12/26/2007 7:50:31 AM

When I read this kind of post it makes my skin crawl, but not because of what Sony did. Look, I'm no Sony apologist, but I hate it when this kind of story is reported as fact without both sides being heard. It would be nice to know Sony's side, since I suspect they actually have a defense.

I also think this is one of those times to bring up the logical fallacy. That is, just because event "A" occurs and then event "B" occurs, that does not always mean that event "A" caused event "B". In this case you are assuming that because OXM is a magazine based on Microsoft products that this is the reason why Sony decided not to send them a TV to review. Is that really the case? Where is the evidence backing this up?

Here's another important question: Has OXM ever reviewed a Sony TV? Do they have a track record of reviewing Sony products in the past? I have no real experience with OXM (I generally stick away from console specific magazines), but I wouldn't be surprised if there were reviews for other Sony TVs. I say that because, 1) Sony releases a lot of TVs and, 2) because we would have heard something about this earlier had they denied them TVs in the past.

Could it be that Sony simply didn't have any product to give them? Or worse yet, that Sony is sending their product to non-game publications? Or, is it possible that PSM (OXM's sister publication) was the one that got the TV and Sony decided to only send one TV to the publisher of both mags (Future Network Inc.)?

See, these are the kinds of questions that should be asked (and answered) before people start jumping to conclusions. We should be better than that. If it ends up that Sony was just being petty by not sending OXM the TV then open up the floodgates and send out your wrath, but there's something to be said about knowing all of the facts before jumping to conclusions.

Cyril Lachel

12/27/2007 6:44:01 AM

Pingback from cdmandassociates.net

Console wars extending to other business units? | Time Traveler

cdmandassociates.net