Eh, the frog and the scorpion has always been pretty iffy as a parable goes. Pursued to it's logical conclusion could get you into some fairly awful ideologies.
Also it's not as if the creature in that fable is a dangerous creature that human beings nevertheless consider noble and beautiful, like a lion or a wolf. It's a scorpion. For a majority of people, scorpions cause pure revulsion, with no accompanying sense of awe. As far as symbology goes, you're not supposed to feel sympathy for the scorpion. Depending on which version you're reading, you're supposed to think, "stupid frog, that's why you never trust a scorpion" or "noble monk, being so kind to something as disgusting as a scorpion."
Do you think it's about the scorpion-saving monk learning the error of his ways?
0
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
edited November 2015
I find it odd that anyone would be angry about leaks. Have you seen how popular datamining websites/reddit posts are? I've not heard a lot of complaining in the gaming community about how unethical datamining is. In fact gamer rants are often built around how someone's datamine "proves" that a studio shafted the user base.
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"
There have been times when data mining got kind of unethical, like the mass effect 3 script leak taken from the demo. Most gaming websites reported on its existence but elected not to provide directions on how to find it
even in these kotaku leaks they exercised judgement in what they did or did not post, with ac syndicate they had video of the game that they chose not to post out of respect for ubisoft's work. but I'm not sure why they thought ubisoft would be fine with just information and screenshots.
-Tal on
0
BethrynUnhappiness is MandatoryRegistered Userregular
Data mining, leaks and the like can be very popular and unethical.
For example, it is a regular occurrence in MMOs for data miners to engage in what is effectively insider trading. They discover that a certain item is going to have a demand spike in a future release, and distribute that information privately. The item is then purchased and hoarded sometimes months in advance while the demand is still low.
The fact that you have access to information, and there are people who want that information, and that you will get well paid for distributing that information is still not an ethical justification, even if it is a capitalistic one. I don't really want to drag the thread in a more controversial direction, but there are more than a few analogous examples that nobody is going to stand behind.
In general though, the situation in the comic is always going to be judged on a case-by-case basis.
Aliens: Colonial Marines contained some very false marketing, and was in a dreadful state at launch. If Gearbox blacklisted the reviewers that broadcast this fact, we would generally fall on the side of the reviewers; they were protecting consumers while Gearbox were trying to exploit them.
Tomb Raider received a lot of negative press because one of its scenes was interpreted as foreshadowing a rape/sexual violence (it does not). If Crystal Dynamics were to blacklist the reviewers that broadcast this falsehood, we would generally fall on the side of CD; it was shoddy reporting.
...and of course, as always, Kill Hitler.
+11
Goose!That's me, honeyShow me the way home, honeyRegistered Userregular
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".
They didn't defend the article, they defended writers vs editors selling them out. Saying "the article should have stayed up since it was put up" is different from saying "the article was newsworthy and deserved to be made."
lol Kotaku didn't post a comic from PA this week. Guess criticism doesn't fit with their propaganda they push on their poor mentally deficient readers. I know they have a habit of deleting comments critical of them or ones that call them on their BS, but now they're just outright "blacklisting" sites that criticize them.
And gaming journalism died with Joystiq. These gaming sites are nothing but tabloid blogs that do whatever they want and take whatever bribes they want, and push whatever propaganda they want because it doesn't matter to them. People will keep reading no matter what they do and other tabloid blogs will hire them (Unlike say if a journalist did these things they wouldn't be able to find a job in journalism again). I can't stand the state gaming and these gaming sites are in. I have nowhere to get news and most other people claiming to be gamers are so horribly uninformed or mindcontrolled by these tabloids propaganda that it is killing gaming.
0
Goose!That's me, honeyShow me the way home, honeyRegistered Userregular
lol Kotaku didn't post a comic from PA this week. Guess criticism doesn't fit with their propaganda they push on their poor mentally deficient readers. I know they have a habit of deleting comments critical of them or ones that call them on their BS, but now they're just outright "blacklisting" sites that criticize them.
They aren't obligated to post it. And there's a comment on the article from the author specifically addressing it that makes a ton of sense to me.
0
GatorAn alligator in ScotlandRegistered Userregular
"mentally deficient readers"
you must be a blast at parties
+10
Warlock82Never pet a burning dogRegistered Userregular
lol Kotaku didn't post a comic from PA this week. Guess criticism doesn't fit with their propaganda they push on their poor mentally deficient readers. I know they have a habit of deleting comments critical of them or ones that call them on their BS, but now they're just outright "blacklisting" sites that criticize them.
They aren't obligated to post it. And there's a comment on the article from the author specifically addressing it that makes a ton of sense to me.
Eh, he offers kind of a dumb excuse for why they are not "blacklisting them":
We aren’t “blacklisting” anyone. If interesting Penny Arcade news comes up, we’ll report on it like anything else. I just don’t see the point in featuring a comic on our website from creators who actively despise it. It doesn’t make sense.
But are you going to keep posting their other comics? A partial blacklist is still a blacklist. I mean, I totally understand why they wouldn't post it, and they are completely within their rights not to, but maaaaaybe Bethesda and Ubisoft might have felt a somewhat similar thing while reading the Kotaku leaks? Just sayin' :P
Also, he could have posted that in the actual story instead of waiting for it to inevitably be brought up in the comments section :P
kotaku not posting a comic that criticizes them reaaaaaally shouldn't be an issue
I'm genuinely puzzled that the topic even came up. Does Kotaku regularly post PA comics, and this is their first time refraining? Lots of publications don't post PA comics...
"excuse my French
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
0
GatorAn alligator in ScotlandRegistered Userregular
i mean i don't think it's that so much as it's an argument that some people just pick sides on, and are very uncharitable to the side that isn't theirs
kotaku not posting a comic that criticizes them reaaaaaally shouldn't be an issue
but it is, because it's actually about ethics in games journalism
Roughly 50 to 75 percent of the entire GobbleGlop subreddit, which, for the record, is literally named after how they specifically hate Kotaku, is about making false equivalencies for the purpose of declaring victory in a non-existent argument with strangers on the internet. Case in point: aforementioned comment beginning with "lol Kotaku..."
I know we're not supposed to do total derails into taking about those folks, but it's sort of relevant to the story, in that all of this is biased by the ridiculous obsession with hating on Kotaku.
The top-upvoted thread right now on the /r/Games subreddit is leaked info about Mass Effect Andromeda. This was happening all at the same time. There is no outrage about this, because the person who posted it wasn't Kotaku.
Sniping about Kotaku not posting the PA comic is as empty and disingenuous as suggesting it was tossed around Twitter all weekend because of a sudden uptick in passion for Jerry's level-headed and objective insights of the industry as a whole. It's all bullshit. It's about people who hate Kotaku, and we know who they are and why they're doing it, finding it funny to pretend we don't all understand this. Its "an issue" because every goddamn thing needs to be an issue with this. Because we are yet another set of invisible enemies that must be conquered with mortars in the shape of the word "actually..."
I think Kotaku should have published it, because they publish Penny Arcade every week, but I also think this is one of the worst comics PA has done in quite a while. Not in a "I disagree with their stance" sense (although that's true), but in a "this is a stupid 1990's-esque political cartoon where you need to explain to the reader what you're trying to convey because your analogy is so bad that nobody would understand it unless you labelled the giant steamboat 'CHINESE TARIFFS' and the captain 'CONGRESS' and then have a caption explaining which one is the bad guy."
So the comic is shit, but even shit comics get posted, and I'd rather they post it (as usual) and call it out for being shitty.
THAT SAID
any conversation about "ethics in games journalism" is doomed to be a shitshow from the start. Penny Arcade itself has kept itself pretty clear of the entire fight for that exact reason. I think its more honest to publish bad shit and criticize it if that's your protocol, but I'm not super concerned if someone decides they don't want to have a 10,000 comment thread about a shitty comic. I'm not going to loose a ton of sleep because the guy responsible for Sunday comics isn't interested in a massive shitshow over something stupid, and Kotaku immediately made it pretty clear (see the comic post comments) that they intend to continue covering Penny Arcade events and comics and just don't want to deal with this particular one.
kotaku not posting a comic that criticizes them reaaaaaally shouldn't be an issue
I'm genuinely puzzled that the topic even came up. Does Kotaku regularly post PA comics, and this is their first time refraining? Lots of publications don't post PA comics...
AFAIK, they post one comic from Penny Arcade every week in their "Sunday Comic" thing. I'm not sure what criteria they use to decide if a comic will or won't get posted, but I think they've included Penny Arcade every week for quite a while.
Kotaku have no obligation to post penny arcade comics, just as developers have no obligation to send kotaku free games.
While I'm clear on despising Gawker, I think that two companies can decide to cut ties without the pointless Twitter drama. Of course, since is Gawker, there's a lot of comments about how PA are now a bunch of meanie has-beens. :rotate:
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."
It can be. Read dragon age 2 reviews for example. Shills.
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."
It can be. Read dragon age 2 reviews for example. Shills.
Repeating the statement without any corroborating evidence doesn't actually make it more real.
this forum actually has a very large number of people who have a very positive opinion of dragon age 2 so that argument isn't gonna hold much water here
First off I want to apologize for being so demeaning in my previous comment. I took the low road and said something disparaging and that's not right. The main reason I say that (aside from the fact it needed to be said) is because I don't want my previous statement to detract from the sincerity of the one I'm making now.
I think these conversations are always productive even when people disagree so much but I do wish folks would be a lot more respectful towards one another. Maybe I'm being foolish posting stuff like this but please be kind to each other. I believe many of the issues we humans face come about because we don't work harder to treat each other better.
We wouldn't have issues with lack of journalistic integrity (or a lot of other things) if people showed each other a lot more respect, kindness and decency. Anyways again please be excellent to one another. Life's way too short to spend it treating one another like crap.
If you think Let's Players are going to act with more professionalism and scrutiny than websites, I've got some bad news. And that's a pretty low bar.
At least on Youtube I can see the game being played. And let's face it, at the very most all I have to do is wait a couple days after launch before buying a game and forums will tell me everything I need to know anyway.
The entire "game journalism" industry serves very little purpose, and is mostly a clickbait trash-factory that all too often tries to style itself as being the guardian of morality and good taste. Fuck them, all I'm going to do is chuckle as they slowly bleed out.
+1
Goose!That's me, honeyShow me the way home, honeyRegistered Userregular
If you think Let's Players are going to act with more professionalism and scrutiny than websites, I've got some bad news. And that's a pretty low bar.
At least on Youtube I can see the game being played. And let's face it, at the very most all I have to do is wait a couple days after launch before buying a game and forums will tell me everything I need to know anyway.
The entire "game journalism" industry serves very little purpose, and is mostly a clickbait trash-factory that all too often tries to style itself as being the guardian of morality and good taste. Fuck them, all I'm going to do is chuckle as they slowly bleed out.
Ok, I think I see what's going on here. You're not angry at any impropriety of game journalists. You're angry because they've taken you outside of your comfort zone and raise some questions in the back of your mind that you don't want to know the answers to. And to that, I say "good". Good journalism SHOULD make you feel uncomfortable with how the world works. Good journalism SHOULD make you ask "why". Good journalism should NOT sweep things under the rug in order to make their readers feel comfortable in their ignorance. I mean, what would even be the point of that?
I don't get this. Why would you consult the writer of a game based on the actions of the players?
Oh, just read the rest of his Twitter feed for context (good advice for ANY Twitter post, really). You can figure out what kind of person he is, or at least his online Twitter persona (hey, he could just be playing a part, just like any anonymous person on the internet).
"Ok, I think I see what's going on here. You're not angry at any impropriety of game journalists. You're angry because they've taken you outside of your comfort zone and raise some questions in the back of your mind that you don't want to know the answers to. And to that, I say "good". Good journalism SHOULD make you feel uncomfortable with how the world works. Good journalism SHOULD make you ask "why". Good journalism should NOT sweep things under the rug in order to make their readers feel comfortable in their ignorance. I mean, what would even be the point of that?"
Are you serious? Good journalism? From Kotaku? The same site that makes articles about watermelons looking like butts? Or posts libelous articles accusing someone who doesn't even work in video games as a rapist based on zero evidence?
It's not even as if Kotaku was exposing a crime being committed or an ethical lapse, like Ubisoft not paying their staff, or Besthesda swiping assets/code from another developer. If that was the case, then yes, report away. But it wasn't. This was leaks for the sake of clicks, nothing more.
So Kotaku traded in the long-term benefit of exclusive access to these companies for the short-term gain in page views and can't face the consequences for breaking faith with Ubisoft and Besthesda. If this didn't bother them so much, they wouldn't need to cry about this, and would just move on do that "GOOD REPORTING" they're so well-known for. After all, they're not being stopped from talking about the companies, nor from reviewing their games. But cry they did, because they know that developers aren't obligated to give them diddly squat, and Ubisoft/Besthesda is making it clear that gaming journalists don't have to be their audience anymore.
+3
GatorAn alligator in ScotlandRegistered Userregular
so what you're saying is that it's actually about ethics...?
Kotaku is part of a corporation. Ubisoft and Bethesda are corporations. This is one money machine crying publicly that another money machine isn't playing ball anymore. People are then getting so invested in this dispute.
That's so American I think a bald eagle is playing its red hawk mix tape somewhere nearby.
I don't get this. Why would you consult the writer of a game based on the actions of the players?
Oh, just read the rest of his Twitter feed for context (good advice for ANY Twitter post, really). You can figure out what kind of person he is, or at least his online Twitter persona (hey, he could just be playing a part, just like any anonymous person on the internet).
Wow this explains a lot about the writing in Watch Dogs
kotaku not posting a comic that criticizes them reaaaaaally shouldn't be an issue
It is the funniest thing about the whole situation.
Really I don't even understand Kotaku's objection to the comic. The whole point of their existence is to get us to read their site. They've chosen to do this by aggregating/reporting on gaming news. If they don't tell us things that Ubi/EA/whoever don't put in their press releases I don't see them having much of a point. If stinging is leaking then they obviously have it in their nature to leak. That shouldn't be a criticism. When journalism works they are more than just content aggregators. I love how they react to being called out on being more than just content aggregators by stopping aggregating the releases of the one who basically said they were doing journalism.
If anything the comic is critical of publishers forgetting that about Kotaku and somehow blaming Kotaku for their own poor leak control.
Kotaku is a rich corporation backed by Gawker Media. It was once (and arguably still) one of the premiere games journalism outlets. As a result, it received a lot of privileges: Advanced information, advanced copies, etc. etc.
However, Kotaku started being a real jerk and releasing things that Game Devs really didn't like. So the gaming culture shifted and now we see some of Kotaku's privileges being taken away.
So Kotaku becomes very "reactionary" and starts to cry, piss, and moan about how their privileges are being taken away, and it's not fair, and they have a RIGHT to post leaked information. It's our free speech, and you're trying to censor us!
However, it is free speech/freedom of press, and no one is trying to steal your inside scoops, Kotaku, but freedom of press does NOT mean freedom from consequences.
Community feedback to the devs seems to be: "Game Devs, rags like Kotaku are dead. They don't have to be your media outlets."
Sound familiar?
+5
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
I don't see Kotaku pissing and moaning? They were asked why they weren't covering some games as extensively as previously, like Fallout 4, and they posted the article as an answer. You don't like the answer, that's on you.
"excuse my French
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
Are you serious? Good journalism? From Kotaku? The same site that makes articles about watermelons looking like butts? Or posts libelous articles accusing someone who doesn't even work in video games as a rapist based on zero evidence?
It's not even as if Kotaku was exposing a crime being committed or an ethical lapse, like Ubisoft not paying their staff, or Besthesda swiping assets/code from another developer. If that was the case, then yes, report away. But it wasn't. This was leaks for the sake of clicks, nothing more.
So Kotaku traded in the long-term benefit of exclusive access to these companies for the short-term gain in page views and can't face the consequences for breaking faith with Ubisoft and Besthesda. If this didn't bother them so much, they wouldn't need to cry about this, and would just move on do that "GOOD REPORTING" they're so well-known for. After all, they're not being stopped from talking about the companies, nor from reviewing their games. But cry they did, because they know that developers aren't obligated to give them diddly squat, and Ubisoft/Besthesda is making it clear that gaming journalists don't have to be their audience anymore.
You're missing the point. beeftruck (and several others) was specifically complaining about their left-of-center politics. Which is fine to not like, but they were claiming that having these politics made them unethical, when in reality it made them uncomfortable. My point is that making people uncomfortable is a mark in their favor, not against them.
Kotaku is a rich corporation backed by Gawker Media. It was once (and arguably still) one of the premiere games journalism outlets. As a result, it received a lot of privileges: Advanced information, advanced copies, etc. etc.
However, Kotaku started being a real jerk and releasing things that Game Devs really didn't like. So the gaming culture shifted and now we see some of Kotaku's privileges being taken away.
So Kotaku becomes very "reactionary" and starts to cry, piss, and moan about how their privileges are being taken away, and it's not fair, and they have a RIGHT to post leaked information. It's our free speech, and you're trying to censor us!
However, it is free speech/freedom of press, and no one is trying to steal your inside scoops, Kotaku, but freedom of press does NOT mean freedom from consequences.
Community feedback to the devs seems to be: "Game Devs, rags like Kotaku are dead. They don't have to be your media outlets."
Sound familiar?
Well, first of all, that's not what reactionary means. Secondly, you act like Kotaku being adversarial is a BAD thing. It really seems like you (as well as G&T) want this to be the norm:
Again, Kotaku has problems, sure. But the main complaints I keep seeing are that Stephen Toledo should be crucified for the crime of not validating your opinions.
Posts
Do you think it's about the scorpion-saving monk learning the error of his ways?
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
even in these kotaku leaks they exercised judgement in what they did or did not post, with ac syndicate they had video of the game that they chose not to post out of respect for ubisoft's work. but I'm not sure why they thought ubisoft would be fine with just information and screenshots.
For example, it is a regular occurrence in MMOs for data miners to engage in what is effectively insider trading. They discover that a certain item is going to have a demand spike in a future release, and distribute that information privately. The item is then purchased and hoarded sometimes months in advance while the demand is still low.
The fact that you have access to information, and there are people who want that information, and that you will get well paid for distributing that information is still not an ethical justification, even if it is a capitalistic one. I don't really want to drag the thread in a more controversial direction, but there are more than a few analogous examples that nobody is going to stand behind.
In general though, the situation in the comic is always going to be judged on a case-by-case basis.
Aliens: Colonial Marines contained some very false marketing, and was in a dreadful state at launch. If Gearbox blacklisted the reviewers that broadcast this fact, we would generally fall on the side of the reviewers; they were protecting consumers while Gearbox were trying to exploit them.
Tomb Raider received a lot of negative press because one of its scenes was interpreted as foreshadowing a rape/sexual violence (it does not). If Crystal Dynamics were to blacklist the reviewers that broadcast this falsehood, we would generally fall on the side of CD; it was shoddy reporting.
They didn't defend the article, they defended writers vs editors selling them out. Saying "the article should have stayed up since it was put up" is different from saying "the article was newsworthy and deserved to be made."
And gaming journalism died with Joystiq. These gaming sites are nothing but tabloid blogs that do whatever they want and take whatever bribes they want, and push whatever propaganda they want because it doesn't matter to them. People will keep reading no matter what they do and other tabloid blogs will hire them (Unlike say if a journalist did these things they wouldn't be able to find a job in journalism again). I can't stand the state gaming and these gaming sites are in. I have nowhere to get news and most other people claiming to be gamers are so horribly uninformed or mindcontrolled by these tabloids propaganda that it is killing gaming.
They aren't obligated to post it. And there's a comment on the article from the author specifically addressing it that makes a ton of sense to me.
you must be a blast at parties
Eh, he offers kind of a dumb excuse for why they are not "blacklisting them":
But are you going to keep posting their other comics? A partial blacklist is still a blacklist. I mean, I totally understand why they wouldn't post it, and they are completely within their rights not to, but maaaaaybe Bethesda and Ubisoft might have felt a somewhat similar thing while reading the Kotaku leaks? Just sayin' :P
Also, he could have posted that in the actual story instead of waiting for it to inevitably be brought up in the comments section :P
I'm genuinely puzzled that the topic even came up. Does Kotaku regularly post PA comics, and this is their first time refraining? Lots of publications don't post PA comics...
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
but it is, because it's actually about ethics in games journalism
Roughly 50 to 75 percent of the entire GobbleGlop subreddit, which, for the record, is literally named after how they specifically hate Kotaku, is about making false equivalencies for the purpose of declaring victory in a non-existent argument with strangers on the internet. Case in point: aforementioned comment beginning with "lol Kotaku..."
I know we're not supposed to do total derails into taking about those folks, but it's sort of relevant to the story, in that all of this is biased by the ridiculous obsession with hating on Kotaku.
The top-upvoted thread right now on the /r/Games subreddit is leaked info about Mass Effect Andromeda. This was happening all at the same time. There is no outrage about this, because the person who posted it wasn't Kotaku.
Sniping about Kotaku not posting the PA comic is as empty and disingenuous as suggesting it was tossed around Twitter all weekend because of a sudden uptick in passion for Jerry's level-headed and objective insights of the industry as a whole. It's all bullshit. It's about people who hate Kotaku, and we know who they are and why they're doing it, finding it funny to pretend we don't all understand this. Its "an issue" because every goddamn thing needs to be an issue with this. Because we are yet another set of invisible enemies that must be conquered with mortars in the shape of the word "actually..."
So the comic is shit, but even shit comics get posted, and I'd rather they post it (as usual) and call it out for being shitty.
THAT SAID
any conversation about "ethics in games journalism" is doomed to be a shitshow from the start. Penny Arcade itself has kept itself pretty clear of the entire fight for that exact reason. I think its more honest to publish bad shit and criticize it if that's your protocol, but I'm not super concerned if someone decides they don't want to have a 10,000 comment thread about a shitty comic. I'm not going to loose a ton of sleep because the guy responsible for Sunday comics isn't interested in a massive shitshow over something stupid, and Kotaku immediately made it pretty clear (see the comic post comments) that they intend to continue covering Penny Arcade events and comics and just don't want to deal with this particular one.
AFAIK, they post one comic from Penny Arcade every week in their "Sunday Comic" thing. I'm not sure what criteria they use to decide if a comic will or won't get posted, but I think they've included Penny Arcade every week for quite a while.
While I'm clear on despising Gawker, I think that two companies can decide to cut ties without the pointless Twitter drama. Of course, since is Gawker, there's a lot of comments about how PA are now a bunch of meanie has-beens. :rotate:
It can be. Read dragon age 2 reviews for example. Shills.
Repeating the statement without any corroborating evidence doesn't actually make it more real.
I think these conversations are always productive even when people disagree so much but I do wish folks would be a lot more respectful towards one another. Maybe I'm being foolish posting stuff like this but please be kind to each other. I believe many of the issues we humans face come about because we don't work harder to treat each other better.
We wouldn't have issues with lack of journalistic integrity (or a lot of other things) if people showed each other a lot more respect, kindness and decency. Anyways again please be excellent to one another. Life's way too short to spend it treating one another like crap.
It's not like PA regularly posts Kotaku articles. Are they blacklisting Kotaku?
Steam: pazython
At least on Youtube I can see the game being played. And let's face it, at the very most all I have to do is wait a couple days after launch before buying a game and forums will tell me everything I need to know anyway.
The entire "game journalism" industry serves very little purpose, and is mostly a clickbait trash-factory that all too often tries to style itself as being the guardian of morality and good taste. Fuck them, all I'm going to do is chuckle as they slowly bleed out.
Well, I posted the Notch tweet. There's also the writer of Watch Dogs:
And the lead game designer at Ubisoft Toronto:
Ok, I think I see what's going on here. You're not angry at any impropriety of game journalists. You're angry because they've taken you outside of your comfort zone and raise some questions in the back of your mind that you don't want to know the answers to. And to that, I say "good". Good journalism SHOULD make you feel uncomfortable with how the world works. Good journalism SHOULD make you ask "why". Good journalism should NOT sweep things under the rug in order to make their readers feel comfortable in their ignorance. I mean, what would even be the point of that?
I don't get this. Why would you consult the writer of a game based on the actions of the players?
Steam: pazython
MHWilds ID: JF9LL8L3
Are you serious? Good journalism? From Kotaku? The same site that makes articles about watermelons looking like butts? Or posts libelous articles accusing someone who doesn't even work in video games as a rapist based on zero evidence?
It's not even as if Kotaku was exposing a crime being committed or an ethical lapse, like Ubisoft not paying their staff, or Besthesda swiping assets/code from another developer. If that was the case, then yes, report away. But it wasn't. This was leaks for the sake of clicks, nothing more.
So Kotaku traded in the long-term benefit of exclusive access to these companies for the short-term gain in page views and can't face the consequences for breaking faith with Ubisoft and Besthesda. If this didn't bother them so much, they wouldn't need to cry about this, and would just move on do that "GOOD REPORTING" they're so well-known for. After all, they're not being stopped from talking about the companies, nor from reviewing their games. But cry they did, because they know that developers aren't obligated to give them diddly squat, and Ubisoft/Besthesda is making it clear that gaming journalists don't have to be their audience anymore.
People act in self interest.
All involved are in it for money.
Kotaku is part of a corporation. Ubisoft and Bethesda are corporations. This is one money machine crying publicly that another money machine isn't playing ball anymore. People are then getting so invested in this dispute.
That's so American I think a bald eagle is playing its red hawk mix tape somewhere nearby.
Wow this explains a lot about the writing in Watch Dogs
It is the funniest thing about the whole situation.
Really I don't even understand Kotaku's objection to the comic. The whole point of their existence is to get us to read their site. They've chosen to do this by aggregating/reporting on gaming news. If they don't tell us things that Ubi/EA/whoever don't put in their press releases I don't see them having much of a point. If stinging is leaking then they obviously have it in their nature to leak. That shouldn't be a criticism. When journalism works they are more than just content aggregators. I love how they react to being called out on being more than just content aggregators by stopping aggregating the releases of the one who basically said they were doing journalism.
If anything the comic is critical of publishers forgetting that about Kotaku and somehow blaming Kotaku for their own poor leak control.
I don't think memes are an argument.
However, Kotaku started being a real jerk and releasing things that Game Devs really didn't like. So the gaming culture shifted and now we see some of Kotaku's privileges being taken away.
So Kotaku becomes very "reactionary" and starts to cry, piss, and moan about how their privileges are being taken away, and it's not fair, and they have a RIGHT to post leaked information. It's our free speech, and you're trying to censor us!
However, it is free speech/freedom of press, and no one is trying to steal your inside scoops, Kotaku, but freedom of press does NOT mean freedom from consequences.
Community feedback to the devs seems to be: "Game Devs, rags like Kotaku are dead. They don't have to be your media outlets."
Sound familiar?
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
You're missing the point. beeftruck (and several others) was specifically complaining about their left-of-center politics. Which is fine to not like, but they were claiming that having these politics made them unethical, when in reality it made them uncomfortable. My point is that making people uncomfortable is a mark in their favor, not against them.
Well, first of all, that's not what reactionary means. Secondly, you act like Kotaku being adversarial is a BAD thing. It really seems like you (as well as G&T) want this to be the norm:
Again, Kotaku has problems, sure. But the main complaints I keep seeing are that Stephen Toledo should be crucified for the crime of not validating your opinions.
Steam: pazython