or a patch, then having the first patch released by a fan rather than the developer, was a PR disaster.

This is just an inconvenience. Much like the controversy with advertising and alarmist parents groups that Blood Money had.

So I should assume that IOI doesn't have a good answer? I guess I have more faith in them than you do. And poisoning babies isn't a prerequisite to have a bona fide PR disaster. Remember United Breaks Guitars? Granted, even this is (arguably) more severe than the Bateson situation, but it's not exactly of oil leak proportions either.

No actually I didn't know about United Breaks Guitars. I did have a look at the United wikipedia entry... and well lets say that incident was the least of their worries. Also, you didn't seem to notice what the common factor in PR disaster is vocal victims.

David's not going to be a vocal victim, it'd be unprofessional and would jeopardise his chances of getting future work. Fans who are crying that they don't get the voice actor they want are rather vocal but are apparently not making much of an impact since there's only about 2,358 signatures (including mine) which is a little more than 1% of total X-Box sales of Blood Money in the first ten weeks (sauce ).

And quite a few people who've signed the petition have already said they'll buy the game anyway. So in terms of PR problems this is pretty mild and looks to the world more obsessive fanboys than an actual offense by the creators.

Didn't know I was still in the running to win this contest. To be honest, any of the answers you gave would be better than silence if, for no other reason, they would end the speculation and salacious accusations thrown around by those who are simply guessing at what caused him to be replaced in the first place. Are any of those worst-case-scenario conversations you concocted worse than the conversations right now? They're each a fundamental improvement, if you ask me. I'm not going to play the guessing game and try to come up with some statement for them because I have no idea what the facts are. If you want to make up some story behind Bateson's departure and post it here, go ahead and I'll spin it for you and we'll see how things go.

So now you're completely contradicting the poster that you originally defended who complained he wanted "the truth". Now you're saying that they should completely spin out things and try to deceive people into thinking it's good.

Now, I'm not a PR expert but y'know what.... this is pretty much a terrible idea as far as I can see for a few reasons:

1. It spreads the news of swapping out voice actors to a wider audience, thus selling up that it's less authentic as a sequel to the previous games any way you cut it.
2. It attracts press attention to David, who is either going to have to tell them no comment or have his say... or have to explain the information on his responses that reporters find through searching archives, paying people for a copy of his emails, etc
3. It takes the focus of the game's selling points like the new technologies, artwork, story, etc
4. It creates spin, which is puzzles for fanatics to unravel, twist and analyse.

Versus now, when all we have is a small percentage of the old fan base who are angsting over it and have no information to analyse, elaborate on and no fresh news on it.

You're right. No one wants to talk about things you want to see in the new game. Oh, wait...

Is this one of your attempts to show how you can spin things? Because it's not going to go well.

They're building steam for an upcoming game, the conversation should have the audience looking only one way: Forward.

You don't accomplish that by talking about a things you like from the previous games that are not going to be in the new game.

You will notice two things about the Wishlist.

It is for posting ideas about things that are not in Hitman games but people would like to see in upcoming games.

It is not for talking about features that were in previous games and won't be in upcoming games.

So, since you tried to change the topic without addressing it. We can safely say you agree with me and how they're handling the Bateson situation.

Isn't that wonderful?

[MrPistolLaw]

This is from the GamingLiberty's interview of Mr. Bateson

Retroplayer- What kind of relationship do you have with IO interactive?

David- A good one I believe. Though I was rather surprised to having to audition for my own role this time round, that is, for the next long awaited instalment. It seems that with company buy outs and global power shifts in the world of computer gaming and the Hitman franchise, there is now a LA based caster on board, who is responsible for voice casting, and I had to audition along with the rest of the planet for the right to play Agent 47. However, I have been informed by IO Interactive, that I still have the part. I won’t even bother to describe how gutted I would have been if they went for a sound-a-like. But that is the nature of my profession and you just have to accept it, so definitely no ill feelings there. I am just looking forward to it.

Edited by MrPistolLaw, 18 September 2011 - 08:05 AM.

[bobbie]

There's one or two questions I'd like to ask the people in this thread:
If IOI are too shy to tell us why David Bateson was replaced by another actor, why don't they tell Bateson himself? HE should have that knowledge. He's deserving of a good explanation of why IOI choose to replace him with a different voice actor. As long as he's OK with that, then I see no reason why not.

Also, IOI wouldn't really be putting their job at risk if they told us why they left Bateson out in the cold. It most likely wouldn't make any bad difference, if we're already disappointed about it. A few(if not some) hitman fans wouldn't even buy the game to start with, if IOI would treat the actors like that. I'm not one of them, I'm only bringing up some points I thought would be useful.

That's all for now.

IO doesn't loose nothing if you or 100 people wont buy Absolution.the money for absolution comes from markets and store that buy big quantity of the game, and sale's it at their one price to us. So, if you don't buy the game IO doesn't loose nothing.and I think they don't give a sh..t if you don't like their game or not

Edited by Big Badea, 18 September 2011 - 11:09 AM.