The ultimate point is, you get stung, why would you touch the scorpion again?
So wait, is the sting a website giving negative coverage to a company? Does reporting on the shitty working conditions at Konami count as a sting? Is a bad review a sting? Are stings bad?
Kotaku posts a lot of fluff pieces and lists that are irrelevant to me, which is why I don't go there as a habit. I imagine that for someone who wants a constant stream of minor gaming and gaming-adjacent posts, it's great. Not for me. But I have enjoyed reading several of their in-depth articles, and I find it strange and saddening that people would condemn the site as a whole -- and all the writers that work there, in a competitive and thankless industry -- for what to me is a minor annoyance. That Destiny story is a fine piece of work.
As for the comic -- the frog and the scorpion fable is an apt comparison. Journalists want to uncover information, and marketers want to control the flow of information, so the only way they'd want to work together is if there's a mutual benefit. Of course journalists are going to write about an unannounced game if they have the chance. That's their job, and their only consideration should be how much news they're losing access to by doing so. Increasingly, though, (and Tycho has noted this in the past), game publishers have access to media outlets that don't give a damn about journalistic ethics. Why would you bother talking to the press when you can speak through Twitch streamers and Youtube stars, who are happy to sell your product for you? In the face of that, I understand completely why established news sites would be digging deeper and taking greater risks to maintain their audience.
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
He probably means "people are angry but I don't think its worthy enough to get angry about so its fake to me and thus they probably are also faking it"
None of those are"clickbait". Clickbait does not mean "Stupid shit that I am not interested in".
Interesting article by The Atlantic about why the narrowest definition of clickbait possibly isn't that helpful - for one it lets BuzzFeed reason that they don't do it at all (also admitting that it's overused).
Choice quote:
Maybe that’s the best definition then, of clickbait: Did this post need to exist, or did you just make a thing for the sake of making a thing? In which case, BuzzFeed Does Clickbait. So does pretty much everyone.
Free to disagree, but I think many are moving on from the "One weird trick" definition to something a bit more inclusive of the low-effort writing that is becoming the bread and butter of certain websites.
Expect the following Kotaku articles soon, "Remember how prejudiced PAX is?" and "Mike Krahulik is still a horrible human being".
I dunno, if they stop to write hit pieces against every figure in and around the industry who's popped up to kick dirt on them in the last couple days, they'll never have time for anything else. I think they thought the reaction would be people putting pressure on the publishers, but they forgot that everyone hates them.
Expect the following Kotaku articles soon, "Remember how prejudiced PAX is?" and "Mike Krahulik is still a horrible human being".
I dunno, if they stop to write hit pieces against every figure in and around the industry who's popped up to kick dirt on them in the last couple days, they'll never have time for anything else. I think they thought the reaction would be people putting pressure on the publishers, but they forgot that everyone hates them.
Define "everyone"? Source?
Edit: For the record, I do think Kotaku's take on it was self-aggrandizing, but the blacklist is definitely something worth knowing about.
Expect the following Kotaku articles soon, "Remember how prejudiced PAX is?" and "Mike Krahulik is still a horrible human being".
Their coverage of Fallout 4 so far has been very positive, running multiple stories about how to find neat gear or characters in the game. That's a very weird way to get revenge against a company.
I expect their PAX coverage to be the same as it is every year, "Look at all this cosplay" and "here are some games that were just announced" and probably 1-2 stories about how hard it is to get tickets. Maybe a scandal de jour if something nasty happens.
Don't forget how they jumped on the Dick Wolves hatewagon. I believe that's the batch of articles Orblivion is referring to.
Also, for those who say 'they're just doing what journalists should be doing'...I think what you mean to say is, 'they're just doing what tabloid journalists should be doing.'
I don't think criticizing something automatically puts you in the company of something else.
+1
The_SpaniardIt's never lupinesIrvine, CaliforniaRegistered Userregular
I would like to present an analogy.
Imagine a neighborhood. In that neighborhood lives Bob. Now Bob finds out, either from being told in confidence or through gossip, that Jack and Terry across the street are not roommates but a gay couple, though they are just not ready to come out to the rest of the neighborhood yet. Then one day at a big neighborhood BBQ that Jack and Terry are throwing Bob, not feeling as if he's getting enough attention, gets up in front of everyone and announces that Jack and Terry are gay. Now Bob is confused as to why he isn't invited to any more of their parties, and is complaining to anyone that will listen about it that he was just acting in the neighborhoods best interests by telling everyone. Does he have every right to say what he wants to say? Sure. Is it smart to say whatever you want whenever you do? No, not really. When you do, is it a good idea to get on a moral high horse and pretend like you are doing it for the good of everyone else when it was just for purely selfish reasons? Oh get bent buddy.
None of the involved parties, including Kotaku, in this situation have broken any laws. Kotaku is free to report on what they want how they want, just as Bethesda and Ubisoft are free to dictate the nature of their relationship with Kotaku. They are not obligated to provide Kotaku with content, info, or review code, and Kotaku is not obligated (unless under contract) to adhere to their requests or demands in concerns to covering them and their products. But that said in the end what both sides have to do is live with the consequences of their actions. Bethesda/Ubisoft can be as forthcoming/guarded with any info/content as they want and outlets are free to report on what they want however they want. Just don't expect to be able to have your cake and eat it too.
I don't blame Kotaku for reporting on what they do, if they don't report on a scoop when they get it, then someone else will. But the sanctimony about this situation is really way out of line. Reporting that a game that's about to come out is really buggy and that it might not be a good idea to buy it at launch, is an example of good reporting. You are writing engaging content that serves a purpose, and it is helping your readers by giving them info they would not have had otherwise and possibly saving them from making bad purchasing decisions. But when you jump the gun and ruin a reveal just to be first on it, before even the developer/publisher making it has a chance to announce it, you aren't doing anybody any favors, you are actively harming other companies, with no other purpose than to line your own pockets. So don't give me that BS about how you are doing it just for your readers when you are doing it for yourself. Note: I could write an entire post just as long as this one going over the various reasons as to why this is the case, but I'm trying not to get buried too deep in the minutia of this post that I'm just trying to get out.
I can imagine that being black listed for just doing your job can suck. Pointing out a company's malfeasances or shady dealings is a proper and noble way of probably getting blacklisted by them. And if that's the case then you go ahead and point it out and say what BS it is. But when you are reporting on something that you know can potentially harm a company and serves no other purpose than to get clicks, you have a choice to make. Either don't report on it and maintain your relationship with that company, hoping that they can appreciate you for it, or go for that sweet sweet ad revenue and take your damn well earned blacklisting on the chin like a man.
It sucks when things get leaked, but it happens, it's a natural part of the industry, or really any industry for that matter, but when, as an outlet, you bite the hand that feeds you, don't cry fowl when you get bitten back, and don't climb up on the cross and play the sainted martyr of the purest ambitions.
Kotaku made their bed, pissed in it, and are now complaining that it smells bad and that it's not their fault.
Yeah, this is bullshit.
The gaming press DO lie, but in favor of the developers, not against them.
Case in point: dragon age 2, any recent bethesda game, asscreed and so on.
Expressing a positive opinion of a game you have a negative opinion of is not the same as "lying."
Wait, what?
How is that not lying?
Saying "I like this game" when, in fact, you hate that game isn't lying?
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.
The last big thing Patrick did for Giant Bomb before moving to Chicago was to leak the Xbox DRM turn-around.
I think the main bad thing about the friendly relationship between gaming media and publishers ending would be publishers refusing to confirm basic news stuff. Like "what is going to be in your season pass" or "how many players total, is the maximum" type stuff. Publishers are already idiotically secretive. They've gone to press saying shit like "we are not making two Assassin's Creed games this year, one of them based in France and one of them where you are a pirate again. That is not true." Then two weeks later, they REVEAL... the exact thing they just denied. It's sad.
Yeah, this is bullshit.
The gaming press DO lie, but in favor of the developers, not against them.
Case in point: dragon age 2, any recent bethesda game, asscreed and so on.
Expressing a positive opinion of a game you have a negative opinion of is not the same as "lying."
Wait, what?
How is that not lying?
Saying "I like this game" when, in fact, you hate that game isn't lying?
I mean other people are not "lying" when they have a different opinion of a game than you do.
If I say I don't like Vidya Game Quest II: The Gamening, and you say you do like it, what would I be if I responded, "Nuh-uh, the game is bad, if you say it's good you're lying!"?
Gawker being the site that ran an article outing a private citizen as homosexual, after aiding in attempted blackmail against him, solely because he was the accountant for the company that owns Reddit and Gawker has a hate boner for Reddit.
Outed. A. Private. Citizen. After. Aiding. In. Blackmailing. Him. For. No. Fucking. Reason.
The editor of Kotaku then spoke out on Twitter saying he supported the article and that it was wrong for it to be taken down. THE EDITOR OF KOTAKU DEFENDED THAT ARTICLE.
That is the site you lot are defending. You're insane if you think Kotaku is an example of "good journalism".
Yeah, this is bullshit.
The gaming press DO lie, but in favor of the developers, not against them.
Case in point: dragon age 2, any recent bethesda game, asscreed and so on.
Expressing a positive opinion of a game you have a negative opinion of is not the same as "lying."
Wait, what?
How is that not lying?
Saying "I like this game" when, in fact, you hate that game isn't lying?
I mean other people are not "lying" when they have a different opinion of a game than you do.
If I say I don't like Vidya Game Quest II: The Gamening, and you say you do like it, what would I be if I responded, "Nuh-uh, the game is bad, if you say it's good you're lying!"?
I am pleasantly surprised at the amount of truth in this thread. Carry on.
0
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
edited November 2015
Clickbait is a pretty specific thing. The book Trust Me, I'm Lying (which I got the audiobook for ironically because Jerry recommended it) describes what clickbait is, and points out that every major news source makes use of it, including any news source you consider "respected." His description was along the lines of titles like, "Do LEMONS cause CANCER?" and then when you read the article the answer is a resounding "no."
"Mass Effect characters dressed in Dragon Age Armor" isn't "clickbait", precisely because the title is honest about what the article contains. The bait part of the equation is missing. It's not a worm on a hook, where you bite down and all that's left is hook.
"Journalism website writes articles that it's audience is interested in reading -- for money" is not something I'm going to clutch my pearls over, thanks.
Cambiata on
"excuse my French
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
+9
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
I bet a lot of people in this very thread still believe Brad Wardel sexually harasses employees thanks to Kotaku, despite his court case being thrown out with prejudice, the judge demanding the accuser write an apology, and nearly every news outlet which covered the story (except Kotaku) retracting their coverage once the court documents were made available.
I didn't remember the Brad Wardell thing at all, or maybe I never heard about it. I googled it. The first hit is from Kotaku talking about the cases being dropped and printing the apology letter.
"excuse my French
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
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.
This position doesn't seem tenable in light of the newspost. Reading something like this
Though, I can understand why a publisher might determine that an increasingly hostile outlet whose business model is “Start Shit” might not be the best time or money investment. And you may say, “But Jerrzorz!” and that’s all you’ll get out because you’re going to look down at the floor for a second and really think about it. Why did it ever work this way? Why would you be obligated to spend millions of dollars on something and then place it gently on the black altar of a hivemind cult, bowing as you retreat? The old accord is over. Go buy your games at the store. Do you not understand that this is literally the best thing that ever happened to you? They don’t owe you shit, and now you don’t owe them shit. Having been the cowering creature beneath enthusiast media’s Eye of Sauron on more than one occasion, the object of their tender ministrations, their ostensible populism and their eerily synchronized perspective, I have no sympathy for these creatures. Which is to say, I have the same sympathy they express for those outside their cloister. You may feel very confident that there are conversations at every publisher now, wondering to what extent they are required to eat shit from these people.
makes it pretty clear that Jerry and Mike hate professional games journalists as a class, hate gaming journalism as an enterprise, and celebrate its decline even when the alternatives mean publishers dictate terms almost exclusively, because preserving an independent games press is irrelevant compared to throwing their perceived persecutors out on the street.
Its dismaying to say the least, but I'm glad Jerry has finally declared a position after talking out of both sides of his mouth for what seriously feels like years.
I wonder how many people here still hate #GG after watching all of these sites turn to shit. Kotaku especially, and the bullshit their writers like to get up to on various social media.
Why? Have they done anything that holds a candle to MoonMetropolis, AllisonPrime, or the two geese responsible for the Veerender Jubal smear?
I don't know who this Moon dude is. Alison is a minority that posed as another non-minority, because white women get more sympathy than black men even inside the progressive stack, and the media is entirely responsible for the Jubal smear just like they were responsible for the mishandling of the entirety of the GG coverage. Don't even think of trying to pin that on GG when the same media being investigated for corruption couldn't be bothered to do their own homework.
I wonder how many people here still hate #GG after watching all of these sites turn to shit. Kotaku especially, and the bullshit their writers like to get up to on various social media.
Why? Have they done anything that holds a candle to MoonMetropolis, AllisonPrime, or the two geese responsible for the Veerender Jubal smear?
I don't know who this Moon dude is. Alison is a minority that posed as another non-minority, because white women get more sympathy than black men even inside the progressive stack, and the media is entirely responsible for the Jubal smear just like they were responsible for the mishandling of the entirety of the GG coverage. Don't even think of trying to pin that on GG when the same media being investigated for corruption couldn't be bothered to do their own homework.
Please stop trying to make this about Gamergate. Nobody cares.
Gawker being the site that ran an article outing a private citizen as homosexual, after aiding in attempted blackmail against him, solely because he was the accountant for the company that owns Reddit and Gawker has a hate boner for Reddit.
Outed. A. Private. Citizen. After. Aiding. In. Blackmailing. Him. For. No. Fucking. Reason.
The editor of Kotaku then spoke out on Twitter saying he supported the article and that it was wrong for it to be taken down. THE EDITOR OF KOTAKU DEFENDED THAT ARTICLE.
That is the site you lot are defending. You're insane if you think Kotaku is an example of "good journalism".
Sometimes I hear, for reason I can never fathom, "Don't punish Kotaku for the sins of Gawker!" As if Kotaku hasn't done their fair share of outright damaging and immoral "reporting".
No matter what you believe, who's side you consider yourself to be on, if you even have a side, there is a valid reason to hate the entire Gawker network.
Hypothetically, if Bethesda and Ubisoft came out tomorrow and said "We don't associate with Gawker because they were an accessory to blackmail", even if they were lying about their true motives, what can you really say to that?
There is zero reason for anybody to associate with Gawker unless they have to. And nobody has to anymore.
Gawker being the site that ran an article outing a private citizen as homosexual, after aiding in attempted blackmail against him, solely because he was the accountant for the company that owns Reddit and Gawker has a hate boner for Reddit.
Outed. A. Private. Citizen. After. Aiding. In. Blackmailing. Him. For. No. Fucking. Reason.
The editor of Kotaku then spoke out on Twitter saying he supported the article and that it was wrong for it to be taken down. THE EDITOR OF KOTAKU DEFENDED THAT ARTICLE.
That is the site you lot are defending. You're insane if you think Kotaku is an example of "good journalism".
Sometimes I hear, for reason I can never fathom, "Don't punish Kotaku for the sins of Gawker!" As if Kotaku hasn't done their fair share of outright damaging and immoral "reporting".
No matter what you believe, who's side you consider yourself to be on, if you even have a side, there is a valid reason to hate the entire Gawker network.
Hypothetically, if Bethesda and Ubisoft came out tomorrow and said "We don't associate with Gawker because they were an accessory to blackmail", even if they were lying about their true motives, what can you really say to that?
There is zero reason for anybody to associate with Gawker unless they have to. And nobody has to anymore.
There is an easy answer to anyone who says "Don't punish Kotaku for the sins of Gawker!"
And that answer is, as I said, that the editor of Kotaku itself fought and defended that article. He was opposed to taking it down. But, yes, there is also the glaring fact that those people would have to ignore which is that Gawker owns Kotaku and ultimately dictates what they do and how they do it. So if they honestly think Kotaku would be untouched by the sleazy acts of Gawker then they are kidding themselves.
But yes, agreed 100%. No one has any reason to associate with Gawker anymore. Especially following the recent news of them shuttering a large number of their blogs and laying off a good amount of their staff. They are a sinking ship and it's beautiful.
I said at the time they posted this: I bet they've just been blacklisted. I wondered how long they'd stick to their guns before either pretending they didn't say that or throwing a tantrum about having been blacklisted.
406 days, 1 hour and 30 minutes, apparently.
Devs don't owe reporters anything, and refusing to give advantages to unethical reporters after they go beyond the pale (definition to be determined by the owner of the property, naturally) isn't the same thing as telling consumers 'buy our game with no foreknowledge!'. Outlets besides Kotaku exist, and you can always wait until post-release if you really must know precisely why a Bethesda game is racist and sexist before you buy it.
You can hate Kotaku all you want but please don't act like it's a defensible rational position to go "but they're bad, though!" in a situation where they've done nothing wrong, like that justifies everything. Because then you're left with the position of "also corporations should have total control over all information about their products" and that's. Bad.
"For years, I could never make heads or tails of the access granted to outfits whose primary contribution is aggression either towards the creators or the users of games."
I prefer to read this as nothing to do with Kotaku, but about the realisation of the mistake that hiring Kuchera was.
I feel like there are plenty of legitimate criticisms to level at Kotaku, but at any point you find yourself in the company of people critical of Kotaku its like "man, all these people who hate Kotaku are fucking creepy as shit and dishonest assholes."
You can hate Kotaku all you want but please don't act like it's a defensible rational position to go "but they're bad, though!" in a situation where they've done nothing wrong, like that justifies everything. Because then you're left with the position of "also corporations should have total control over all information about their products" and that's. Bad.
When a company knows a news outlet isn't going to respect their desire to run their marketing campaign on their schedule, they're entitled to stop helping that news outlet.
Bethesda aren't even making a public statement about ethics in journalism by blacklisting Kotaku. They're not saying what Kotaku did is bad. They haven't said 'Kotaku had no right to reveal information about our unfinished product without our permission'; in fact they haven't said anything at all. They've simply stopped helping Kotaku and that is their absolute right.
Nothing prevents Kotaku from buying the product once it's released and reviewing it then. Kotaku is just no longer being treated as trustworthy with privileged access to information and that is completely understandable. That Kotaku's business model benefits from those privileges does not entitle Kotaku to them, or oblige Bethesda to help.
Bethesda do not have to acknowledge or enable all journalistic outlets in order to continue to operate as consumers have come to expect (though whether or not consumers have a 'right' to this sort of media circus about every announced game is another discussion). The business of journalism continued apace without Kotaku being afforded special privileges. The sky is not falling because certain developers don't enable certain news outlets to meddle with those developers' scheduled announcements.
As for whether or not other consumers should go with 'but they're bad though' and be pleased that a few companies have adopted policies of mokusatsu toward Kotaku; well, 'but they're bad though' is is a perfectly valid opinion. Personally, I don't think games developers owe consumers any information before the game is released just because we've gotten used to that being the case, and they certainly don't owe journalists continued favors after they already abused their privileges once.
But if they blacklist media outlets for not playing ball, its going to be awfully hard to take positive reviews seriously.
Which is a shame, because Bethesda generally makes good titles and deserves good reviews, but once your business model includes blacklisting major websites for not following your demands, you kind of harm any other media outlet that wants to report on you honestly, even if everything they want to say is 100% honest and 100% positive.
Betheseda is a big boy company, they can do what they want. I think their current course of action is stupid and petty, but they're free to pursue it to whatever logical conclusion they so desire. If they want to bring the hammer down on negative media stories, they can reap the costs and benefits of that action. Since Bethesda makes good games with strong modding scenes, picking a fight with enthusiast media seems pretty fucking stupid. But its their money.
I fully agree Bethesda or any company is entitled to do whatever they want. I'm also fully entitled to think what they're doing makes is shitty, and to disagree with people who just write it off as The Cost Of Doing Business, or worse when two guys who have done work for said companies want to put them on a pedestal for daring to stand up to those all-powerful and evil game journalists.
If you want to know what companies want coverage of their games to be, imagine a man wearing a plastic pip boy on a video podcast saying "I think people are too harsh on Fallout 4 for giving at a 3/5 just to be different" and just find/replace with your game of choice.
Furu on
0
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
"their eerily synchronized perspective"
This is a direct, poorly disguised endorsement of GutterGuff's obsessive, compulsive mantra that all the evil cultural marxist SJWs all agreed to write "gamers are dead" columns in response to the torrent of hate against an innocent woman.
That is both cowardly and deleterious for gaming in general.
"For years, I could never make heads or tails of the access granted to outfits whose primary contribution is aggression either towards the creators or the users of games."
I prefer to read this as nothing to do with Kotaku, but about the realisation of the mistake that hiring Kuchera was.
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.
Posts
So wait, is the sting a website giving negative coverage to a company? Does reporting on the shitty working conditions at Konami count as a sting? Is a bad review a sting? Are stings bad?
I'm not sure where this analogy is going.
Kotaku and gawker media as a whole is a cancer on this earth.
As for the comic -- the frog and the scorpion fable is an apt comparison. Journalists want to uncover information, and marketers want to control the flow of information, so the only way they'd want to work together is if there's a mutual benefit. Of course journalists are going to write about an unannounced game if they have the chance. That's their job, and their only consideration should be how much news they're losing access to by doing so. Increasingly, though, (and Tycho has noted this in the past), game publishers have access to media outlets that don't give a damn about journalistic ethics. Why would you bother talking to the press when you can speak through Twitch streamers and Youtube stars, who are happy to sell your product for you? In the face of that, I understand completely why established news sites would be digging deeper and taking greater risks to maintain their audience.
As usual, the art is great.
Steam: pazython
Interesting article by The Atlantic about why the narrowest definition of clickbait possibly isn't that helpful - for one it lets BuzzFeed reason that they don't do it at all (also admitting that it's overused).
Choice quote:
Free to disagree, but I think many are moving on from the "One weird trick" definition to something a bit more inclusive of the low-effort writing that is becoming the bread and butter of certain websites.
I dunno, if they stop to write hit pieces against every figure in and around the industry who's popped up to kick dirt on them in the last couple days, they'll never have time for anything else. I think they thought the reaction would be people putting pressure on the publishers, but they forgot that everyone hates them.
Define "everyone"? Source?
Edit: For the record, I do think Kotaku's take on it was self-aggrandizing, but the blacklist is definitely something worth knowing about.
Steam: pazython
Don't forget how they jumped on the Dick Wolves hatewagon. I believe that's the batch of articles Orblivion is referring to.
Also, for those who say 'they're just doing what journalists should be doing'...I think what you mean to say is, 'they're just doing what tabloid journalists should be doing.'
Steam: pazython
Imagine a neighborhood. In that neighborhood lives Bob. Now Bob finds out, either from being told in confidence or through gossip, that Jack and Terry across the street are not roommates but a gay couple, though they are just not ready to come out to the rest of the neighborhood yet. Then one day at a big neighborhood BBQ that Jack and Terry are throwing Bob, not feeling as if he's getting enough attention, gets up in front of everyone and announces that Jack and Terry are gay. Now Bob is confused as to why he isn't invited to any more of their parties, and is complaining to anyone that will listen about it that he was just acting in the neighborhoods best interests by telling everyone. Does he have every right to say what he wants to say? Sure. Is it smart to say whatever you want whenever you do? No, not really. When you do, is it a good idea to get on a moral high horse and pretend like you are doing it for the good of everyone else when it was just for purely selfish reasons? Oh get bent buddy.
None of the involved parties, including Kotaku, in this situation have broken any laws. Kotaku is free to report on what they want how they want, just as Bethesda and Ubisoft are free to dictate the nature of their relationship with Kotaku. They are not obligated to provide Kotaku with content, info, or review code, and Kotaku is not obligated (unless under contract) to adhere to their requests or demands in concerns to covering them and their products. But that said in the end what both sides have to do is live with the consequences of their actions. Bethesda/Ubisoft can be as forthcoming/guarded with any info/content as they want and outlets are free to report on what they want however they want. Just don't expect to be able to have your cake and eat it too.
I don't blame Kotaku for reporting on what they do, if they don't report on a scoop when they get it, then someone else will. But the sanctimony about this situation is really way out of line. Reporting that a game that's about to come out is really buggy and that it might not be a good idea to buy it at launch, is an example of good reporting. You are writing engaging content that serves a purpose, and it is helping your readers by giving them info they would not have had otherwise and possibly saving them from making bad purchasing decisions. But when you jump the gun and ruin a reveal just to be first on it, before even the developer/publisher making it has a chance to announce it, you aren't doing anybody any favors, you are actively harming other companies, with no other purpose than to line your own pockets. So don't give me that BS about how you are doing it just for your readers when you are doing it for yourself. Note: I could write an entire post just as long as this one going over the various reasons as to why this is the case, but I'm trying not to get buried too deep in the minutia of this post that I'm just trying to get out.
I can imagine that being black listed for just doing your job can suck. Pointing out a company's malfeasances or shady dealings is a proper and noble way of probably getting blacklisted by them. And if that's the case then you go ahead and point it out and say what BS it is. But when you are reporting on something that you know can potentially harm a company and serves no other purpose than to get clicks, you have a choice to make. Either don't report on it and maintain your relationship with that company, hoping that they can appreciate you for it, or go for that sweet sweet ad revenue and take your damn well earned blacklisting on the chin like a man.
It sucks when things get leaked, but it happens, it's a natural part of the industry, or really any industry for that matter, but when, as an outlet, you bite the hand that feeds you, don't cry fowl when you get bitten back, and don't climb up on the cross and play the sainted martyr of the purest ambitions.
Kotaku made their bed, pissed in it, and are now complaining that it smells bad and that it's not their fault.
True, but I get pretty skeptical. But that's just me.
Steam: pazython
Wait, what?
How is that not lying?
Saying "I like this game" when, in fact, you hate that game isn't lying?
The last big thing Patrick did for Giant Bomb before moving to Chicago was to leak the Xbox DRM turn-around.
I mean other people are not "lying" when they have a different opinion of a game than you do.
If I say I don't like Vidya Game Quest II: The Gamening, and you say you do like it, what would I be if I responded, "Nuh-uh, the game is bad, if you say it's good you're lying!"?
The biggest goose imaginable, that's what.
Gawker being the site that ran an article outing a private citizen as homosexual, after aiding in attempted blackmail against him, solely because he was the accountant for the company that owns Reddit and Gawker has a hate boner for Reddit.
Outed. A. Private. Citizen. After. Aiding. In. Blackmailing. Him. For. No. Fucking. Reason.
The editor of Kotaku then spoke out on Twitter saying he supported the article and that it was wrong for it to be taken down. THE EDITOR OF KOTAKU DEFENDED THAT ARTICLE.
That is the site you lot are defending. You're insane if you think Kotaku is an example of "good journalism".
Steam: pazython
Oh sorry, my bad. Misunderstood your post.
"Mass Effect characters dressed in Dragon Age Armor" isn't "clickbait", precisely because the title is honest about what the article contains. The bait part of the equation is missing. It's not a worm on a hook, where you bite down and all that's left is hook.
"Journalism website writes articles that it's audience is interested in reading -- for money" is not something I'm going to clutch my pearls over, thanks.
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
I didn't remember the Brad Wardell thing at all, or maybe I never heard about it. I googled it. The first hit is from Kotaku talking about the cases being dropped and printing the apology letter.
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
This position doesn't seem tenable in light of the newspost. Reading something like this
makes it pretty clear that Jerry and Mike hate professional games journalists as a class, hate gaming journalism as an enterprise, and celebrate its decline even when the alternatives mean publishers dictate terms almost exclusively, because preserving an independent games press is irrelevant compared to throwing their perceived persecutors out on the street.
Its dismaying to say the least, but I'm glad Jerry has finally declared a position after talking out of both sides of his mouth for what seriously feels like years.
I don't know who this Moon dude is. Alison is a minority that posed as another non-minority, because white women get more sympathy than black men even inside the progressive stack, and the media is entirely responsible for the Jubal smear just like they were responsible for the mishandling of the entirety of the GG coverage. Don't even think of trying to pin that on GG when the same media being investigated for corruption couldn't be bothered to do their own homework.
Please stop trying to make this about Gamergate. Nobody cares.
Sometimes I hear, for reason I can never fathom, "Don't punish Kotaku for the sins of Gawker!" As if Kotaku hasn't done their fair share of outright damaging and immoral "reporting".
No matter what you believe, who's side you consider yourself to be on, if you even have a side, there is a valid reason to hate the entire Gawker network.
Hypothetically, if Bethesda and Ubisoft came out tomorrow and said "We don't associate with Gawker because they were an accessory to blackmail", even if they were lying about their true motives, what can you really say to that?
There is zero reason for anybody to associate with Gawker unless they have to. And nobody has to anymore.
There is an easy answer to anyone who says "Don't punish Kotaku for the sins of Gawker!"
And that answer is, as I said, that the editor of Kotaku itself fought and defended that article. He was opposed to taking it down. But, yes, there is also the glaring fact that those people would have to ignore which is that Gawker owns Kotaku and ultimately dictates what they do and how they do it. So if they honestly think Kotaku would be untouched by the sleazy acts of Gawker then they are kidding themselves.
But yes, agreed 100%. No one has any reason to associate with Gawker anymore. Especially following the recent news of them shuttering a large number of their blogs and laying off a good amount of their staff. They are a sinking ship and it's beautiful.
http://kotaku.com/the-future-of-kotakus-video-game-coverage-is-the-prese-1644297778
I said at the time they posted this: I bet they've just been blacklisted. I wondered how long they'd stick to their guns before either pretending they didn't say that or throwing a tantrum about having been blacklisted.
406 days, 1 hour and 30 minutes, apparently.
Devs don't owe reporters anything, and refusing to give advantages to unethical reporters after they go beyond the pale (definition to be determined by the owner of the property, naturally) isn't the same thing as telling consumers 'buy our game with no foreknowledge!'. Outlets besides Kotaku exist, and you can always wait until post-release if you really must know precisely why a Bethesda game is racist and sexist before you buy it.
Steam: pazython
I prefer to read this as nothing to do with Kotaku, but about the realisation of the mistake that hiring Kuchera was.
When a company knows a news outlet isn't going to respect their desire to run their marketing campaign on their schedule, they're entitled to stop helping that news outlet.
Bethesda aren't even making a public statement about ethics in journalism by blacklisting Kotaku. They're not saying what Kotaku did is bad. They haven't said 'Kotaku had no right to reveal information about our unfinished product without our permission'; in fact they haven't said anything at all. They've simply stopped helping Kotaku and that is their absolute right.
Nothing prevents Kotaku from buying the product once it's released and reviewing it then. Kotaku is just no longer being treated as trustworthy with privileged access to information and that is completely understandable. That Kotaku's business model benefits from those privileges does not entitle Kotaku to them, or oblige Bethesda to help.
Bethesda do not have to acknowledge or enable all journalistic outlets in order to continue to operate as consumers have come to expect (though whether or not consumers have a 'right' to this sort of media circus about every announced game is another discussion). The business of journalism continued apace without Kotaku being afforded special privileges. The sky is not falling because certain developers don't enable certain news outlets to meddle with those developers' scheduled announcements.
As for whether or not other consumers should go with 'but they're bad though' and be pleased that a few companies have adopted policies of mokusatsu toward Kotaku; well, 'but they're bad though' is is a perfectly valid opinion. Personally, I don't think games developers owe consumers any information before the game is released just because we've gotten used to that being the case, and they certainly don't owe journalists continued favors after they already abused their privileges once.
But if they blacklist media outlets for not playing ball, its going to be awfully hard to take positive reviews seriously.
Which is a shame, because Bethesda generally makes good titles and deserves good reviews, but once your business model includes blacklisting major websites for not following your demands, you kind of harm any other media outlet that wants to report on you honestly, even if everything they want to say is 100% honest and 100% positive.
Betheseda is a big boy company, they can do what they want. I think their current course of action is stupid and petty, but they're free to pursue it to whatever logical conclusion they so desire. If they want to bring the hammer down on negative media stories, they can reap the costs and benefits of that action. Since Bethesda makes good games with strong modding scenes, picking a fight with enthusiast media seems pretty fucking stupid. But its their money.
If you want to know what companies want coverage of their games to be, imagine a man wearing a plastic pip boy on a video podcast saying "I think people are too harsh on Fallout 4 for giving at a 3/5 just to be different" and just find/replace with your game of choice.
This is a direct, poorly disguised endorsement of GutterGuff's obsessive, compulsive mantra that all the evil cultural marxist SJWs all agreed to write "gamers are dead" columns in response to the torrent of hate against an innocent woman.
That is both cowardly and deleterious for gaming in general.
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.