This is the kind of games journalism I'd like to see go away, anyway. Klepek's tenure with Giant Bomb was good, because he did very little reporting on 'check out this new release' or 'game leak of impending title we knew was coming anyway', but delivered a lot of insight into company acquisitions, or shined a bright light on things that deserved to be put under scrutiny, like the massive community issues in competitive fighting games. The whole 'hey guys, this game exists insofar that it is a glimmer in a publishers' eye' reporting is exactly the type that should be shunned by consumers, because it adds no value to the medium whatsoever.
So you're telling me if someone ends up with a ton of advance information about Fallout 4, they just shouldn't publish it? Should entertainment news sites stop running articles about directors being hired to do movies too?
They can, but then don't complain you aren't getting free stuff and return phone calls from the company anymore.
If someone's getting screwed by a company they're absolutely entitled to complain about it, especially if exposing it means that there's a chance of it stopping.
0
Warlock82Never pet a burning dogRegistered Userregular
If someone's getting screwed by a company they're absolutely entitled to complain about it, especially if exposing it means that there's a chance of it stopping.
How are they being screwed? They are experiencing the natural consequence of their actions. I refer you back to the comic.
If someone's getting screwed by a company they're absolutely entitled to complain about it, especially if exposing it means that there's a chance of it stopping.
I think the matter of disagreement is whether this constitutes being screwed. Companies aren't under any moral or ethical obligation to support any particular outlet. In fact, if I started an outlet tomorrow I'm almost certain they wouldn't send me anything.
What Kotaku aren't getting is favours. Not something they're owed, something extra, for quid pro quo.
If someone's getting screwed by a company they're absolutely entitled to complain about it, especially if exposing it means that there's a chance of it stopping.
How are they being screwed? They are experiencing the natural consequence of their actions. I refer you back to the comic.
The fact that you call this the "natural consequences" is fucked. Hollywood Reporter doesn't get blacklisted by Disney when they announce a Marvel casting from an unauthorized source. No one does. It's only in video game journalism, and the fact that corporations hold a disproportionate amount of power in the relationship and everyone's just okay with that is extra fucked.
Oh, look, G&T taking game journalists to task for not sucking off AAA publishers. Again. Hey, remember how they used to take them to task for not being antagonistic towards said companies ENOUGH? I wonder what changed since then?
This is the kind of games journalism I'd like to see go away, anyway. Klepek's tenure with Giant Bomb was good, because he did very little reporting on 'check out this new release' or 'game leak of impending title we knew was coming anyway', but delivered a lot of insight into company acquisitions, or shined a bright light on things that deserved to be put under scrutiny, like the massive community issues in competitive fighting games. The whole 'hey guys, this game exists insofar that it is a glimmer in a publishers' eye' reporting is exactly the type that should be shunned by consumers, because it adds no value to the medium whatsoever.
So you're telling me if someone ends up with a ton of advance information about Fallout 4, they just shouldn't publish it? Should entertainment news sites stop running articles about directors being hired to do movies too?
I enjoy the implication of just 'ending up' with coverage about any game that only currently exists in a conference room.
'Whoops! I tripped and landed on this completely unsolicited email! I guess it'd be irresponsible not to report it!'
I mean yeah, if a company is leaking your info I can see cutting off interviews with them.
But this comic is troubling because it seems to imply Mike and Jerry think that reporters should not report news when they receive it. Of fucking COURSE someone's gonna report when news like that falls into their laps. It ain't Kotaku violating NDA's here, and by exposing that the blacklist even happens because they received news it only goes to show how large game companies expect the press to be their press release factory and marketing department, and nothing more.
If someone's getting screwed by a company they're absolutely entitled to complain about it, especially if exposing it means that there's a chance of it stopping.
How are they being screwed? They are experiencing the natural consequence of their actions. I refer you back to the comic.
The fact that you call this the "natural consequences" is fucked. Hollywood Reporter doesn't get blacklisted by Disney when they announce a Marvel casting from an unauthorized source. No one does. It's only in video game journalism, and the fact that corporations hold a disproportionate amount of power in the relationship and everyone's just okay with that is extra fucked.
Disney is absolutely less likely to give scoops to publications that treat them badly. They don't owe a publication anything, it's quid pro quo. If they don't get anything back, there's no way they're going to provide access. They don't have to, either morally or ethically.
+10
Warlock82Never pet a burning dogRegistered Userregular
If someone's getting screwed by a company they're absolutely entitled to complain about it, especially if exposing it means that there's a chance of it stopping.
How are they being screwed? They are experiencing the natural consequence of their actions. I refer you back to the comic.
The fact that you call this the "natural consequences" is fucked. Hollywood Reporter doesn't get blacklisted by Disney when they announce a Marvel casting from an unauthorized source. No one does. It's only in video game journalism, and the fact that corporations hold a disproportionate amount of power in the relationship and everyone's just okay with that is extra fucked.
I refer back to what Tube said. You're implying that what these companies are doing is anything but favors. For real, actual journalists have gone *to jail* for leaking things. It's a matter of whether you believe in the story enough to accept the consequences of posting it.
It honestly sounds like you just hate corporations and don't give a shit as long as they are the ones being fucked over. They are a business. They have a right to not support journalists who are causing them to lose business.
I mean yeah, if a company is leaking your info I can see cutting off interviews with them.
But this comic is troubling because it seems to imply Mike and Jerry think that reporters should not report news when they receive it. Of fucking COURSE someone's gonna report when news like that falls into their laps. It ain't Kotaku violating NDA's here, and by exposing that the blacklist even happens because they received news it only goes to show how large game companies expect the press to be their press release factory and marketing department, and nothing more.
Here is the thing. Kotaku is crying crocodile tears over being blacklisted for reporting "the news". What Kotaku actually does is take rumors and/or leaks, and present them in the worst possible context they can literally invent out of nothing. Then they slap the most hateful clickbaity headline onto their half truths and call it "news".
Who in their right mind would want to work with these people? To build on the Hollywood example, it's the difference between leaking the cast of a movie, and leaking the cast of a movie and then also tacking on a bunch of insinuates that the movie is racist, the people making it are racist, and everyone who's going to watch it is also racist, and if you don't oppose the movie, you are also a racist. #BoycottTheRacistMovie
Oh, look, G&T taking game journalists to task for not sucking off AAA publishers. Again. Hey, remember how they used to take them to task for not being antagonistic towards said companies ENOUGH? I wonder what changed since then?
Oh...
Alternatively, Penny Arcade are continuing to make fun of both publishers and journalists as they have since the site began. You know who else shows up at PAX? Journalists. You can try and make this a grand conspiracy if you want, but you're on shaky ground.
You're arguing against a point that no one is making.
In his defence, it's a point I was making.
But the point I was making is also that Kotaku claims they are being blacklisted for the good reporting they've done. But they've also done so much truly terrible, damaging reporting, it's hard to separate the two.
It's like if you had a friend who every now and again came through for you, and was really supportive. Then they also spread horrible rumors about you behind your back. So you "break up" with your friend, and they act all indignant. Remember that time picked you up from the airport? What the fuck man?!
Did you read the fallout 4 article that's in question?
They reported on a casting call that gave away entirely too much information about fallout 4 if they were actually trying to keep it secret. There's no opinion at all. Just a statement of fact that they have reliable information that fallout 4 is in the works, and what that information is.
That's not rumor mongering. That's getting accurate information and reporting it.
And don't try to bring whitewashing of scripts into this as a straw man because it is NOT related.
Also, Gawker Media in general are a particulary poisonous bunch of gooses (see: Gizmodo and ValleyVag) , so the more people realize that they lack any professional standards and shun them, the better.
I mean yeah, if a company is leaking your info I can see cutting off interviews with them.
But this comic is troubling because it seems to imply Mike and Jerry think that reporters should not report news when they receive it. Of fucking COURSE someone's gonna report when news like that falls into their laps. It ain't Kotaku violating NDA's here, and by exposing that the blacklist even happens because they received news it only goes to show how large game companies expect the press to be their press release factory and marketing department, and nothing more.
Here is the thing. Kotaku is crying crocodile tears over being blacklisted for reporting "the news". What Kotaku actually does is take rumors and/or leaks, and present them in the worst possible context they can literally invent out of nothing. Then they slap the most hateful clickbaity headline onto their half truths and call it "news".
Who in their right mind would want to work with these people? To build on the Hollywood example, it's the difference between leaking the cast of a movie, and leaking the cast of a movie and then also tacking on a bunch of insinuates that the movie is racist, the people making it are racist, and everyone who's going to watch it is also racist, and if you don't oppose the movie, you are also a racist. #BoycottTheRacistMovie
That's Kotaku/Gawker in a nutshell.
This makes no sense, as Hollywood is called out for whitewashing all the damned time, and rightfully so (see: Exodus, Stonewall, Gods of Egypt, Last Airbender...). Why the hell should games get a free pass?
Oh, look, G&T taking game journalists to task for not sucking off AAA publishers. Again. Hey, remember how they used to take them to task for not being antagonistic towards said companies ENOUGH? I wonder what changed since then?
Oh...
Alternatively, Penny Arcade are continuing to make fun of both publishers and journalists as they have since the site began. You know who else shows up at PAX? Journalists. You can try and make this a grand conspiracy if you want, but you're on shaky ground.
Except that:
1. Their motives for lampooning journalists have flipped in the past several years. They wanted journos to hold AAA's feet to the coals, but now they've changed their mind?
2. When the hell was the last time they insulted a major publisher? Serious question, I don't actually remember.
In the end it's pretty disingenuous of Kotaku to cry about this; what did they expect would happen? For good or bad, if you burn a company why would they have any dealings with you going forward?
"Sorry about ruining your big surprise and throwing a monkey wrench in your PR campaign, care to answer some questions? What? Why not?!"
I'm going to be as clear as I can about this, because I feel like you are reading past me.
Kotaku has occasionally done good reporting. They claim they are being punished for this good reporting. You've linked to this good reporting. It's good reporting, I don't disagree.
I don't believe them.
They've also done insanely damaging, inflammatory, hateful reporting. They have a body of work terrible enough for any reasonable person to not want to work with them. This is undeniable.
We don't know why Bethesda has blacklisted Kotaku. Kotaku claims it's because of their good reporting. Bethesda has remained silent.
+1
Warlock82Never pet a burning dogRegistered Userregular
edited November 2015
I think his point was that not all of their articles have been "just the facts."
I'll also add, even an non-editorialized leak can be really damaging to a company - game announcements are carefully marketed and not just made casually for a reason.
Finally, if it was only the one leak, I don't think Kotaku would have been blacklisted. Just reading the article you can tell they have a history of leaking Bethesda's/Ubisoft's stuff - eventually enough is enough.
I guess I have a hard time figuring out exactly why 'Games Journalism' as a thing is such a hot-button issue? It exists entirely around a piece of consumer culture, and as such I have a really hard time getting riled up about 'Games Journalism' in any meaningful capacity.
There a hojillion people out there writing or talking about games - go out there and find the people you enjoy / tend to agree with and follow them, it's not hard.
Uh-oh I accidentally deleted my signature. Uh-oh!!
I guess I have a hard time figuring out exactly why 'Games Journalism' as a thing is such a hot-button issue? It exists entirely around a piece of consumer culture, and as such I have a really hard time getting riled up about 'Games Journalism' in any meaningful capacity.
There a hojillion people out there writing or talking about games - go out there and find the people you enjoy / tend to agree with and follow them, it's not hard.
Because Penny Arcade does three comics a week and they thought of a funny one that was about a games journalism story.
It is difficult to separate honest critics of Kotaku from shitty critics of Kotaku, which is unfortunate but kind of where we are at. Crying wolf, etc.
Bethesda and UBI aren't obligated to give any press agency free shit, but let's not pretend this happens in a vacuum. If every major review outlet gets early copies except one very popular outlet that ran some stories you didn't like, your business is clearly attempting to silence critics by cutting off what the rest of the industry considers normal access.
And that's legal, so its "fine." Big videogame company can cut off access to early release previews for whatever reason they want. In this case, they are trying to exert their influence and control how independent outlets cover their games, with access being cut for outlets that don't fall in line.
Which is fine, its their right to run their business as they see fit in accordance with applicable laws, none of which require sending press copies to every major press outlet. And Kotaku explaining that they are blacklisted is fine. And other parties being angry at Kotaku for leaking news or being angry at Bethesda for trying to punish their critics, that's all fine too.
I think what Bethesda is doing is fine bit more importantly it is very very stupid, because it makes their positive news coverage suspicious and it validates their critics, even when their games deserve more praise and less criticism. If bad press gets punished, it means every bit of good press is suddenly just a but less trustworthy.
As always, the scandal is the coverup. "Bethesda angry at website" is not news. "Bethesda blacklists Kotaku" means Penny Arcade needs to make a comic and suddenly nobody is talking about how great your game is and everybody is talking about why it is or isn't OK to selectively blacklist websites.
I mean yeah, if a company is leaking your info I can see cutting off interviews with them.
But this comic is troubling because it seems to imply Mike and Jerry think that reporters should not report news when they receive it. Of fucking COURSE someone's gonna report when news like that falls into their laps. It ain't Kotaku violating NDA's here, and by exposing that the blacklist even happens because they received news it only goes to show how large game companies expect the press to be their press release factory and marketing department, and nothing more.
My read of the strip seemed to be them making fun of both. The developers for trusting gaming journalists to not report on something they don't want them to, and being shocked and butthurt when they do; as well as the gaming journalists to biting the hand that feeds them and being shocked when the developers decide they don't want to play anymore.
The problem isn't reporting the leaks, though granted the publisher's wouldn't like that. That's doing what reporter's are supposed to do. Reporters are supposed to report the news, not interpret it based on personal experience. The latter is just a blogger, (or in newsprint, a columnist), not a reporter.
If Kotaku just reported things like leaks without resorting to sensationalistic BS and a clickbait headline, the company may get upset with them, but their readers would back them up. That's called journalistic integrity.
And if you don't understand what a clickbait headline is, it would be like your newspaper reporting "Two killed in alcohol-related crash" when the only person with any alcohol in their system was in the back seat, sleeping it off.
They've also done insanely damaging, inflammatory, hateful reporting. They have a body of work terrible enough for any reasonable person to not want to work with them. This is undeniable.
Can someone please tell me specifically what these examples are, because whenever I try to look for examples of "Kotaku is so horrible" I'm inevitably led to the usual purple and green tinged den of shitlorddom whose dwellers remain furious that Kotaku has opinions about diversity in video games on occasion and have very little complaints about the actual accuracy of Kotaku's reportage.
The "spoiled unrevealed information" stuff, I just. do. not. get. Clearly an employee at Bethesda leaked Kotaku the Fallout 4 info; clearly an employee at Ubi leaked them the Syndicate info; that seems to be an issue with Bethesda and Ubisoft having untrustworthy employees, not Kotaku being an untrustworthy website.
I guess I have a hard time figuring out exactly why 'Games Journalism' as a thing is such a hot-button issue? It exists entirely around a piece of consumer culture, and as such I have a really hard time getting riled up about 'Games Journalism' in any meaningful capacity.
There a hojillion people out there writing or talking about games - go out there and find the people you enjoy / tend to agree with and follow them, it's not hard.
Because Penny Arcade does three comics a week and they thought of a funny one that was about a games journalism story.
Oh, I totally get what PA is doing here, and truth be told I enjoyed the comic. Their whole deal is lampooning this culture as it exists, anything is fair game.
What I don't really get are the people that will staunchly politicise games journalism, and use it as fuel for some sort of 'us vs them' complex.
In this specific instance, there are tons of people that write for Kotaku. Some of them write some great analytical pieces, some of them write pure clickbait. It's always struck me as a kind of 'your mileage will vary' situation, but people are getting kind of nuts over it.
Uh-oh I accidentally deleted my signature. Uh-oh!!
I guess I have a hard time figuring out exactly why 'Games Journalism' as a thing is such a hot-button issue? It exists entirely around a piece of consumer culture, and as such I have a really hard time getting riled up about 'Games Journalism' in any meaningful capacity.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine two bald men fighting over a comb—for ever.
It is difficult to separate honest critics of Kotaku from shitty critics of Kotaku, which is unfortunate but kind of where we are at. Crying wolf, etc.
Bethesda and UBI aren't obligated to give any press agency free shit, but let's not pretend this happens in a vacuum. If every major review outlet gets early copies except one very popular outlet that ran some stories you didn't like, your business is clearly attempting to silence critics by cutting off what the rest of the industry considers normal access.
And that's legal, so its "fine." Big videogame company can cut off access to early release previews for whatever reason they want. In this case, they are trying to exert their influence and control how independent outlets cover their games, with access being cut for outlets that don't fall in line.
Which is fine, its their right to run their business as they see fit in accordance with applicable laws, none of which require sending press copies to every major press outlet. And Kotaku explaining that they are blacklisted is fine. And other parties being angry at Kotaku for leaking news or being angry at Bethesda for trying to punish their critics, that's all fine too.
I think what Bethesda is doing is fine bit more importantly it is very very stupid, because it makes their positive news coverage suspicious and it validates their critics, even when their games deserve more praise and less criticism. If bad press gets punished, it means every bit of good press is suddenly just a but less trustworthy.
As always, the scandal is the coverup. "Bethesda angry at website" is not news. "Bethesda blacklists Kotaku" means Penny Arcade needs to make a comic and suddenly nobody is talking about how great your game is and everybody is talking about why it is or isn't OK to selectively blacklist websites.
I definitely do not agree that it a company pulling early access from an outlet makes positive news coverage suspicious. Publishers/developers default attitude towards journalists has always leaned heavily towards 'we don't really give a shit.' You usually have to do something pretty specific to incur any kind of direct response, usually involving the potential compromising of a development cycle, or something that can cost the company real dollars. 'Bad reviews' don't really fit into this category, but doing something that can fuck up plans based on real dollars already allocated is something that business-types tend to take very seriously. If you recognize this, and do it anyway, you're making a calculated risk in the benefits and ramifications from posting that story in order to get the exclusive.
Bad reviews absolutely cost a game company money. Bad reviews can fuck up real development that cost real dollars already allocated. So can bad previews.
Posts
They can, but then don't complain you aren't getting free stuff and return phone calls from the company anymore.
How are they being screwed? They are experiencing the natural consequence of their actions. I refer you back to the comic.
I think the matter of disagreement is whether this constitutes being screwed. Companies aren't under any moral or ethical obligation to support any particular outlet. In fact, if I started an outlet tomorrow I'm almost certain they wouldn't send me anything.
What Kotaku aren't getting is favours. Not something they're owed, something extra, for quid pro quo.
The fact that you call this the "natural consequences" is fucked. Hollywood Reporter doesn't get blacklisted by Disney when they announce a Marvel casting from an unauthorized source. No one does. It's only in video game journalism, and the fact that corporations hold a disproportionate amount of power in the relationship and everyone's just okay with that is extra fucked.
Oh...
Steam: pazython
I enjoy the implication of just 'ending up' with coverage about any game that only currently exists in a conference room.
'Whoops! I tripped and landed on this completely unsolicited email! I guess it'd be irresponsible not to report it!'
But this comic is troubling because it seems to imply Mike and Jerry think that reporters should not report news when they receive it. Of fucking COURSE someone's gonna report when news like that falls into their laps. It ain't Kotaku violating NDA's here, and by exposing that the blacklist even happens because they received news it only goes to show how large game companies expect the press to be their press release factory and marketing department, and nothing more.
Disney is absolutely less likely to give scoops to publications that treat them badly. They don't owe a publication anything, it's quid pro quo. If they don't get anything back, there's no way they're going to provide access. They don't have to, either morally or ethically.
I refer back to what Tube said. You're implying that what these companies are doing is anything but favors. For real, actual journalists have gone *to jail* for leaking things. It's a matter of whether you believe in the story enough to accept the consequences of posting it.
It honestly sounds like you just hate corporations and don't give a shit as long as they are the ones being fucked over. They are a business. They have a right to not support journalists who are causing them to lose business.
Here is the thing. Kotaku is crying crocodile tears over being blacklisted for reporting "the news". What Kotaku actually does is take rumors and/or leaks, and present them in the worst possible context they can literally invent out of nothing. Then they slap the most hateful clickbaity headline onto their half truths and call it "news".
Who in their right mind would want to work with these people? To build on the Hollywood example, it's the difference between leaking the cast of a movie, and leaking the cast of a movie and then also tacking on a bunch of insinuates that the movie is racist, the people making it are racist, and everyone who's going to watch it is also racist, and if you don't oppose the movie, you are also a racist. #BoycottTheRacistMovie
That's Kotaku/Gawker in a nutshell.
Alternatively, Penny Arcade are continuing to make fun of both publishers and journalists as they have since the site began. You know who else shows up at PAX? Journalists. You can try and make this a grand conspiracy if you want, but you're on shaky ground.
http://kotaku.com/leaked-documents-reveal-that-fallout-4-is-real-set-in-1481322956
You're arguing against a point that no one is making.
The point of "kotaku deserves it because they're liars/making things up." is absolutely being made. The person I'm replying to even said that.
In his defence, it's a point I was making.
But the point I was making is also that Kotaku claims they are being blacklisted for the good reporting they've done. But they've also done so much truly terrible, damaging reporting, it's hard to separate the two.
It's like if you had a friend who every now and again came through for you, and was really supportive. Then they also spread horrible rumors about you behind your back. So you "break up" with your friend, and they act all indignant. Remember that time picked you up from the airport? What the fuck man?!
At least that's how I'm seeing it.
They reported on a casting call that gave away entirely too much information about fallout 4 if they were actually trying to keep it secret. There's no opinion at all. Just a statement of fact that they have reliable information that fallout 4 is in the works, and what that information is.
That's not rumor mongering. That's getting accurate information and reporting it.
And don't try to bring whitewashing of scripts into this as a straw man because it is NOT related.
The fuck does that tweet even mean
This makes no sense, as Hollywood is called out for whitewashing all the damned time, and rightfully so (see: Exodus, Stonewall, Gods of Egypt, Last Airbender...). Why the hell should games get a free pass?
Except that:
1. Their motives for lampooning journalists have flipped in the past several years. They wanted journos to hold AAA's feet to the coals, but now they've changed their mind?
2. When the hell was the last time they insulted a major publisher? Serious question, I don't actually remember.
Steam: pazython
"Sorry about ruining your big surprise and throwing a monkey wrench in your PR campaign, care to answer some questions? What? Why not?!"
Kotaku has occasionally done good reporting. They claim they are being punished for this good reporting. You've linked to this good reporting. It's good reporting, I don't disagree.
I don't believe them.
They've also done insanely damaging, inflammatory, hateful reporting. They have a body of work terrible enough for any reasonable person to not want to work with them. This is undeniable.
We don't know why Bethesda has blacklisted Kotaku. Kotaku claims it's because of their good reporting. Bethesda has remained silent.
I'll also add, even an non-editorialized leak can be really damaging to a company - game announcements are carefully marketed and not just made casually for a reason.
Finally, if it was only the one leak, I don't think Kotaku would have been blacklisted. Just reading the article you can tell they have a history of leaking Bethesda's/Ubisoft's stuff - eventually enough is enough.
Edit: haha too slow
There a hojillion people out there writing or talking about games - go out there and find the people you enjoy / tend to agree with and follow them, it's not hard.
Uh-oh I accidentally deleted my signature. Uh-oh!!
Because Penny Arcade does three comics a week and they thought of a funny one that was about a games journalism story.
Bethesda and UBI aren't obligated to give any press agency free shit, but let's not pretend this happens in a vacuum. If every major review outlet gets early copies except one very popular outlet that ran some stories you didn't like, your business is clearly attempting to silence critics by cutting off what the rest of the industry considers normal access.
And that's legal, so its "fine." Big videogame company can cut off access to early release previews for whatever reason they want. In this case, they are trying to exert their influence and control how independent outlets cover their games, with access being cut for outlets that don't fall in line.
Which is fine, its their right to run their business as they see fit in accordance with applicable laws, none of which require sending press copies to every major press outlet. And Kotaku explaining that they are blacklisted is fine. And other parties being angry at Kotaku for leaking news or being angry at Bethesda for trying to punish their critics, that's all fine too.
I think what Bethesda is doing is fine bit more importantly it is very very stupid, because it makes their positive news coverage suspicious and it validates their critics, even when their games deserve more praise and less criticism. If bad press gets punished, it means every bit of good press is suddenly just a but less trustworthy.
As always, the scandal is the coverup. "Bethesda angry at website" is not news. "Bethesda blacklists Kotaku" means Penny Arcade needs to make a comic and suddenly nobody is talking about how great your game is and everybody is talking about why it is or isn't OK to selectively blacklist websites.
My read of the strip seemed to be them making fun of both. The developers for trusting gaming journalists to not report on something they don't want them to, and being shocked and butthurt when they do; as well as the gaming journalists to biting the hand that feeds them and being shocked when the developers decide they don't want to play anymore.
If Kotaku just reported things like leaks without resorting to sensationalistic BS and a clickbait headline, the company may get upset with them, but their readers would back them up. That's called journalistic integrity.
And if you don't understand what a clickbait headline is, it would be like your newspaper reporting "Two killed in alcohol-related crash" when the only person with any alcohol in their system was in the back seat, sleeping it off.
Can someone please tell me specifically what these examples are, because whenever I try to look for examples of "Kotaku is so horrible" I'm inevitably led to the usual purple and green tinged den of shitlorddom whose dwellers remain furious that Kotaku has opinions about diversity in video games on occasion and have very little complaints about the actual accuracy of Kotaku's reportage.
The "spoiled unrevealed information" stuff, I just. do. not. get. Clearly an employee at Bethesda leaked Kotaku the Fallout 4 info; clearly an employee at Ubi leaked them the Syndicate info; that seems to be an issue with Bethesda and Ubisoft having untrustworthy employees, not Kotaku being an untrustworthy website.
Oh, I totally get what PA is doing here, and truth be told I enjoyed the comic. Their whole deal is lampooning this culture as it exists, anything is fair game.
What I don't really get are the people that will staunchly politicise games journalism, and use it as fuel for some sort of 'us vs them' complex.
In this specific instance, there are tons of people that write for Kotaku. Some of them write some great analytical pieces, some of them write pure clickbait. It's always struck me as a kind of 'your mileage will vary' situation, but people are getting kind of nuts over it.
Uh-oh I accidentally deleted my signature. Uh-oh!!
Uh-oh I accidentally deleted my signature. Uh-oh!!
If you want a picture of the future, imagine two bald men fighting over a comb—for ever.
EVERYBODY WANTS TO SIT IN THE BIG CHAIR, MEG!
Is Jerry just really mad the PA game didn't sell well or something?
Well. That was just as awful as I was expecting. "They hurt my feelings! You're free to mindlessly consume! Death to the proletariat game journalism!"
Steam: pazython
I definitely do not agree that it a company pulling early access from an outlet makes positive news coverage suspicious. Publishers/developers default attitude towards journalists has always leaned heavily towards 'we don't really give a shit.' You usually have to do something pretty specific to incur any kind of direct response, usually involving the potential compromising of a development cycle, or something that can cost the company real dollars. 'Bad reviews' don't really fit into this category, but doing something that can fuck up plans based on real dollars already allocated is something that business-types tend to take very seriously. If you recognize this, and do it anyway, you're making a calculated risk in the benefits and ramifications from posting that story in order to get the exclusive.
The PA games sold just fine. Hence there were four of them.
The second one didn't. Hence why the developer dropped them like a phat beat.
Steam: pazython