Valve rumored to be looking into hardware.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/03/04/valve-rumoured-to-be-making-steam-box-console/

This is an interesting concept, and I feel an amazingly smart strategy for Valve.

Valve has been looking for a way to tap into the console market. However, restrictions in place from both Sony and Microsoft make it incredibly hard. I feel this could put Valve into a position to be the next Apple. When I say that, Apples success is due to CONTROL; their ability to control every aspect of their company, from the actual hardware, and software to create a much higher internal standard, to marketing, operations and distribution. If Valve can find a way to do this, yet still allow competition, it could be a "gaming Renascence" IMO.

There was an issue brought up in the comments on RPS though, what OS will the box run? will it be Windows? probably not due to licensing issues and being in direct competition to Xbox, yet to utilize steams current game library it really needs to be running Direct X... Hmmm...

If I had the freedom of PC gaming, in an easy-to-use, set hardware configuration I'd be on bored. The current limitations of gaming is really the restrictions put on the services by Microsoft and Sony. Entertainment is no longer simply a product, it is entertainment as a service... creating more value for your customers and also realizing that members of the community inherently create more value for everybody else.

Anyways, I hope against hope, and wish against wish that Valve can make this work somehow.

What does this mean? It means no longer will there be cut and copy squeals every year. Games on console can be patched just like on PC... one game can release and be played and updated for 7-10 years (just like on PC with Team Fortress 2, Counter-Strike, Eve-Online...etc)

Plz don't compare that to Apple or I might make an initial negative connection to this before it even begins


Anyways, MS/Sony do need competition... and they need the competition Vavle can bring.

If it's a full digital console system, that could be bad mutha fuckin ass. The sales and shit they do are just amazing. The xbox online marketplace makes me sick everytime I look through it... over priced as fuckin shit. All their retail games are like 50% more than new from retail, AND won't come with any codes etc. I just don't understand who buys this shit... and whoever it is needs to be punched in the face for supporting such price gouging.

And yah, the patching process on MS/Sony is atrocious. People want to know why patches are 4-6 mo apart? It's because of all the time and $ overhead dealing with ea patch and the certification process.

I mean, what company wants to provide bunches of free DLC when it costs em a bunch to do it? (and they are likewise restricted from doing so anyways with minimum paid vs free content terms)

RoninHo'in wrote:

I mean, what company wants to provide bunches of free DLC when it costs em a bunch to do it? (and they are likewise restricted from doing so anyways with minimum paid vs free content terms)

Well, the problem is their business models don't support anything but initial purchase revenue streams.

Valve is looking at a game as an ever changing service that can be a long term investment, with returns not only initially at launch, but 5+ years down the road. Gabe always says TF2 is valves experimental game. The game is going on 7 years now? and STILL gets new content from valve for free. They do this to GROW the community and keep it around because the revenue from the game is mainly due to cosmetic, micro transactions now. They also allow people from the community to create content and either sell it, or distribute it for free on the steam workshop. This is Valve acknowledging that the community can create more value around the game than simply the developer.

Microsoft is too set in their old "brick and mortar" ways... but for digital distribution, the rules are different. I love this interview with Gabe, talking to a high school entertainment marketing class...

I think youre missing the point, Gnarly. If Valve is really making a "console", it won't be a console in the same terms as the 360 or PS3. If anything, what they're probably making is simply a system that'll be able to run high-spec PC games at a low cost and without a need to build your own rig.

I can imagine there being a huge market for this, because Im sure I can't be the only person that wants to play amazing PC games without needing to go through the hassle of building my own gaming PC and spending $700+ to do so.

You're right though that something like this would definitely give Valve control over the market. It'd probably have built in Steam integration also, and actually I wouldnt be surprised if it lacked a disc slot and only played Steam games.

Dont mistake this as a separate console though. It's not like you'll be seeing games made for PS3, 360, Steam Box and PC.

GnarlyBromance wrote:

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/03/04/valve-rumoured-to-be-making-steam-box-console/

This is an interesting concept, and I feel an amazingly smart strategy for Valve.

Valve has been looking for a way to tap into the console market. However, restrictions in place from both Sony and Microsoft make it incredibly hard. I feel this could put Valve into a position to be the next Apple. When I say that, Apples success is due to CONTROL; their ability to control every aspect of their company, from the actual hardware, and software to create a much higher internal standard, to marketing, operations and distribution. If Valve can find a way to do this, yet still allow competition, it could be a "gaming Renascence" IMO.

There was an issue brought up in the comments on RPS though, what OS will the box run? will it be Windows? probably not due to licensing issues and being in direct competition to Xbox, yet to utilize steams current game library it really needs to be running Direct X... Hmmm...

If I had the freedom of PC gaming, in an easy-to-use, set hardware configuration I'd be on bored. The current limitations of gaming is really the restrictions put on the services by Microsoft and Sony. Entertainment is no longer simply a product, it is entertainment as a service... creating more value for your customers and also realizing that members of the community inherently create more value for everybody else.

Anyways, I hope against hope, and wish against wish that Valve can make this work somehow.

What does this mean? It means no longer will there be cut and copy squeals every year. Games on console can be patched just like on PC... one game can release and be played and updated for 7-10 years (just like on PC with Team Fortress 2, Counter-Strike, Eve-Online...etc)

Normally posts like this are way too nerdy for me to read and respond to (these types of posts seem to be your specialty for some reason too) I agree though it is a great idea, more competition is always better for the end user (unless they are all working together and price fixing shit that is)

But you are smoking some serious ganga (or poles) if you think this is something that will make them the next Apple.....

Also Apples success isnt just control, its marketing to a mass audience of feeble minded idiots, that is something I doubt would happen with you and you nerd PC brethren

You'd be surprised.

Skreshavik wrote:

You'd be surprised.

There is a finite market for them though, there arent a lot of hot chick PC gamers that dont live in their parents basement, therefore there is only so far this could go

A free hentai magazine will come for every M-rated purchase from your Steambox™.

The thing is, Gabe has visions to turn Valve into more than a video game company. He is looking at entertainment as a hole. My comparison to Apple is more about the complete and utter change of an industry. Apples main success is NOT in computers, no no, it is the Ipod and Itunes. Steve Jobs revolutionized music, not computing...

Valves biggest asset is its ability to leverage the community itself. People love valve, and valve loves when people create content. Valve also truly supports Indie developers, providing resources and a platform for them to get their games to market that is fair for both Valve and the dev.

So yes, Valve could be the next "Apple" in a sense of revolutionizing the entertainment industry as a hole, truly treating it as a service that embraces the community around it, not just as products to be sold for .99 cents...

spacefox wrote:

I think youre missing the point, Gnarly. If Valve is really making a "console", it won't be a console in the same terms as the 360 or PS3. If anything, what they're probably making is simply a system that'll be able to run high-spec PC games at a low cost and without a need to build your own rig.

I can imagine there being a huge market for this, because Im sure I can't be the only person that wants to play amazing PC games without needing to go through the hassle of building my own gaming PC and spending $700+ to do so.

You're right though that something like this would definitely give Valve control over the market. It'd probably have built in Steam integration also, and actually I wouldnt be surprised if it lacked a disc slot and only played Steam games.

Dont mistake this as a separate console though. It's not like you'll be seeing games made for PS3, 360, Steam Box and PC.

Ummm... didn't you just describe a console? what is a console than just a computer that is mass produced, running propitiatory software? the only difference is that Valves "box" may allow multiple distribution platforms on it to grow the entire CATEGORY of Video Games, not just growing Valve.

I recently read a book about the success of Starbucks (called "Tribal Knowledge" - great read BTW) Starbucks success was due to them not focusing on growing Starbucks, but expanding the category of specialty coffee.

GnarlyBromance wrote:

The thing is, Gabe has visions to turn Valve into more than a video game company. He is looking at entertainment as a hole. My comparison to Apple is more about the complete and utter change of an industry. Apples main success is NOT in computers, no no, it is the Ipod and Itunes. Steve Jobs revolutionized music, not computing...

Valves biggest asset is its ability to leverage the community itself. People love valve, and valve loves when people create content. Valve also truly supports Indie developers, providing resources and a platform for them to get their games to market that is fair for both Valve and the dev.

So yes, Valve could be the next "Apple" in a sense of revolutionizing the entertainment industry as a hole, truly treating it as a service that embraces the community around it, not just as products to be sold for .99 cents...

What is this "hole" you are referring to?

I dont know what the plans are as far as making this an entertainment thing, but I dont see them being a market mover, they would have to compete with the already established big dogs, who are all trying to bundle up one platform to serve all masters (which is slow going as it is) for it to be be big it has to have more of a customer base then a bunch of video game nerds, which is pretty much their only customer base now, copious amounts of cash on marketing could help with this, but then there still is the problem of having it gain any traction when going up against the big 3

Also Apples main success is computers, yes iTunes helped propel them to what they are now, but without capable hardware (iPod, iPhone, iPad, which are computers) it would have went no where, just compare something like Rhapsody for example, same shit, less trendy and no hardware end of things

Also Steve Jobs didnt revolutionize shit, he made music cheaper and more accessible, he simply put digital music on the frontpage, it was already happening, filesharing and mp3s were around well before he "revolutionized music" he simply was smart enough to market it and price it correctly

Mass marketing does not equal revolutionizing

I think what Spacefox is trying to say is it would just run PC games...

however....

it wouldn't. Space, you must understand that even on Steamworks, the games are written for WINDOWS, using microsoft drivers and libraries that they could not use on their own system's that they built... unless they used a windows OS that they paid MS licensing fees for... and just how good of a deal do you think MS would be willing to give them?

They would have to build their own OS and build all their own dll's and interfacing for programmers to use.

It probably could be built well to not need major rewriting from PC to the Steambox (or w/e the frack they call it) but there will need to be some. They might even get the licensing done so if you buy something on Steam, you could play it on your PC or Steambox on the same steam account.

Anyways, I'm definitely interested in dis

DTECH wrote:

GnarlyBromance wrote:

The thing is, Gabe has visions to turn Valve into more than a video game company. He is looking at entertainment as a hole. My comparison to Apple is more about the complete and utter change of an industry. Apples main success is NOT in computers, no no, it is the Ipod and Itunes. Steve Jobs revolutionized music, not computing...

Valves biggest asset is its ability to leverage the community itself. People love valve, and valve loves when people create content. Valve also truly supports Indie developers, providing resources and a platform for them to get their games to market that is fair for both Valve and the dev.

So yes, Valve could be the next "Apple" in a sense of revolutionizing the entertainment industry as a hole, truly treating it as a service that embraces the community around it, not just as products to be sold for .99 cents...

What is this "hole" you are referring to?

Whole, entirety, sorry for that typeo

DTECH wrote:

Also Steve Jobs didnt revolutionize shit, he made music cheaper and more accessible, he simply put digital music on the frontpage, it was already happening, filesharing and mp3s were around well before he "revolutionized music" he simply was smart enough to market it and price it correctly

Mass marketing does not equal revolutionizing

Yes it does! The mass market is the general populous, making something accessible to everybody is revolutionary! Sure, I was downloading music on Napster when I was in middle school and high school, but your average person had no idea how or what to do. Most of the populous is incredibly Tech Stupid (I work at Best Buy now for a shitty job and boy was that a big wake up call when I had people thinking a computer generated its own internet when it said it had "WiFi")

I understand what you are saying DTECH, however most great or revolutionary ideas are not original, they are simply taking other peoples work and re-framing it so the majority can understand it.

You have to forgive him DTech... he is a marketing major and so incorrectly presumes that marketing actually helps society.

RoninHo'in wrote:

You have to forgive him DTech... he is a marketing major and so incorrectly presumes that marketing actually helps society.

Good marketing does, bad marketing doesn't

Marketing's purpose is to facilitate the ethical exchange of information!!!

It is about inspiring people, finding passion, and creating movements around causes or ideas! MARKETING IS EVERYTHING! AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN AROUND!!

GnarlyBromance wrote:

RoninHo'in wrote:

You have to forgive him DTech... he is a marketing major and so incorrectly presumes that marketing actually helps society.

Good marketing does, bad marketing doesn't

Marketing's purpose is to facilitate the ethical exchange of information!!!

It is about inspiring people, finding passion, and creating movements around causes or ideas! MARKETING IS EVERYTHING! AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN AROUND!!

Don't sugar coat it...

Marketing is about manipulating the mindless masses.

Yes, it has always has been around.... Christianity is one of it's biggest successes.

Educating people to make their own informed decisions >>>> manipulating them to believe what you want them to believe.

Unfortunately... most people seem beyond education =\

RoninHo'in wrote:

GnarlyBromance wrote:

RoninHo'in wrote:

You have to forgive him DTech... he is a marketing major and so incorrectly presumes that marketing actually helps society.

Good marketing does, bad marketing doesn't

Marketing's purpose is to facilitate the ethical exchange of information!!!

It is about inspiring people, finding passion, and creating movements around causes or ideas! MARKETING IS EVERYTHING! AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN AROUND!!

Don't sugar coat it...

Marketing is about manipulating the mindless masses.

Yes, it has always has been around.... Christianity is one of it's biggest successes.

Educating people to make their own informed decisions >>>> manipulating them to believe what you want them to believe.

Unfortunately... most people seem beyond education =\

Haha, by that logic, anytime someone informs me of something and I agree with it, or my opinion changes, I am being brainwashed... hah

anyways

GnarlyBromance wrote:

Haha, by that logic, anytime someone informs me of something and I agree with it, or my opinion changes, I am being brainwashed... hah

not at all what I'm saying.

Marketing = presenting information, true or false, to a consumer in an intentional effort to persuade them to purchase your product.

Informing = presenting facts from both sides to someone in as unbiased a manner as possible. (some bias is inevitable)

We invariably have our own beliefs and desires and biases, and these do affect any attempt, no matter how pure our intent, to objectively present facts. But there is a HUGE difference between intentionally trying to shape someones desires through carefully constructed presentation and trying to inform them to hopefully see things the same way.

GnarlyBromance wrote:

anyways

^lmfao

RoninHo'in wrote:

Marketing = presenting information, true or false, to a consumer in an intentional effort to persuade them to purchase your product.

Informing = presenting facts from both sides to someone in as unbiased a manner as possible. (some bias is inevitable)

We invariably have our own beliefs and desires and biases, and these do affect any attempt, no matter how pure our intent, to objectively present facts. But there is a HUGE difference between intentionally trying to shape someones desires through carefully constructed presentation and trying to inform them to hopefully see things the same way.

I think you would find http://www.amazon.com/All-Marketers-Liars-Preface-Works/dp/1591843030 a really good read, I recently started reading it.

Basically, it is arguing that YES marketers lie, but it is for the better because we are dealing with WANTS not NEEDS. If a person perceives an experience better, it IS better, even if scientifically there is no difference. Reality is perception.

Read the author's synopses here. I am interested in your opinion on the matter

http://sethgodin.typepad.com/all_marketers_are_liars/2009/11/a-new-cover-a-new-foreword-but-the-same-book.html

Quote :

New Foreword

You believe things that aren’t true.

Let me say that a different way: many things that are true are true because you believe them.

The ideas in this book have elected a president, grown non-profit causes, created billionaires and fueled movements. They’ve also led to great jobs, fun dates and more than a few interactions that mattered.

I’ve seen this book in campaign headquarters and carried around at evangelical conferences. I’ve also gotten email from people who have used it in Japan and the UK and yes, Akron, Ohio. The ideas here work, because they are simple tools to understand what human beings do when they encounter you and your organization.

Here’s the first half of the simple summary: We believe what we want to believe, and once we believe something, it becomes a self-fulfilling truth. (Jump ahead a few paragraphs to read the critical second part of this summary)

If you think that (more expensive) wine is better, then it is. If you think your new boss is going to be more effective, then she will be. If you love the way a car handles, then you’re going to enjoy driving it.

That sounds so obvious, but if it is, why is it so ignored? Ignored by marketers, ignored by ordinarily rational consumers and ignored by our leaders.

Once we move beyond the simple satisfaction of needs, we move into the complex satisfaction of wants. And wants are hard to measure and difficult to understand. Which makes marketing the fascinating exercise it is.

Here’s the second part of the summary: When you are busy telling stories to people who want to hear them, you’ll be tempted to tell stories that just don’t hold up. Lies. Deceptions.

This sort of storytelling used to work pretty well. Joe McCarthy became famous while lying about the “Communist threat.” Bottled water companies made billions while lying about the purity of their product compared to tap water in the developed world.

The thing is, lying doesn’t pay off any more. That’s because when you fabricate a story that just doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, you get caught. Fast.

So, it’s tempting to put up a demagogue for Vice President, but it doesn’t take long for the reality to catch up with the story. It’s tempting to spin a tall tale about a piece of technology or a customer service policy, but once we see it in the wild, we talk about it and you whither away.

That’s why I think this book is one of the most important I’ve ever written. It talks about two sides of a universal truth, one that has built every successful brand, organization and candidate, and one that we rarely have the words to describe.

Here are the questions I hope you’ll ask (your boss, your colleagues, your clients) after you’ve read this book:

“What’s your story?”
“Will the people who need to hear this story believe it?”
“Is it true?”

Every day, we see mammoth technology brands fail because they failed to ask and answer these questions. We see worthy candidates gain little attention, and flawed ones bite the dust. There are small businesses that are so focused on what they do that they forget to take the time to describe the story of why they do it. And on and on.

If what you’re doing matters, really matters, then I hope you’ll take the time to tell a story. A story that resonates and a story that can become true.

The irony is that I did a lousy job of telling a story about this book. The original cover seemed to be about lying and seemed to imply that my readers (marketers) were bad people. For people who bothered to read the book, they could see that this wasn’t true, but by the time they opened the cover, it was too late. A story was already told. I had failed.

You don’t get a second chance in publishing very often, and I’m thrilled that my publisher let me try a new cover, and triply thrilled that it worked. After all, you’re reading this.

So, go tell a story. If it doesn’t resonate, tell a different one. When you find a story that works, live that story, make it true, authentic and subject to scrutiny. All marketers are storytellers, only the losers are liars.

GnarlyBromance wrote:

DTECH wrote:

Also Steve Jobs didnt revolutionize shit, he made music cheaper and more accessible, he simply put digital music on the frontpage, it was already happening, filesharing and mp3s were around well before he "revolutionized music" he simply was smart enough to market it and price it correctly

Mass marketing does not equal revolutionizing

Yes it does! The mass market is the general populous, making something accessible to everybody is revolutionary! Sure, I was downloading music on Napster when I was in middle school and high school, but your average person had no idea how or what to do. Most of the populous is incredibly Tech Stupid (I work at Best Buy now for a shitty job and boy was that a big wake up call when I had people thinking a computer generated its own internet when it said it had "WiFi")

I understand what you are saying DTECH, however most great or revolutionary ideas are not original, they are simply taking other peoples work and re-framing it so the majority can understand it.

Making something popular does not equate to being revolutionary, I think you need to brush up on the actual meaning of the word

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/revolutionary

2. radically new or innovative; outside or beyond established procedure, principles, etc.: a revolutionary discovery.

Emphasis on innovative

Your Napster example is just one of a populaces stupidity or lack of knowledge of something, rebranding an established technology for the mindless herds does not equate to acutally doing anything revolutionary it just means you are good at packaging

RoninHo'in wrote:

You have to forgive him DTech... he is a marketing major and so incorrectly presumes that marketing actually helps society.

LOL

GnarlyBromance wrote:

RoninHo'in wrote:

You have to forgive him DTech... he is a marketing major and so incorrectly presumes that marketing actually helps society.

Good marketing does, bad marketing doesn't

Marketing's purpose is to facilitate the ethical exchange of information!!!

It is about inspiring people, finding passion, and creating movements around causes or ideas! MARKETING IS EVERYTHING! AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN AROUND!!

Said like a marketer.... I like how you frame it as causes or ideas, we arent talking about causes or ideas, we are talking about products....

Good try though

It isn't about products anymore, it is about the experience.

You think the people that buy Apple are buying it due to the PRODUCTS? (while they are decent quality, they are no better than a good ASUS, or Lenovo computer). Every successful brand goes past selling the tangible and moves into the intangible.

They are buying the EXPERIENCE!

Starbucks doesn't sell coffee, they sell an atmosphere. Apple doesn't sell computers, they sell a way of life. BMW doesn't sell cars, they sell the ultimate driving experience.

GnarlyBromance wrote:

RoninHo'in wrote:

Marketing = presenting information, true or false, to a consumer in an intentional effort to persuade them to purchase your product.

Informing = presenting facts from both sides to someone in as unbiased a manner as possible. (some bias is inevitable)

We invariably have our own beliefs and desires and biases, and these do affect any attempt, no matter how pure our intent, to objectively present facts. But there is a HUGE difference between intentionally trying to shape someones desires through carefully constructed presentation and trying to inform them to hopefully see things the same way.

I think you would find http://www.amazon.com/All-Marketers-Liars-Preface-Works/dp/1591843030 a really good read, I recently started reading it.

Basically, it is arguing that YES marketers lie, but it is for the better because we are dealing with WANTS not NEEDS. If a person perceives an experience better, it IS better, even if scientifically there is no difference. Reality is perception.

Read the author's synopses here. I am interested in your opinion on the matter

http://sethgodin.typepad.com/all_marketers_are_liars/2009/11/a-new-cover-a-new-foreword-but-the-same-book.html

Quote :

New Foreword

You believe things that aren’t true.

Let me say that a different way: many things that are true are true because you believe them.

The ideas in this book have elected a president, grown non-profit causes, created billionaires and fueled movements. They’ve also led to great jobs, fun dates and more than a few interactions that mattered.

I’ve seen this book in campaign headquarters and carried around at evangelical conferences. I’ve also gotten email from people who have used it in Japan and the UK and yes, Akron, Ohio. The ideas here work, because they are simple tools to understand what human beings do when they encounter you and your organization.

Here’s the first half of the simple summary: We believe what we want to believe, and once we believe something, it becomes a self-fulfilling truth. (Jump ahead a few paragraphs to read the critical second part of this summary)

If you think that (more expensive) wine is better, then it is. If you think your new boss is going to be more effective, then she will be. If you love the way a car handles, then you’re going to enjoy driving it.

That sounds so obvious, but if it is, why is it so ignored? Ignored by marketers, ignored by ordinarily rational consumers and ignored by our leaders.

Once we move beyond the simple satisfaction of needs, we move into the complex satisfaction of wants. And wants are hard to measure and difficult to understand. Which makes marketing the fascinating exercise it is.

Here’s the second part of the summary: When you are busy telling stories to people who want to hear them, you’ll be tempted to tell stories that just don’t hold up. Lies. Deceptions.

This sort of storytelling used to work pretty well. Joe McCarthy became famous while lying about the “Communist threat.” Bottled water companies made billions while lying about the purity of their product compared to tap water in the developed world.

The thing is, lying doesn’t pay off any more. That’s because when you fabricate a story that just doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, you get caught. Fast.

So, it’s tempting to put up a demagogue for Vice President, but it doesn’t take long for the reality to catch up with the story. It’s tempting to spin a tall tale about a piece of technology or a customer service policy, but once we see it in the wild, we talk about it and you whither away.

That’s why I think this book is one of the most important I’ve ever written. It talks about two sides of a universal truth, one that has built every successful brand, organization and candidate, and one that we rarely have the words to describe.

Here are the questions I hope you’ll ask (your boss, your colleagues, your clients) after you’ve read this book:

“What’s your story?”
“Will the people who need to hear this story believe it?”
“Is it true?”

Every day, we see mammoth technology brands fail because they failed to ask and answer these questions. We see worthy candidates gain little attention, and flawed ones bite the dust. There are small businesses that are so focused on what they do that they forget to take the time to describe the story of why they do it. And on and on.

If what you’re doing matters, really matters, then I hope you’ll take the time to tell a story. A story that resonates and a story that can become true.

The irony is that I did a lousy job of telling a story about this book. The original cover seemed to be about lying and seemed to imply that my readers (marketers) were bad people. For people who bothered to read the book, they could see that this wasn’t true, but by the time they opened the cover, it was too late. A story was already told. I had failed.

You don’t get a second chance in publishing very often, and I’m thrilled that my publisher let me try a new cover, and triply thrilled that it worked. After all, you’re reading this.

So, go tell a story. If it doesn’t resonate, tell a different one. When you find a story that works, live that story, make it true, authentic and subject to scrutiny. All marketers are storytellers, only the losers are liars.

I can subscribe to the theory of perception is reality, however, if you have 2 basketballs infront on you, and one is flat and has no air in it, then that is not the one you would choose to play with, that isnt a perception its a truth, you cant perceive the flat ball to be filled with air, so the same thing applies to a product being sold, you cant tell people that something is actually better by believing in your own perception of the product or selling a perception of a product, thats just good old fashioned lying your ass off to sell something