The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
Penny Arcade - Comic - Parabolic
Posts
Again, let's keep it on topic and avoid the tangents.
I would not be surprised if a few too many candid conversations with Kuchera over drinks was what started them down this dark path. Never knew anyone who could so perfectly undermine their own position.
"Reporting" is what a reporter does. not an asshole. If you're in entertainment news and you get a legit solid scoop, you post the scoop.
All I know is if I poured years of my life into something, and somebody spoiled my surprise to my fans, I wouldn't want anything to do with them either. This wasn't some big scandal, it was a game that would eventually be shown at E3 to millions of viewing fans. You want to spill dirt on shitheads being awful human beings in video game companies? Fantastic, I can certainly support that. Giving away the plot of Fallout 4? Screw you
I do kinda laugh at the defense of games journalists "having a responsibility to the people," as if they are reporting on the refugee crisis or some other noble cause. Most games journalism is like a cross between Buzzfeed and TMZ. Imagine a journalist posting the latest pictures of Kim Kardashian's butt insisting that he "has a responsibility to the people!" and that's about as seriously as I take that defense from games journos. We've got our games tabloids and we're working really very hard on our games paparazzi.
Traditional consumer-oriented games journalism isn't really worth much these days. Dev-oriented news/articles can be significantly less vapid, but I won't say that realm is perfect either.
Firstly, I can't be the only one whose read Jerry Holkins' writing before can I? I'm sure everyone here is familiar that he uses flowery language and overstates things for his own amusement and comic effect? While I'm sure he finds the people he's talking about distasteful, I can't chalk up the use of words like describing them as "creatures" as anything other than something meant to be a bit of humorous hyperbole. Secondly, while it is clear he dislikes a lot of the current games journalism and those conducting it, a less uncharitable reading is not that he hates all games journalism and that he hates all games journalists, but that he's disappointed with the quality of modern games journalism, he thinks a lot of modern games journalism is toxic rather than helpful and is just as bad, for different reasons, as the situation that it used to be, and does not sympathize with modern games journalists when game companies get fed up with their treatment of them and shuts them out. It's possible he would be more sympathetic if he thought the games journalists were doing their jobs well, but since he doesn't, he doesn't feel bad for them.
As for "talking out of both sides of his mouth" I don't see it. The PA guys clearly care about games, and care about games journalism. They have in the past criticized both sides of the games companies games journalists system for a variety of reasons. Rather than him actually secretly hating games journalists, and talking out of both sides of his mouth when he appears to support them or is critical of something games companies do when relating to them, it might just be that he sometimes disagrees with games journalists or the way games journalism is done and in those instances, disagrees with them, and sometimes disagrees with games companies and what games companies are doing, and so disagrees with them in those instances.
Or I don't know, maybe Jerry Holkins actually utterly despises all games journalists and is cackling with evil glee as Kotaku gets shut out for a bit of reporting they did, just waiting for the day when all games journalists lose their jobs and die on the street. It really could be one or the other, I'm sure both are just as fair, likely, and reasonable possibilities based on everything he's ever said. :rotate:
it is not in the nature of a games journalist to "shaft" you
that would mean the games journalist loses you as a source
this is exactly the strawman the comic creates, where it presents the journalist as a sniveling, backstabbing scorpion, when generally speaking if the games journalist is given information by a source the source wants that information to be posted
the company the source works for might not want that, but who cares about corporations
Judging by this thread more people than you'd hope.
"Are game developers flawless human beings who give up all worldly pursuits in order to serve a higher power? Read the newspost to find out!"
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
So obvious that there is a chip on the shoulder and an understanding of the entire games industry and media universe that is both mistaken and puritanical. Critical Miss made a more important point on this.
Nope, it's an animal fable. It's the Scorpion and the Frog. But frogs are disliked by some people, and so a more purely good alternative was clearly needed.
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
Wouldn't that be... blacklisting!?
Blacklisting is the same as just being ignored, right? I might be using the kotaku definition.
That's repulsive. They went out of the way to harm a bunch of innocent people for clicks. And that was on 2013, so no hiding behind "but the only people that hate Gawker are the GG'ers", screw that.
The "outing an accountant for reasons" incident has already been covered.
EDIT: And, on Gizmodo, there's also the iPhone 4 leak, that they got by....buying a prototype that was missing since an Apple employee lost it at a bar. Apple blacklisted them for 4 years for that stunt, and the courts said that yes, by not returning it until forced to do so, it counts as theft.
I guess the scale is the only major difference. The reason behind the ignoring/blacklisting is self-defense in both cases.
I love how this argument always puts the blame on a news site for reporting news, and not, you know, the employee of Bethesda or Ubisoft who clearly provided them the information.
If you guys really want to have a debate about this with dumb crazy tangents, then head on over to Debate and Discourse! There's a forum specifically FOR this.
I think people are tired of fucking around with these dipshits. Hell, look how David Jaffe tore Stephen Totillo a new asshole. Youtube that for some warm and fuzzies.
EDIT:
Corporations like Gawker? Media conglomerates fit the "evil corporation" model just as much as AAA developers, and more than most indie developers. Considering that for me and (I think) a ton of gamers, AAA has nearly fallen off the radar entirely, I'd say in the "media vs. devs" war, the media is the big company and the developers are the underdogs.
But let's even talk AAA. If I want to decide whether to buy a hamburger, I don't base my decision off a McDonalds commercial. But neither do I base it off CNN doing a story about how these burgers are actually gross. (If they were to reveal actual health concerns, maybe, but such claims have rarely been legitimate in the fast food industry and I cannot think of any video game that is hazardous to my health). And I certainly wouldn't base it off an article someone shared on facebook saying "The SHOCKING truth about McDonalds burgers!" I would probably make my decision based on what my friends said, my past experience with McD's, and maybe just trying the burger.
Maybe I'm spoiled because I've never found a reason to buy games immediately after release, so I don't need a review two weeks ahead of time. The last time I paid more than $10 for a game was Skyrim. I had already loved Oblivion and even played several hours of Skyrim at a friend's house. Looking at a variety of user reviews, trying demos, and going on my past experience with a company tells me WAY more than an "journalist" does.
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
http://www.deepfreeze.it/journo.php?j=patrick_klepek
Funny to see him whining about blacklisting.
This is such a "But then the terrorist win!" type sentiment. Kotaku/Gawker has behaved in ways that go beyond bad reporting. Gawker is currently involved in a lawsuit over a sex tape they refuse to take down even after a judge ordered them to.
The only way to take down Gawker for their reprehensible behavior is for people to stop reading them, and news sources to stop giving them news. And yet this is framed as "But then the corporations win!"
There are other news outlets to keep corporations honest. And it's not like Kotaku is operating in any sort of 4th estate capacity anyways. This is the weakest possible defense of Gawker I've heard yet.
And like I said before, maybe Kotaku was black listed for leaking marketing details. That's certainly their side of the story, and if that were the whole story, they'd be justified in being indignant. But believing that narrow perspective requires blinders to the rest of Gawker's behavior that are staggering to imagine.
Like, you can't even wait a page?
The way the copy protection was executed was stupid. Of course people wouldn't necessarily make the connection between pirate copy and the crash and those who pirated it wouldn't mention it in their complaints. If they really need to have this kind of protection they could have shown a in game message or popping up a dialog box with an explanation "Thank you for being interested in our product. You are playing a modified version of our game. If you want the full experience buy it retail / online / reinstall the game from the official media."
SOME OF THE MOST INCRIMINATING STORIES UNCOVERED THIS FAR ABOUT THE SECRET MAILING LIST OF THE GAME JOURNALISM ELITE
This is a discussion about a specific situation - a journalistic entity reporting what a publisher did not want reported, and refusing access to that entity as a consequence. I personally think it's a mistake for those game companies to refuse access, that in fact when a game company gives open access to their materials it's a sign of confidence in their product. Ubisoft in particular is deserving of a side-eye here because of the review embargo they put on Assassin's Creed. I think all review sites should blacklist Ubisoft based just on their behavior with AC alone. All reviewers should from now on just buy Ubisoft games instead of accepting a review copy, and post their reviews whenever the fuck they want.
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
I didn't even bring up GG in that post, I brought up Patrick being a dipshit. It's almost as if GG aren't the only ones taking issue with these people.
Kotaku has good stuff about Nintendo, but they tend to drive their own agenda pretty hard and that is really annoying. They every once in a while exaggerate and bend people's sayings to fit their agenda. That is not good.
But thanks for the comic (or text especially), that sums my views about this topic pretty well.
This requires you believe Kotaku's account of events. Kotaku's behavior makes this difficult. What we know, is that Kotaku has been blacklisted, and that they leaked things. Kotaku claims this is the only possible causative element. Most people who know Kotaku have a hard time believing this.
Bethesda and Ubisoft have remained silent on this issue, and I imagine they will continue to do so. However, hypothetically, if they came out to tomorrow and said "Actually, we blacklisted Kotaku because Gawker assisted in blackmail" or "We blacklisted Kotaku because Gawker runs baseless hit pieces on developers" or "We blacklisted Kotaku because Gawker publishes sex tapes illegally" or "We blacklisted Kotaku because Gawker regularly doxes private citizens" could you say they were wrong to do so?
There are so many valid reasons to blacklist Kotaku/Gawker. Kotaku is claiming they were blacklisted for possibly the only invalid reason that exists. Even if that's true, it's a punishment that fits so many of their so far unpunished crimes.
If the right thing happens for the wrong reasons, and right reasons also exist, and those right reasons were never acted on previously...
Shit, I feel like we are getting into some deep philosophical territory here. Is there a moral philosopher in the house?
Because we have no idea why they are blacklisted. Even Kotaku can't say for sure because these companies never commented on the issue.
A simple Google search reveals many hits for versions of the story where it's a monk and a scorpion. They didn't invent a new version for the comic to make game developers look better.