Future Publishing's Nintendo Official Magazine UK today took the unusual step of admitting it made a blunder in its launch issue by releasing a statement on its official site correcting its assertion that the stand for the upcoming Revolution was the machine's power supply.
“...we'll put our hands on our hearts and admit that last month we got a bit over-excited and printed some information that wasn't actually true”, an unnamed writer at the magazine stated.
“Those of you who read last month's 12-page ‘New Ways To Play’ feature may have picked up on the fact that we claimed the Revolution's stand doubled as a power supply for the next-generation unit. This was actually wishful thinking on our part and we apologise profusely for misleading you. After all, you come to us looking for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The fact of the matter is that Nintendo has not released any information on the Revolution's power supply or confirmed any other uses for the base stand.”
As to how anyone could wish for the Revolution to require it's slanted stand to double up as a power supply is anyone's guess, as such a concept would force the machine to be upright and leaning a bit, a nightmare for all of us unable to leave our houses as we battle with crippling OCD (obsessive compulsive disorder).
The wording of the NOM statement does seem to contradict that of Nintendo's explanation of the incident, with the firm putting the page down to a 'production error' rather than a wilful lie.
The mag continued, “We would like to apologise to anyone who feels misled by this untruth. We would also like to apologise to Nintendo.”
Of course, the even bigger lie, “World's first hands-on session with the Revolution controller!” printed in clear bold lettering on the front cover was not addressed...
“...we'll put our hands on our hearts and admit that last month we got a bit over-excited and printed some information that wasn't actually true”, an unnamed writer at the magazine stated.
“Those of you who read last month's 12-page ‘New Ways To Play’ feature may have picked up on the fact that we claimed the Revolution's stand doubled as a power supply for the next-generation unit. This was actually wishful thinking on our part and we apologise profusely for misleading you. After all, you come to us looking for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The fact of the matter is that Nintendo has not released any information on the Revolution's power supply or confirmed any other uses for the base stand.”
As to how anyone could wish for the Revolution to require it's slanted stand to double up as a power supply is anyone's guess, as such a concept would force the machine to be upright and leaning a bit, a nightmare for all of us unable to leave our houses as we battle with crippling OCD (obsessive compulsive disorder).
The wording of the NOM statement does seem to contradict that of Nintendo's explanation of the incident, with the firm putting the page down to a 'production error' rather than a wilful lie.
The mag continued, “We would like to apologise to anyone who feels misled by this untruth. We would also like to apologise to Nintendo.”
Of course, the even bigger lie, “World's first hands-on session with the Revolution controller!” printed in clear bold lettering on the front cover was not addressed...
Read More Like This
Comments
ann0uk 3 Mar 2006 13:00
1/20
"This was actually wishful thinking on our part"
Not exactly good journalism to lie about something just because you would like it, and what is so great about the stand power supply anyway?
Bit presumptious really.
Oh by the way did you know that England have won the world cup.
Not exactly good journalism to lie about something just because you would like it, and what is so great about the stand power supply anyway?
Bit presumptious really.
Oh by the way did you know that England have won the world cup.
OptimusP 3 Mar 2006 21:52
2/20
How the crap can England win the world cup? Have you seen Brazil play at the confederations cup? gah! crazy, just crazy!
more comments below our sponsor's message
DoctorDee 4 Mar 2006 07:06
3/20
OptimusP wrote:
How the crap can England win the world cup?
"This was actually wishful thinking on our part"
Get it?
Ditto 4 Mar 2006 11:16
4/20
Oh dear, Optimus.
ben1210 4 Mar 2006 12:40
5/20
I don't know why spong keeps hammering this magazine- did you ever read NOM- now that was pants.
I bet you the power supply is incorparated into the stand, top brass at nintendo probably read this and told them to retract it immediately. This story seems reminiscent of the whole NGC rev-zelda compatibility debacle.
why as well do you keep going on and on about this 'first hands on revolution' lie. Honestly you sound like Claire Short- f**king desperate to raise your own profile by shouting the loudest.
Give it a break, you sound weird.
I bet you the power supply is incorparated into the stand, top brass at nintendo probably read this and told them to retract it immediately. This story seems reminiscent of the whole NGC rev-zelda compatibility debacle.
why as well do you keep going on and on about this 'first hands on revolution' lie. Honestly you sound like Claire Short- f**king desperate to raise your own profile by shouting the loudest.
Give it a break, you sound weird.
Dreadknux 4 Mar 2006 19:21
6/20
ben1210 wrote:
I don't know why spong keeps hammering this magazine- did you ever read NOM- now that was pants.
I bet you the power supply is incorparated into the stand, top brass at nintendo probably read this and told them to retract it immediately.
I bet you the power supply is incorparated into the stand, top brass at nintendo probably read this and told them to retract it immediately.
Even though Nintendo pretty much officially said the whole thing was false? Even though the magazine's just admitted that they were lying in the first place?
Whoops.
Yes, NOM was pants, but a magazine that's supposed to be much better than this one has gotten off to a bit of a bad start. And there's nothing you can really say to back these guys up, because they lied. They admitted so.
Perhaps the reason SPOnG is so vocal about this incident is to demonstrate the fact that Future Publishing - holding a virtual monopoly on the magazine industry in general, let alone the gaming one - for all intents and purposes, care about making a profit rather than checking their facts and that. Which, you know, a journalist is kinda supposed to do.
ben1210 4 Mar 2006 20:13
7/20
have you read it?
ben1210 4 Mar 2006 20:14
8/20
have you read it?
ben1210 4 Mar 2006 20:16
9/20
Whats a virtual monopoly
Dreadknux 5 Mar 2006 20:29
10/20
ben1210 wrote:
have you read it?
Yes, but that doesn't make a difference. My point still makes sense.
ben1210 wrote:
have you read it?
Yes, but that doesn't make a difference. My point still makes sense.
(Was there a point to triple posting?)
You're not getting what we're saying. No matter how good a magazine in general is, if you have a headlining story that's actually bogus - and the writing staff were aware it was a lie - then you may have a problem trusting them again. And the fact it was on a launch issue means only more concern, as launch issues generally make or break a magazine with first impressions. Whether the magazine is good, or if it's better than NOM, is completely irrelevant.
ben1210 wrote:
Whats a virtual monopoly
A monopoly is when a company has the largest market share of a particular industry. For instance, Microsoft have a monopoly on PC Operating Systems, with Windows. When I say 'virtual' monopoly, I mean that Future pretty much have a monopoly, but I don't know a lot about the rest of the magazine industry to really be certain. :P
ben1210 5 Mar 2006 20:43
11/20
do you live in the uk
kid_77 6 Mar 2006 10:02
12/20
ben1210 wrote:
do you live in the uk
Are all your questions this concise?
SPInGSPOnG 6 Mar 2006 12:04
13/20
When I say 'virtual' monopoly, I mean that Future pretty much have a monopoly, but I don't know a lot about the rest of the magazine industry to really be certain. :P
When it comes to computer games publishing. Future's monopoly is very 'actual'.
Their dire complacent paid-for reviews are all you have the choice of if you insist on the out of date medium of print publishing.
ben1210 6 Mar 2006 12:11
14/20
depends on how irratated I am
Conor Godfrey (Pi master) 26 May 2008 11:59
15/20
"a nightmare for all of us unable to leave our houses as we battle with crippling OCD"
lol what a stupid thing to say.
You were seriously over reacting to the mistake that ONM made (it's not NOM any more, fools).
lol what a stupid thing to say.
You were seriously over reacting to the mistake that ONM made (it's not NOM any more, fools).
PreciousRoi 26 May 2008 19:12
16/20
Svend Joscelyne wrote:
A monopoly is when a company has the largest market share of a particular industry. For instance, Microsoft have a monopoly on PC Operating Systems, with Windows. When I say 'virtual' monopoly, I mean that Future pretty much have a monopoly, but I don't know a lot about the rest of the magazine industry to really be certain. :P
Umm, no. That is a horrible attempt at defining a monopoly, though I can not speak to the question of Future, and it may (almost certainly does from what I gather) have a monopoly, the definition you posit is not correct...though to the ignorant, its just plausible enough to be dangerously convincing.
A (classic, horizontal) monopoly is manifiestly not when a company has the largest market share of a particular industry (though obviously a monopoly will have the largest share)...a monopoly is when a company has the ONLY market share of an industry (hence the mono, or "one"), or such an opressively dominant position as makes no difference, putting them in a position where serious abuses are possible. For instance, despite the PS2's market share during its generation, saying that Sony had a "monopoly" on gaming consoles during the period would be patently false and misleading.
edit: ack, this story is from '06? Why would anyone feel the need to dredge this one up from the depths of time...I mean I know my comment stands up, thats solid pedantry that is...
TimSpong 26 May 2008 23:12
17/20
PreciousRoi wrote:
edit: ack, this story is from '06? Why would anyone feel the need to dredge this one up from the depths of time...I mean I know my comment stands up, thats solid pedantry that is...
Ack - I am listening to The Beautiful and Damned by F. Scott Fitzgerald from 1930 something while playing GTA IV (I have the game noise turned off).
I also walked the f**k out of a hill this weekend.
Pip pip
Tim
schnide 27 May 2008 13:33
18/20
PreciousRoi wrote:
Svend Joscelyne wrote:
A monopoly is when a company has the largest market share of a particular industry.
Umm, no. That is a horrible attempt at defining a monopoly. A (classic, horizontal) monopoly is manifiestly not when a company has the largest market share of a particular industry (though obviously a monopoly will have the largest share)...a monopoly is when a company has the ONLY market share of an industry (hence the mono, or "one"), or such an opressively dominant position as makes no difference..
Sorry*, but you're both wrong. Didn't I mention this is another thread? To have a monopoly in a market by the economic definition, you typically only need around 20% share. If you disagree, take it up with my economics tutor.
To confirm, Wikipedia says:
"[A monopoly] exists when a specific individual or enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it."
Here endeth the lesson.
(*I'm not really)
PistolPete 27 May 2008 14:46
19/20
Tim Smith wrote:
PreciousRoi wrote:
edit: ack, this story is from '06? Why would anyone feel the need to dredge this one up from the depths of time...I mean I know my comment stands up, thats solid pedantry that is...
Ack - I am listening to The Beautiful and Damned by F. Scott Fitzgerald from 1930 something while playing GTA IV (I have the game noise turned off).
That is amazing. I'll attempt the same - who reads it? I've read the four finished novels, I'm not too sure whether The Last Tycoon counts so I haven't yet laboured. Tender Is The Night is probably my favourite, though Gatsby for travelling isa hard to beat.
Never mind, I'm well aware I'm rambling.
TimSpong 27 May 2008 15:01
20/20
PistolPete wrote:
Tim Smith wrote:
Ack - I am listening to The Beautiful and Damned by F. Scott Fitzgerald from 1930 something while playing GTA IV (I have the game noise turned off).
That is amazing. I'll attempt the same - who reads it? I've read the four finished novels, I'm not too sure whether The Last Tycoon counts so I haven't yet laboured. Tender Is The Night is probably my favourite, though Gatsby for travelling isa hard to beat.
Never mind, I'm well aware I'm rambling.
Well, in our post-ironic world, the first paragraph got me:
"In 1913, when Anthony Patch was twenty-five, two years were already gone since irony, the Holy Ghost of this later day, had, theoretically at least, descended upon him. Irony was the final polish of the shoe, the ultimate dab of the clothes-brush, a sort of intellectual "There!"--yet at the brink of this story he has as yet gone no further than the conscious stage."
Next, I will be listening to The Last Night of the Earth poems by Charles Bukowski while playing Lego Indiana Jones: The Original Adventures.
Cheers
Tim
PS: yes, Tender is the Night for me as well.