Are you serious? Good journalism? From Kotaku? The same site that makes articles about watermelons looking like butts? Or posts libelous articles accusing someone who doesn't even work in video games as a rapist based on zero evidence?
It's not even as if Kotaku was exposing a crime being committed or an ethical lapse, like Ubisoft not paying their staff, or Besthesda swiping assets/code from another developer. If that was the case, then yes, report away. But it wasn't. This was leaks for the sake of clicks, nothing more.
So Kotaku traded in the long-term benefit of exclusive access to these companies for the short-term gain in page views and can't face the consequences for breaking faith with Ubisoft and Besthesda. If this didn't bother them so much, they wouldn't need to cry about this, and would just move on do that "GOOD REPORTING" they're so well-known for. After all, they're not being stopped from talking about the companies, nor from reviewing their games. But cry they did, because they know that developers aren't obligated to give them diddly squat, and Ubisoft/Besthesda is making it clear that gaming journalists don't have to be their audience anymore.
You're missing the point. beeftruck (and several others) was specifically complaining about their left-of-center politics. Which is fine to not like, but they were claiming that having these politics made them unethical, when in reality it made them uncomfortable. My point is that making people uncomfortable is a mark in their favor, not against them.
Kotaku is a rich corporation backed by Gawker Media. It was once (and arguably still) one of the premiere games journalism outlets. As a result, it received a lot of privileges: Advanced information, advanced copies, etc. etc.
However, Kotaku started being a real jerk and releasing things that Game Devs really didn't like. So the gaming culture shifted and now we see some of Kotaku's privileges being taken away.
So Kotaku becomes very "reactionary" and starts to cry, piss, and moan about how their privileges are being taken away, and it's not fair, and they have a RIGHT to post leaked information. It's our free speech, and you're trying to censor us!
However, it is free speech/freedom of press, and no one is trying to steal your inside scoops, Kotaku, but freedom of press does NOT mean freedom from consequences.
Community feedback to the devs seems to be: "Game Devs, rags like Kotaku are dead. They don't have to be your media outlets."
Sound familiar?
Well, first of all, that's not what reactionary means. Secondly, you act like Kotaku being adversarial is a BAD thing. It really seems like you (as well as G&T) want this to be the norm:
Again, Kotaku has problems, sure. But the main complaints I keep seeing are that Stephen Toledo should be crucified for the crime of not validating your opinions.
So Kotaku traded in the long-term benefit of exclusive access to these companies for the short-term gain in page views and can't face the consequences for breaking faith with Ubisoft and Besthesda.
What faith did they break with Ubisoft and Bethesda?
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
Well, first of all, that's not what reactionary means. Secondly, you act like Kotaku being adversarial is a BAD thing. It really seems like you (as well as G&T) want this to be the norm
Adversarial is definitely not a bad thing at all. Being adversarial and expecting the people you're covering to not give you privileged information is just delusional. It's like a domestic abuser expecting their spouse to really step up their game with dinner the day after they came home drunk and gave them a whuppin'.
I don't see Kotaku pissing and moaning? They were asked why they weren't covering some games as extensively as previously, like Fallout 4, and they posted the article as an answer. You don't like the answer, that's on you.
Yeah, I've found it funny how for the last 48 hours there's been this constant declaration that Kotaku was "complaining" and it's mostly because a lot of people need to believe that's what Kotaku's doing to validate their response to it.
+1
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
Well, first of all, that's not what reactionary means. Secondly, you act like Kotaku being adversarial is a BAD thing. It really seems like you (as well as G&T) want this to be the norm
Adversarial is definitely not a bad thing at all. Being adversarial and expecting the people you're covering to not give you privileged information is just delusional. It's like a domestic abuser expecting their spouse to really step up their game with dinner the day after they came home drunk and gave them a whuppin'.
Video game coverage: exactly like domestic abuse.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
Well, first of all, that's not what reactionary means. Secondly, you act like Kotaku being adversarial is a BAD thing. It really seems like you (as well as G&T) want this to be the norm
Adversarial is definitely not a bad thing at all. Being adversarial and expecting the people you're covering to not give you privileged information is just delusional. It's like a domestic abuser expecting their spouse to really step up their game with dinner the day after they came home drunk and gave them a whuppin'.
You just said that being adversarial wasn't a bad thing, then just compared it to domestic abuse. Overlooking how GROSS that analogy is, it kind of defeats your previous claim.
Well, first of all, that's not what reactionary means. Secondly, you act like Kotaku being adversarial is a BAD thing. It really seems like you (as well as G&T) want this to be the norm
Adversarial is definitely not a bad thing at all. Being adversarial and expecting the people you're covering to not give you privileged information is just delusional. It's like a domestic abuser expecting their spouse to really step up their game with dinner the day after they came home drunk and gave them a whuppin'.
You just said that being adversarial wasn't a bad thing, then just compared it to domestic abuse. Overlooking how GROSS that analogy is, it kind of defeats your previous claim.
Adversarial isn't a bad thing. Expecting people to come back and say "please sir, may I have some more?" is delusional.
I use domestic violence as an example because I like to speak the language of my target audience.
+1
ceresWhen the last moon is cast over the last star of morningAnd the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, Moderatormod
What you're doing right now? You should stop.
And it seems like all is dying, and would leave the world to mourn
+15
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited November 2015
You know, originally I was quite happy to agree with people that Kotaku was genuinely awful and not a good site. Not to mention that I am perfectly fine with companies choosing to give early access to whomever they want, but it is also perfectly fine to point out publishers have done that (and why).
Then I saw what Koraku's critics have been acting like. You can't argue, with a straight face, about Kotaku being dreadful or unethical, while supporting youtubers who are frequently paid by publishers constantly for positive coverage. We even had a scandal just recently about how some YTs got cut off for not supporting paid advertisements while not disclosing them.
Don't kid yourselves that what is replacing Kotaku is any better.
Well, first of all, that's not what reactionary means. Secondly, you act like Kotaku being adversarial is a BAD thing. It really seems like you (as well as G&T) want this to be the norm
Adversarial is definitely not a bad thing at all. Being adversarial and expecting the people you're covering to not give you privileged information is just delusional. It's like a domestic abuser expecting their spouse to really step up their game with dinner the day after they came home drunk and gave them a whuppin'.
You just said that being adversarial wasn't a bad thing, then just compared it to domestic abuse. Overlooking how GROSS that analogy is, it kind of defeats your previous claim.
I use domestic violence as an example because I like to speak the language of my target audience. I use domestic violence as an example because I like to speak the language of my target audience. I use domestic violence as an example because I like to speak the language of my target audience. I use domestic violence as an example because I like to speak the language of my target audience.
Alright I have been a long long time reader but never ventured over to the forum but this comic made me curious to see what people were saying and to perhaps share my two cents.
First off I have never been to Kotaku not once.. don't know who they or Gawker are I guess they are just not in the circles I frequent. I am however a long time gamer and this state of gaming has me a little annoyed / frustrated because both sides seem to be failing considerably at what they probably "should" be doing and that is why I think this comic in particular caught my attention more then most.
Developers - Off hand I bet any one of you could come up with 3-5 games this year that was full of false claims or bugs that should never exist in a AAA title since when has that become acceptable? hell even really great games like fallout 4 which I quite enjoy and feel deserves a bunch of positive praise has a few glaring ones that any testing group would/should have seen. And add to that the absurd DLC practices that seem to be becoming standard practice for content that should have been included, to agreement contracts internet personalities are being asked to sign to control "what they say" regarding the games they review... well anyway once again I am sure all of you can think of a couple without me naming any names.
And add to that the the developers seem to be more and more just buddying up to those media outlets that will give their games a positive review on launch despite the kinds of issues I mentioned above is even more concerning to me. Anyway I think it struck a nerve with me because in particular this comic quite literally had the developer as the saint and the reviewer as the untrustworthy snake or in this case scorpion. And yes I know its satire and yes PA does make fun of developers but this is kind of fairly blatant and as others have mentioned I too have noticed what appears to be a shift from their previous stance.. but that said at the end of the day it is their comic so if they wish to support the developers then more power to them.
Journalists - Want to be clear that I do hold them just as accountable.. like good game developers there are those out there that do very good work and should be praised for the things they bring to light but that said there are just as many that post youtube video's or articles that are well lets just say not as professional as they should be. They generate content based on what they can sensationalize to get the most clicks/views because that is what gets them paid and to heck with ensuring that what they say is completely accurate or consider the impact it may have on the developer. But that isn't journalism and if Kotaku is actually guilty of that.. then they absolutely deserve what they got but I will say I think its a slippery slope to always ensure that the industry doesn't just start banning a channel or site because they don't like what they have to say.
And it really shouldn't be this way.. I honestly don't know who threw the first rock in this fight as it has been going on for just so long. But the state of the industry really seems like it is heading in the wrong direction and I don't see it getting better any time soon.
Apologize if any of this is a bit incoherent as I am rather tired but I really wanted to try and put something down before going to crash for the night haha.
I don't get this. Why would you consult the writer of a game based on the actions of the players?
The anti-GTA logic. People can do bad things on the game so the developers and writers are evil.
In my opinion, it was BS then and it still is.
Did you read the article in question? It explicitly says the writers aren't to blame for gamers choosing those actions.
Cambiata on
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
+6
CuvisTheConquerorThey always say "yee haw" but they never ask "haw yee?" Registered Userregular
It boggles my mind that so many people really can't see the issue with journalists being granted extra privileges by their subjects in exchange for not reporting information of interest to their audience that their subjects would rather not have reported. That's, like, the definition of press corruption.
Well, first of all, that's not what reactionary means. Secondly, you act like Kotaku being adversarial is a BAD thing. It really seems like you (as well as G&T) want this to be the norm
Adversarial is definitely not a bad thing at all. Being adversarial and expecting the people you're covering to not give you privileged information is just delusional. It's like a domestic abuser expecting their spouse to really step up their game with dinner the day after they came home drunk and gave them a whuppin'.
You just said that being adversarial wasn't a bad thing, then just compared it to domestic abuse. Overlooking how GROSS that analogy is, it kind of defeats your previous claim.
I use domestic violence as an example because I like to speak the language of my target audience. I use domestic violence as an example because I like to speak the language of my target audience. I use domestic violence as an example because I like to speak the language of my target audience. I use domestic violence as an example because I like to speak the language of my target audience.
holy fucking shit
I tried to work in "rape culture" or "cultural appropriation" but I couldn't managed to make it work.
You know, originally I was quite happy to agree with people that Kotaku was genuinely awful and not a good site. Not to mention that I am perfectly fine with companies choosing to give early access to whomever they want, but it is also perfectly fine to point out publishers have done that (and why).
Then I saw what Koraku's critics have been acting like. You can't argue, with a straight face, about Kotaku being dreadful or unethical, while supporting youtubers who are frequently paid by publishers constantly for positive coverage. We even had a scandal just recently about how some YTs got cut off for not supporting paid advertisements while not disclosing them.
Don't kid yourselves that what is replacing Kotaku is any better.
My biggest problem with Kotaku's critics is that many of them are being dishonest about their reasons for thinking Kotaku's corrupt, and in reality simply hate the site because of its politics. Sure, there's nothing wrong with disliking a site because of its politics. And while wanting it to go away because of its politics is a little beyond the pale, I wouldn't condemn anyone for that, as that would be hypocritical of me. However, when people claim that holding political views they disagree with is, in and of itself, unethical, that's when I reach for the brakes of the hate train.
You know, originally I was quite happy to agree with people that Kotaku was genuinely awful and not a good site. Not to mention that I am perfectly fine with companies choosing to give early access to whomever they want, but it is also perfectly fine to point out publishers have done that (and why).
Then I saw what Koraku's critics have been acting like. You can't argue, with a straight face, about Kotaku being dreadful or unethical, while supporting youtubers who are frequently paid by publishers constantly for positive coverage. We even had a scandal just recently about how some YTs got cut off for not supporting paid advertisements while not disclosing them.
Don't kid yourselves that what is replacing Kotaku is any better.
My biggest problem with Kotaku's critics is that many of them are being dishonest about their reasons for thinking Kotaku's corrupt, and in reality simply hate the site because of its politics. Sure, there's nothing wrong with disliking a site because of its politics. And while wanting it to go away because of its politics is a little beyond the pale, I wouldn't condemn anyone for that, as that would be hypocritical of me. However, when people claim that holding political views they disagree with is, in and of itself, unethical, that's when I reach for the brakes of the hate train.
Uh, people have posted legitimate reasons to not like Gawker on this thread. Sweeping generalizations aren't helpful.
Well, first of all, that's not what reactionary means. Secondly, you act like Kotaku being adversarial is a BAD thing. It really seems like you (as well as G&T) want this to be the norm
Adversarial is definitely not a bad thing at all. Being adversarial and expecting the people you're covering to not give you privileged information is just delusional. It's like a domestic abuser expecting their spouse to really step up their game with dinner the day after they came home drunk and gave them a whuppin'.
You just said that being adversarial wasn't a bad thing, then just compared it to domestic abuse. Overlooking how GROSS that analogy is, it kind of defeats your previous claim.
I use domestic violence as an example because I like to speak the language of my target audience. I use domestic violence as an example because I like to speak the language of my target audience. I use domestic violence as an example because I like to speak the language of my target audience. I use domestic violence as an example because I like to speak the language of my target audience.
holy fucking shit
I tried to work in "rape culture" or "cultural appropriation" but I couldn't managed to make it work.
How did this whole thing turn into a Gamergate argument? I don't think that has anything to do with the comic at all.....
GamerGate hates Kotaku, Penny Arcade strip and blog post is negative of Kotaku, GamerGate celebrates Penny Arcade strip as a major victory against Kotaku, because that's how it works, because internet
Well, someone linked Deep Freeze, which is basically the official GamerGate Wiki. Since linking it and holding it up as evidence identified the poster as a GG'er, everybody pounced.
I'm open to the possibility that is just trolling.
I love how some people are claiming that the "hate" against Kotaku/Gawker is based on politics. I can't speak for others, but i'm gay, biracial, disabled, and have voted Democrat since 1996.
My ire with Gawker and Kotaku is thus:
Gawker outed a gay man and was complicit with his blackmailer, merely because he worked for Conde Nast, one of Gawker's competitors.
Gawker rails about how "The Fappening" was a violation of privacy (it was), all while gloating about leaking a sex tape made of Hulk Hogan without his knowledge or consent, and refusing to take it down until lawyers got involved. If leaking nude photos of Jennifer Lawrence is bad, then so is leaking Hogan's sex tape.
Kotaku published an article all but calling Max Temkin (who co-created Cards Against Humanity, and has nothing to do with video games) a rapist, based only on the word of a person he knew 10 years ago. That's not solid evidence to paint the label of "rapist" on anyone.
Gawker published a list of people who legally owned a gun in New York, including one woman who bought a gun to defend herself against a stalker. Thanks to Gawker's list, the stalker was able to locate her.
Patricia Hernandez, one of the most prolific writers for Kotaku, has posted several articles highlighting games created by people she lived with long term and had a sexual relationship with. There was no disclosure of this at the time of publishing, and was not added until months later, after these relationships were brought to light. This is a gross conflict of interest.
Kotaku also posts articles that have NOTHING to do with gaming (unless watermelons looking like butts is somehow related to video games), paint a grossly racist portrait of Japanese people and their culture, or wantonly smear developers and gamers as racist, sexist, homophobic, or transphobic. It's one thing to call Trump racist when he calls Mexicans rapists and murders, but it's another thing to call a David Jaffe a misogynist because he made a joke about girlfriends giving blowjobs to their boyfriends.
LOL. If I had something to hide, I wouldn't have used this tag, now would I? But please, feel free to ad hominem to your heart's content. Still doesn't negate what f*ck*ry Gawker and Kotaku have pulled does it?
It boggles my mind that so many people really can't see the issue with journalists being granted extra privileges by their subjects in exchange for not reporting information of interest to their audience that their subjects would rather not have reported. That's, like, the definition of press corruption.
Especially since the apparent "crimes" that got them blacklisted were, in both cases, leaking the existence of games before the companies were ready. And the silliest thing is that the things that piss off the companies are the same things that get people excited and wanting to buy their games.
Gawker published a list of people who legally owned a gun in New York, including one woman who bought a gun to defend herself against a stalker. Thanks to Gawker's list, the stalker was able to locate her.
Someone mentioned this earlier. Is there actually something to back this accusation up? Because if it is based solely on the comment in the Gawker article, the timeline doesn't add up.
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
LOL. If I had something to hide, I wouldn't have used this tag, now would I? But please, feel free to ad hominem to your heart's content. Still doesn't negate what f*ck*ry Gawker and Kotaku have pulled does it?
I apologize again. And I retracted my comment. I'm sorry. Don't be mad at me.
Hahnsoo1 on
0
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
Well I guess I should put my two cents in since the whole gamer community is...
The scorpion is a dick. The monk is kinda stupid. Kotaku probably shoulda been more diplomatic about what it got handed to them by a disgruntled ex employee. There is a happy medium involved with any form of reporting when it comes to journalists and their subjects. It shouldn't be too cozy but it shouldn't be the goddamn paparazzi either. Kotaku and Gawker should probably look to readjust their scales if they don't want to burn whatever bridges they have left and become a gaming tabloid.
Gawker published a list of people who legally owned a gun in New York, including one woman who bought a gun to defend herself against a stalker. Thanks to Gawker's list, the stalker was able to locate her.
Someone mentioned this earlier. Is there actually something to back this accusation up? Because if it is based solely on the comment in the Gawker article, the timeline doesn't add up.
According to "K-leigh" (the woman in question), another publication had exposed her through the list a few years earlier and this let her stalker locate her. Then she was able to disappear again, but then Gawker posted the list and she was admonishing them for putting up the very thing that let her stalker find her previously (since the gun registration contained her newest address). The whole of her comments explaining everything is here: http://gawker.com/the-journal-posted-my-address-and-name-for-my-gun-owner-477413800
0
Warlock82Never pet a burning dogRegistered Userregular
Well I guess I should put my two cents in since the whole gamer community is...
The scorpion is a dick. The monk is kinda stupid. Kotaku probably shoulda been more diplomatic about what it got handed to them by a disgruntled ex employee. There is a happy medium involved with any form of reporting when it comes to journalists and their subjects. It shouldn't be too cozy but it shouldn't be the goddamn paparazzi either. Kotaku and Gawker should probably look to readjust their scales if they don't want to burn whatever bridges they have left and become a gaming tabloid.
Also, happy holidays everybody!
Yeah, this exactly. Everyone seems to be taking an either-or extreme - either the developers/publishers are these horrible corporations who are trying to buy favorable coverage of their games, or Kotaku is a horrible site that is only out for clicks and will post anything, even false information, to get them.
Can't it be somewhere in the middle? I mean, of course developers are going to supply review copies of their games to media outlets to review, as well as give access to their employees for interviews and the like. This is the case with every single form of created media there is, be it books or movies or music or games. This is not the same as bribing a journalist for favorable coverage via perks and advertising dollars. Likewise, if Kotaku gets leaked information, they are within their rights to post it, especially if it's from a reliable source or frankly not well hidden. I don't think any of the specific leaks in question fall into the realm of slander or defamation for clicks that some people are talking about (admittedly I haven't looked at them very closely).
Then getting to the actual blacklisting, I think this has been beaten to death, but Bethesda and Ubisoft didn't like the leaks coming out of Kotaku (and personally I think this was a matter of volume more than content) and decided they didn't want to support Kotaku with review copies and the like. I think it's within their rights to not want to actively support a company they feel is damaging their business in the same way Kotaku has the right to post those leaks with the knowledge that upsetting their industry contacts could hurt their business via loss of access.
this forum actually has a very large number of people who have a very positive opinion of dragon age 2 so that argument isn't gonna hold much water here
Oh ok, got it. This forum likes reused enviroments, bad fanzine-level characters and terrible gameplay... wrong audience. I'll see myself out.
(The metacritic scores and the fact it's been defined "the best rpg ever" from the press are enough to prove my point, anyway)
Or, and just hear me out here. It could be that people have differing opinions and some people like a game that you do not (I don't think highly of DA2 and that's ok, and its ok for people to like things I don't like)
I feel like the latest Jimquisition is super relevant to this discussion and the comic/newspost's weird glorification of game publishers (skip to 1:44)
this forum actually has a very large number of people who have a very positive opinion of dragon age 2 so that argument isn't gonna hold much water here
Oh ok, got it. This forum likes reused enviroments, bad fanzine-level characters and terrible gameplay... wrong audience. I'll see myself out.
(The metacritic scores and the fact it's been defined "the best rpg ever" from the press are enough to prove my point, anyway)
Posts
You're missing the point. beeftruck (and several others) was specifically complaining about their left-of-center politics. Which is fine to not like, but they were claiming that having these politics made them unethical, when in reality it made them uncomfortable. My point is that making people uncomfortable is a mark in their favor, not against them.
Well, first of all, that's not what reactionary means. Secondly, you act like Kotaku being adversarial is a BAD thing. It really seems like you (as well as G&T) want this to be the norm:
Again, Kotaku has problems, sure. But the main complaints I keep seeing are that Stephen Toledo should be crucified for the crime of not validating your opinions.
Steam: pazython
What faith did they break with Ubisoft and Bethesda?
- John Stuart Mill
Adversarial is definitely not a bad thing at all. Being adversarial and expecting the people you're covering to not give you privileged information is just delusional. It's like a domestic abuser expecting their spouse to really step up their game with dinner the day after they came home drunk and gave them a whuppin'.
Yeah, I've found it funny how for the last 48 hours there's been this constant declaration that Kotaku was "complaining" and it's mostly because a lot of people need to believe that's what Kotaku's doing to validate their response to it.
Video game coverage: exactly like domestic abuse.
You just said that being adversarial wasn't a bad thing, then just compared it to domestic abuse. Overlooking how GROSS that analogy is, it kind of defeats your previous claim.
Steam: pazython
Adversarial isn't a bad thing. Expecting people to come back and say "please sir, may I have some more?" is delusional.
I use domestic violence as an example because I like to speak the language of my target audience.
Then I saw what Koraku's critics have been acting like. You can't argue, with a straight face, about Kotaku being dreadful or unethical, while supporting youtubers who are frequently paid by publishers constantly for positive coverage. We even had a scandal just recently about how some YTs got cut off for not supporting paid advertisements while not disclosing them.
Don't kid yourselves that what is replacing Kotaku is any better.
holy fucking shit
First off I have never been to Kotaku not once.. don't know who they or Gawker are I guess they are just not in the circles I frequent. I am however a long time gamer and this state of gaming has me a little annoyed / frustrated because both sides seem to be failing considerably at what they probably "should" be doing and that is why I think this comic in particular caught my attention more then most.
Developers - Off hand I bet any one of you could come up with 3-5 games this year that was full of false claims or bugs that should never exist in a AAA title since when has that become acceptable? hell even really great games like fallout 4 which I quite enjoy and feel deserves a bunch of positive praise has a few glaring ones that any testing group would/should have seen. And add to that the absurd DLC practices that seem to be becoming standard practice for content that should have been included, to agreement contracts internet personalities are being asked to sign to control "what they say" regarding the games they review... well anyway once again I am sure all of you can think of a couple without me naming any names.
And add to that the the developers seem to be more and more just buddying up to those media outlets that will give their games a positive review on launch despite the kinds of issues I mentioned above is even more concerning to me. Anyway I think it struck a nerve with me because in particular this comic quite literally had the developer as the saint and the reviewer as the untrustworthy snake or in this case scorpion. And yes I know its satire and yes PA does make fun of developers but this is kind of fairly blatant and as others have mentioned I too have noticed what appears to be a shift from their previous stance.. but that said at the end of the day it is their comic so if they wish to support the developers then more power to them.
Journalists - Want to be clear that I do hold them just as accountable.. like good game developers there are those out there that do very good work and should be praised for the things they bring to light but that said there are just as many that post youtube video's or articles that are well lets just say not as professional as they should be. They generate content based on what they can sensationalize to get the most clicks/views because that is what gets them paid and to heck with ensuring that what they say is completely accurate or consider the impact it may have on the developer. But that isn't journalism and if Kotaku is actually guilty of that.. then they absolutely deserve what they got but I will say I think its a slippery slope to always ensure that the industry doesn't just start banning a channel or site because they don't like what they have to say.
And it really shouldn't be this way.. I honestly don't know who threw the first rock in this fight as it has been going on for just so long. But the state of the industry really seems like it is heading in the wrong direction and I don't see it getting better any time soon.
Apologize if any of this is a bit incoherent as I am rather tired but I really wanted to try and put something down before going to crash for the night haha.
The anti-GTA logic. People can do bad things on the game so the developers and writers are evil.
In my opinion, it was BS then and it still is.
Did you read the article in question? It explicitly says the writers aren't to blame for gamers choosing those actions.
I tried to work in "rape culture" or "cultural appropriation" but I couldn't managed to make it work.
My biggest problem with Kotaku's critics is that many of them are being dishonest about their reasons for thinking Kotaku's corrupt, and in reality simply hate the site because of its politics. Sure, there's nothing wrong with disliking a site because of its politics. And while wanting it to go away because of its politics is a little beyond the pale, I wouldn't condemn anyone for that, as that would be hypocritical of me. However, when people claim that holding political views they disagree with is, in and of itself, unethical, that's when I reach for the brakes of the hate train.
Steam: pazython
Uh, people have posted legitimate reasons to not like Gawker on this thread. Sweeping generalizations aren't helpful.
GG really wants to claim things and doesn't like Kotaku
GamerGate hates Kotaku, Penny Arcade strip and blog post is negative of Kotaku, GamerGate celebrates Penny Arcade strip as a major victory against Kotaku, because that's how it works, because internet
I'm open to the possibility that is just trolling.
My ire with Gawker and Kotaku is thus:
Gawker outed a gay man and was complicit with his blackmailer, merely because he worked for Conde Nast, one of Gawker's competitors.
Gawker rails about how "The Fappening" was a violation of privacy (it was), all while gloating about leaking a sex tape made of Hulk Hogan without his knowledge or consent, and refusing to take it down until lawyers got involved. If leaking nude photos of Jennifer Lawrence is bad, then so is leaking Hogan's sex tape.
Kotaku published an article all but calling Max Temkin (who co-created Cards Against Humanity, and has nothing to do with video games) a rapist, based only on the word of a person he knew 10 years ago. That's not solid evidence to paint the label of "rapist" on anyone.
Gawker published a list of people who legally owned a gun in New York, including one woman who bought a gun to defend herself against a stalker. Thanks to Gawker's list, the stalker was able to locate her.
Patricia Hernandez, one of the most prolific writers for Kotaku, has posted several articles highlighting games created by people she lived with long term and had a sexual relationship with. There was no disclosure of this at the time of publishing, and was not added until months later, after these relationships were brought to light. This is a gross conflict of interest.
Kotaku also posts articles that have NOTHING to do with gaming (unless watermelons looking like butts is somehow related to video games), paint a grossly racist portrait of Japanese people and their culture, or wantonly smear developers and gamers as racist, sexist, homophobic, or transphobic. It's one thing to call Trump racist when he calls Mexicans rapists and murders, but it's another thing to call a David Jaffe a misogynist because he made a joke about girlfriends giving blowjobs to their boyfriends.
No one is looking to hire an internet detective here, thanks.
Especially since the apparent "crimes" that got them blacklisted were, in both cases, leaking the existence of games before the companies were ready. And the silliest thing is that the things that piss off the companies are the same things that get people excited and wanting to buy their games.
Someone mentioned this earlier. Is there actually something to back this accusation up? Because if it is based solely on the comment in the Gawker article, the timeline doesn't add up.
- John Stuart Mill
The scorpion is a dick. The monk is kinda stupid. Kotaku probably shoulda been more diplomatic about what it got handed to them by a disgruntled ex employee. There is a happy medium involved with any form of reporting when it comes to journalists and their subjects. It shouldn't be too cozy but it shouldn't be the goddamn paparazzi either. Kotaku and Gawker should probably look to readjust their scales if they don't want to burn whatever bridges they have left and become a gaming tabloid.
Also, happy holidays everybody!
According to "K-leigh" (the woman in question), another publication had exposed her through the list a few years earlier and this let her stalker locate her. Then she was able to disappear again, but then Gawker posted the list and she was admonishing them for putting up the very thing that let her stalker find her previously (since the gun registration contained her newest address). The whole of her comments explaining everything is here: http://gawker.com/the-journal-posted-my-address-and-name-for-my-gun-owner-477413800
Yeah, this exactly. Everyone seems to be taking an either-or extreme - either the developers/publishers are these horrible corporations who are trying to buy favorable coverage of their games, or Kotaku is a horrible site that is only out for clicks and will post anything, even false information, to get them.
Can't it be somewhere in the middle? I mean, of course developers are going to supply review copies of their games to media outlets to review, as well as give access to their employees for interviews and the like. This is the case with every single form of created media there is, be it books or movies or music or games. This is not the same as bribing a journalist for favorable coverage via perks and advertising dollars. Likewise, if Kotaku gets leaked information, they are within their rights to post it, especially if it's from a reliable source or frankly not well hidden. I don't think any of the specific leaks in question fall into the realm of slander or defamation for clicks that some people are talking about (admittedly I haven't looked at them very closely).
Then getting to the actual blacklisting, I think this has been beaten to death, but Bethesda and Ubisoft didn't like the leaks coming out of Kotaku (and personally I think this was a matter of volume more than content) and decided they didn't want to support Kotaku with review copies and the like. I think it's within their rights to not want to actively support a company they feel is damaging their business in the same way Kotaku has the right to post those leaks with the knowledge that upsetting their industry contacts could hurt their business via loss of access.
Oh ok, got it. This forum likes reused enviroments, bad fanzine-level characters and terrible gameplay... wrong audience. I'll see myself out.
(The metacritic scores and the fact it's been defined "the best rpg ever" from the press are enough to prove my point, anyway)
I completely forgot about the Borderlands 2 debacle.
real popular at parties, huh