Blacklisting, Integrity in games journalism... At what cost?

kearneybobs · 24-11-2015 2:03pm #1

Something of a hot topic of late, I thought it would be good to have a discussion going about what Kotaku has decided to bring to light in the last week or so.

Kotaku got blacklisted by a couple of publishers over the last two years or so and it hasn't been the first time this had happened to them. This mainly happened because they published stories revealing information about upcoming games (Fallout 4 and Assassin' Creed Syndicate) that the publishers had asked them not to publish that publishers ignored requests for comment or just simply sent a statement that condemned the site's actions. (thanks Gizmo!). They went ahead and published the information and subsequently the publishers ceased to interact with them since.

It brings to light the often too-close-for-comfort complicated relationship that exists between the games makers and the games writers.

Personally I dont have a problem with the idea of blacklisting. The publishers are free to share their PR strategy with games sites/journalists as they see fit, so as to fit in with their PR agenda. What they decide to share is up to them but can come across as pretty petty when it appears that they're doing it because the jounalists ruined their PR cycle. The onus isn't on the journalists to preserve that, unless they sign up to that through NDA or agreed upon embargoes.
On the other hand it comes across as petty when sites like Kotaku call them out in public for how their being treated. Neither of their reactions are surprising but aren't to be unexpected.

The problem arises when the relationship between journalists and games makers gets too close for comfort. PR shouldn't expect journalists to adhere to their cycle, and sites should publish information that is of interest to their user-base. I don't blame sites like Kotaku from publishing this information since they are a business and clicks are king! Let their user-base decide what is of interest to them.

Jim Sterling (as divisive as he can be) sums up my feelings on it pretty perfectly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeL34nbEo8s

What are people's thoughts on the whole subject?

Were Kotaku right to publish this information when they got it or should they have sat on it, seeing as it would have gotten out to the public eventually, albeit through the PR cycle some ways down the line?
Why?

Retr0gamer · 24-11-2015 2:30pm

It's not a new issue at all. Publishers have been pulling advertisements from publications for years and refusing to send them review material over bad publicity, broken announcement dates and plain old bad reviews for years. EGM had adverts from Capcom pulled due to a reviewer highlighting issues with the Resident Evil directors cut on PS1 and even before that PC and 16 bit console publications received similar threats.

A lot of this is due to over zealous legal and PR teams that don't realise how the whole process works. The EGM issue was sorted when Capcom management got wind of the issue and the Gamespot, Jeff Gertsmann issue from a few years back was due to a change in management in Gamespot that hadn't a clue how the industry worked and didn't realise that threats of advertising revenue being pulled over poor reviews was just part of how things work (and had the unfortunate effect of making Jeff Gertsmann seem like a much better games journalist than he is).

As long as these publications rely on advertising revenue you are going to get publishers trying to threaten publications with withdrawing revenue.

Links234 · 24-11-2015 2:32pm

I think the relationship between publishers and games media is a downright sycophantic one, and I think anyone who makes a break from that is worth applauding. However, the fact that this is Kotaku makes it even more difficult to talk about, because of the animosity towards the site. A lot of people are applauding Bethesda and Ubisoft for their actions because **** Kotaku, and this is kinda poisoning the well on a debate that really needs to happen. So personally, I think it's irrelevant whether they were right or wrong to publish the information in the first place, the big gigantic glaring issue is that publishers treat games media as an extention of their own marketing department, that the journalists are there to serve them, and there's definitely something wrong with that picture.

I mean, look at the way reviews for MGSV were handled, where reviewers attended a 'boot camp' to play the game under Konami's supervision and how they were only allowed to play for 40 hours I believe? So while the reviews were glowing, and first impressions were fantastic, those who attended Konami's event obviously didn't get to see the downright glaring issues with what was, once you got towards the latter half, an unfinished mess of a game that had it's plot gutted, a missing final act and content bulked out by rehashing previous missions. All issues that became evident if you've played the full game, but by reviewing the game on Konami's terms, they weren't at all obvious and that's no way to get an honest review. That's not to say MGVS is a bad game, it's not, in fact it was one of the most downright fun games I've played this year, but it was still in my opinion half a game that was sold as a finished product. And that sort of relationship between publisher and media just can't go on.

wes · 24-11-2015 2:45pm

Kotaku imho were right to tell everyone they have been blacklisted. Companies have every right to do so, but Kotaku also has the right to say they have been blacklisted and why they believe that this has been done.

I prefer that the media isn't necessarily compliant with game makers.

Maximus Alexander · 24-11-2015 2:54pm

Not a big Jim Sterling fan, but he sums it up for me. Publishers have every right to blacklist journalists, but any worthwhile journalist shouldn't be afriad of that.

Nody · 24-11-2015 3:43pm

Retr0gamer wrote: »

It's not a new issue at all. Publishers have been pulling advertisements from publications for years and refusing to send them review material over bad publicity, broken announcement dates and plain old bad reviews for years. EGM had adverts from Capcom pulled due to a reviewer highlighting issues with the Resident Evil directors cut on PS1 and even before that PC and 16 bit console publications received similar threats.

But this also goes the other way with reviewers demanding payment to cover a certain game; TB had a video on it a while back.

super_furry · 24-11-2015 4:11pm

Really don't have anything to add to Jim Sterling's piece. The most worrying thing for me is that I find I'm agreeing with him more and more these days.

kearneybobs · 24-11-2015 4:27pm

Nody wrote: »

But this also goes the other way with reviewers demanding payment to cover a certain game; TB had a video on it a while back.

'Demanding payments' brings connotations of them holding the publishers/game makers over a barrel, being held at ransom and are threatening to not cover their game unless they get paid to do it. I think it's more along the lines of them simply being asked if they would like to cover a game and get paid for it.

Clearly that raises transparency/bias concerns, something they should be upfront about beforehand. It's not something I'm a fan of, but it's much along the lines of a 'sponsored post' on a website.

Shiminay · 24-11-2015 4:28pm

The immaturity and tribal nature of the end consumer in this market means that it's ultimately pointless for either side of the issue to engage in it. It's hilarious that the "ethics in Games Journalism" crowd who've spent the last 18+ months trying to demolish Kotaku and Gawker Media are seeing their "favourite" outlet being punished for what amounts to actual journalism as opposed to being a marketing mouthpiece which is what the publishers expect of games press.

The money for YouTube coverage is not "reviews" - it's marketing. If PewDiePie doesn't play your game, that's millions of eyeballs who aren't clever enough to realise he's a salesman and not a "reviewer" and who are therefore easy marks who won't see your game and won't be swayed to buy it. YouTubers and bloggers and any other sort of publisher not disclosing when something it paid for content is the biggest concern in games "journalism" but there aren't any hate groups behind that yet.

For what it's worth, I've mentioned many times here on Boards that I've been brought to events and get sent review copies of games by EA and I am under orders to never sugarcoat or lie about my thoughts on any game. For all the criticism we can rightly or wrongly level at EA as a company, they know all too well where the limits of expectations and ethics are.

Robert ninja · 24-11-2015 4:35pm

https://twitter.com/stephentotilo/status/667497008480022532?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

https://twitter.com/jasonschreier/status/667693347142782976?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

https://twitter.com/Boogie2988/status/667839906421407744?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

Thanks Kotaku for *gasp* letting us know a Fallout game was going to be released. I mean, who could've possibly seen that one coming? Good thing they were there to blow the whistle.

kunst nugget · 24-11-2015 4:38pm

Okay, who am I sending death threats to this time…

Nody · 24-11-2015 4:47pm

kunst nugget wrote: »

Okay, who am I sending death threats to this time…

Everyone; helps cover your bases.

Robert ninja · 24-11-2015 4:53pm

gizmo · 24-11-2015 5:08pm

Minor clarification needed in the OP I think, kearneybobs.

Kotaku got blacklisted by a couple of publishers over the last two years or so and it hasn't been the first time this had happened to them. This mainly happened because they published stories revealing information about upcoming games (Fallout 4 and Assassin' Creed Syndicate) that the publishers had asked them not to publish. They went ahead and published the information and subsequently the publishers ceased to interact with them since.

From reading the original articles, that's not what happened in these instances. The information came from a third party source and when the publishers were approached for comment on the stories, they refused to do so, as is to be expected in fairness. Bethesda simply declined to comment whereas Ubisoft issued a statement to publications which weren't Kotaku.

As for my thoughts on the whole affair, as I said on the thread over in PC Gaming, Sterling pretty much nailed it. It's worth noting that Kotaku UK wrote an accompanying piece to Totilo's piece over here which is also a pretty good read.

On a related note though, just to show the extent to which Bethesda were trying to manage the press for the Fallout 4 release. There was also an embargo on the details surrounding the review embargo for the title. Since Kotaku were already in the doghouse, they were the only ones who published it.

Oh and as others here and even Sterling himself have said, this is nothing to do with Kotaku themselves and focusing on them as a means to excuse this behaviour is utterly missing the point. It's happened to JS with Konami, Videogamer.com have evidently run afoul of Bethesda too, we've had PR companies threaten sites over bad reviews and even after the Gerstmann shenanigans and the Tomb Raider interference, Eidos were still accused of trying to influence the press with Arkham Asylum.

kearneybobs · 24-11-2015 5:22pm

Robert ninja wrote: »

https://twitter.com/stephentotilo/status/667497008480022532?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

https://twitter.com/jasonschreier/status/667693347142782976?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

https://twitter.com/Boogie2988/status/667839906421407744?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

Thanks Kotaku for *gasp* letting us know a Fallout game was going to be released. I mean, who could've possibly seen that one coming? Good thing they were there to blow the whistle.

It's not about being there to 'blow the whistle'. Every story doesn't have to be an exposé. It's about being there with relevant news (something Kotaku seems to be moving away from i.e. snacktaku etc).
Your hate for Kotaku shouldn't deny them the truth that what they did when they published the details was almost certainly a good thing. At least for games journalism. Yes, they've kinda ruined someone's hard work and given people a few headaches, but that's not their job to look after that. They're there to supply breaking news and interest pieces their user-base.

Kotaku, like other games websites out there are shifting their perspective on games journalism to a viewpoint that doesn't rely on information from the PR cycle, for better....or worse. They cover the stuff that interests them (and their user-base) and in Kotaku's case is focussing on experiences post release more recently.

super_furry · 24-11-2015 5:33pm

I like Kotaku, even more since Patrick Klepek moved there from Giant Bomb, but they have no right to access and knew when they were running with these stories that they might well be burning bridges.

kunst nugget · 24-11-2015 5:45pm

kearneybobs wrote: »

Kotaku, like other games websites out there are shifting their perspective on games journalism to a viewpoint that doesn't rely on information from the PR cycle, for better....or worse. They cover the stuff that interests them (and their user-base) and in Kotaku's case is focussing on experiences post release more recently.

The cynic in me would suggest that they're actually coming out with this to try claw back some notion of integrity in the eyes of the general public after being in the middle of the shít storm that was gamergate and being the subject of ire for many of its supporters.

johnny_ultimate · 24-11-2015 5:51pm

Gaming news is, most of the time, utterly inane. Beyond the occasional genuine scandal or outrage - like what's going on at Konami, which is a legitimately interesting and bizarre situation - there's actually not a whole lot going on there: it's entertainment news where even the unexpected tends to be very minor and unexciting in the general scheme of things. We've all seen even websites or magazines (because I'm typing from 1998) we like blow nonsense out of proportion. While there's definitely room for serious investigative journalism and reporting into certain situations, the scope for it is very limited. This is confounded by so many publications regurgitating press releases and not a whole lot else, but even the most studious, aspirational gaming publications will likely find themselves struggling to cover much in the way of genuinely worthy news (which is very different from criticism, incidentally). Not to mention the agenda readers set isn't always the most worthwhile anyway.

It's in the pre-release period that the victory of the PR machine is remarkable and likely the envy of PR teams in other industries. They have near absolute control of the media coverage - outside the exceedingly rare times they don't - and frankly have huge amounts of gamers themselves hanging on every word (look at E3, where there's not even a third party - stream host aside - between the potential consumer and the publisher's Gospel). The hype machine is impeccably oiled, and I admire the publications that have opted to de-emphasise it. Part of me even suspects publishers barely care what happens after release, once the pre-orders have been secured and the first couple of days sales are out of the way (and having the media play in a controlled environment rules out the dynamism of the real world). Outside straight-up catastrophes, post-release is an afterthought, as long as the review scores are reasonable.

The area of gaming journalism that interests me most is criticism, and sadly too much of the media views a sort of 'consumer guide' review as the be all and end all there, despite the profound limitations of the form. Good criticism isn't dependent on an embargo or review copy or strong relationships with publishers, and if anything benefits from the discourse that kicks off once a game is in the wild. Say what you will about Kotaku, but I dig their recent policy change of focusing on post-release stuff, even if their content tends to be very light on substantial critical analysis, one or two of their writers excepted. Kill Screen is by far my favourite games writing website at the moment, and their reviews often come days or weeks after release. Naturally the writing is typically substantially more articulate, stylish, thoughtful and probing than the ones rushed out to the publisher set embargo (although there's a few writers who can do that - Rich Stanton at Eurogamer, for example, even with his penchant for hyperbole). There's no shortage of publications out there who will focus on the inherently bland 'gaming news', or be able to throw out a rushed review for Metacritic purposes. But strong criticism doesn't need to be particularly timely (ain't nothing wrong with a good strong retrospective

), or reliant on press releases - and above all I'd just like to see a few more publications that don't conform so diligently to the hype agenda, and spend more time reflecting on the games after the fact (and not just 'players find neat easter egg!' posts with a YouTube embed

)

Retr0gamer · 24-11-2015 5:57pm

Some actual genuine games journalism really is hard to find. Even Eurogamer is reduced to spewing out neogaf posts and press releases leaving the weekends to opinion pieces and excellent games journalism.

Nody wrote: »

But this also goes the other way with reviewers demanding payment to cover a certain game; TB had a video on it a while back.

I wouldn't call them journalists or reviewers. They are youtubers selling advertising space based on their high subscription rate, basically another form of billboard advertising.

johnny_ultimate · 24-11-2015 6:12pm

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Some actual genuine games journalism really is hard to find. Even Eurogamer is reduced to spewing out neogaf posts and press releases leaving the weekends to opinion pieces and excellent games journalism.

There are practical issues here too, we can never forget. It's unlikely many writers for even the best sites find themselves with much in the way of time or resources to work on in-depth features. Even with that, the dearth of content worthy of an in-depth feature is a major obstacle.

The Eurogamer piece on the Godus 'God', for example, or Kotaku's recent piece on the troubled history of Trails in the Sky - both great 'features' and entertaining behind the scenes reads, but also extraordinary stories. It's a luxury for the writers to stumble across them, let alone being given the resources to follow up on them.

Can't forget the slow demise of print publications too. It's no surprise that a lot of the best writing remains in 'paid-for' journalism like Retro Gamer or Edge, and even then they're just preaching to a smaller and smaller niche. There's something about print too that feels better suited to feature journalism - while various technologies like the iPad have certainly improved the situation, reading a long feature in a browser can feel like more a chore, while the attention deficit online audience only amplifies that!

Robert ninja · 24-11-2015 7:22pm

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Even Eurogamer is reduced to spewing out neogaf posts and press releases leaving the weekends to opinion pieces and excellent games journalism.

I've been really dissapointed with EG's quality these days. THe only reason I ever payed attention was because of their Digital Foundry section. Now all that does is talk about the performance of a game for twice as long as it needs to (to fill some quota I assume) and in the end praise it even if it runs or looks like garbage. They also constantly use language they know to be innacurate and click bait.

"Is Fallout 4 next gen or not?" First of all, there is no announced next generation console hardware. It's current gen. Secondly, yes FO4 it is current gen since it's released on current generation consoles. Sheesh. And they're supposed to be the ones to inform their audience on the tech side of things.

Certain new effects already look dated, but regardless, it has a flexibility most games don't offer, with its wide scope for exploration, and a freedom granted by its dialogue options.

lol

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

There are practical issues here too, we can never forget. It's unlikely many writers for even the best sites find themselves with much in the way of time or resources to work on in-depth features.

It doesn't take much effort to try and contact the people involved in the topic they're talking about... especially when you're payed by the hour to. Phone numbers, email addresses and twitter accounts are pretty easy to get these days. Many times game sites just regurgetate what others are saying or what is pretty much just gossip around the internet, without making any effort what so ever to try and understand the situation themselves more or get even a single unique comment from anyone that matters before they paste it back to their readers.

kearneybobs wrote: »

It's not about being there to 'blow the whistle'. Every story doesn't have to be an exposé.

I agree, then why did they make an articlle making it sound like that's exactly what they did? I wouldn't have said anything until this new article that's nothing but self-pity and them trying to make themselves out to be the underdogs, being cut down by the big bad game companies. When all they really did was announce a game that was already going to be announced and for that didn't get any privledges with the company's marketing arm... which they were never entiteled to in the first place. So there's no 'price' to be payed. The price they really payed for their games journalism was gamergate, but of course that's dead according to them and they'll do anything they can to avoid the topic.

kearneybobs wrote: »

Your hate for Kotaku shouldn't deny them the truth that what they did when they published the details was almost certainly a good thing.

I don't 'hate' Kotaku, I have no respect for them as the journalists they pretend to be because they're under the unmbrella of gawker media. And what they did wasn't a good thing. It wasn't a bad thing either. It was just what games sites do... say, "Hey this new game is coming out." Except in FO4's case it's a game that everyone knew was coming eventually. It wasn't an early announcement of an obscure game or something that everyone wanted a sequel of but never got. I've no issue with the leak, it's just the follow up now and the hypocrisy.

Oh well, their article worked... I'm sure they're getting loads of clicks now.

Links234 · 24-11-2015 7:50pm

Robert ninja wrote: »

memes.gif

This is exactly what I meant when I said poisoning the well, it's not conductive to any discussion, and is emblematic of how certain groups *ahem* have made it much harder to have a serious discussion about games media. Kotaku being a good or bad site is irrelevant to the much broader discussion, yet you're seemingly trying to drag it down a rabbit hole. And to be fair Robert, we've had plenty of conversations here and on the PC Gaming forum, you're far better than this. Regardless of Kotaku being the catalyst, lets have this much broader discussion, it is way more important.

Besides, I don't think anyone is under any illusions about what Kotaku is, they publish 90% fluff pieces, to see any decent content you have to sift through clickbait and posts about "Check out this cool Cosplay/Mod/Video/Gadget" ad nauseum. You can get a 48 piece Chicken McNugget bucket in Japan? Thanks Kotaku, fascinating. Although I agree, this IS a cool cosplay.

That said I probably wouldn't have heard about Yomawari if it weren't for a Kotaku article popping up in my facebook feed, so there's that.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

It's in the pre-release period that the victory of the PR machine is remarkable and likely the envy of PR teams in other industries. They have near absolute control of the media coverage - outside the exceedingly rare times they don't - and frankly have huge amounts of gamers themselves hanging on every word (look at E3, where there's not even a third party - stream host aside - between the potential consumer and the publisher's Gospel). The hype machine is impeccably oiled, and I admire the publications that have opted to de-emphasise it. Part of me even suspects publishers barely care what happens after release, once the pre-orders have been secured and the first couple of days sales are out of the way (and having the media play in a controlled environment rules out the dynamism of the real world). Outside straight-up catastrophes, post-release is an afterthought, as long as the review scores are reasonable.

I think it's even worse than that, because sometimes gamers do the work of the publishers for them in castigating media and reviewers for them, I'm sure we've all seen people lambast reviewers for giving titles less than stellar reviews. I find that's a rather insidious effect of the hype machine, and preorders, it gets people so heavily invested in the product before it's even released. Reviewers who don't toe the line can often be accused of not being objective, as if there were ever such a thing as an objective review in the first place. The emphasis on final scores and metacritic ratings are a problem too, they're so overblown at this point as to be meaningless.

This is one of the reasons why I'm happy I rarely buy new games, initial reviews can be entirely misleading, and hype culture has everyone too invested. I also tend to listen to youtubers like Total Biscuit, I think his WTF is... series is pretty fantastic, and he gives a really good run down about how a game plays and I can get a much better idea if I'll like a game or not than some score.

gizmo · 24-11-2015 8:40pm

Robert ninja wrote: »

It doesn't take much effort to try and contact the people involved in the topic they're talking about... especially when you're payed by the hour to. Phone numbers, email addresses and twitter accounts are pretty easy to get these days. Many times game sites just regurgetate what others are saying or what is pretty much just gossip around the internet, without making any effort what so ever to try and understand the situation themselves more or get even a single unique comment from anyone that matters before they paste it back to their readers.

What people involved in the topic? Individual developers? The chances of one of them risking their job to talk to a journalist are incredibly slim. And the companies themselves? The chances of a journalist getting anything more than a "we do not comment on rumours or speculation" are equally non-existent.

I mean, seriously, did you even read this article which was referenced in Totilo's original piece? Look at the wording used by the Creative Director of Arkane Austin, "press sneak ****s". And the process involved in the story coming out? Tip received, sources followed up on, comment sought from Bethesda and refused before it eventually went to press at which point there was a public denial by the company followed by the internal email which ultimately leaked. What more could they have done there?

Robert ninja wrote: »

I agree, then why did they make an articlle making it sound like that's exactly what they did? I wouldn't have said anything until this new article that's nothing but self-pity and them trying to make themselves out to be the underdogs, being cut down by the big bad game companies. When all they really did was announce a game that was already going to be announced and for that didn't get any privledges with the company's marketing arm... which they were never entiteled to in the first place. So there's no 'price' to be payed. The price they really payed for their games journalism was gamergate, but of course that's dead according to them and they'll do anything they can to avoid the topic.

Totilo explains what triggered the article quite clearly, readers asking why the latest Assassins Creed game wasn't covered, why there as no Fallout 4 review when the embargo was lifted and why they were the only ones to talk about the embargo on the review embargo itself. This article didn't come out of nowhere, there is no suspicious timing here, it directly relates to two high profile releases from the companies involved in the blacklisting.

As for the article itself, I mean outside of the somewhat hyperbolic use of the word "galling" when talking about the lack of response from the publishers in question I can't see how anyone could legitimately find any issue with the piece unless you're almost looking to be offended by something. You may not consider the leaks of Fallout 4 information as "truth" either but it certainly applies to their articles on both the development process behind Doom 4 and the fate for Prey 2, both of which, it should be pointed out, also involved the same publisher in the same year. That's not even mentioning Ubisoft of course. Have people really forgotten about their post-release review embargo from last year's Unity already?

johnny_ultimate · 24-11-2015 8:45pm

Robert ninja wrote: »

The price they really payed for their games journalism was gamergate, but of course that's dead according to them and they'll do anything they can to avoid the topic.

Like the ****ing rest of us, so :pac:

Robert ninja · 24-11-2015 9:22pm

Links234 wrote: »

This is exactly what I meant when I said poisoning the well, it's not conductive to any discussion, and is emblematic of how certain groups *ahem* have made it much harder to have a serious discussion about games media

That gif is sourced from a show that got its information entirely from games media. You saying a quick edit of that is a big deal? I was actually just looking for the gif on its own in google but that one came up and thought it was perfect.

gizmo wrote: »

I can't see how anyone could legitimately find any issue with the piece unless you're almost looking to be offended by something.

Since when is anyone getting offended?

As for the rest of your post, you're responding to what I said about most games sites as if I was referencing the Kotaku article. I wasn't. I already said I have no problem with the original leak.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Like the ****ing rest of us, so :pac:

By talking about games journalism and the relationship between them and what they report on we're already talking about gamergate one way or another.

Links234 · 24-11-2015 9:37pm

Robert ninja wrote: »

By talking about games journalism and the relationship between them and what they report on we're already talking about gamergate one way or another.

No, we're not. We really aren't.

Robert ninja · 24-11-2015 9:51pm

Links234 wrote: »

No, we're not. We really aren't.

Ok if you say so.

kunst nugget · 24-11-2015 10:51pm

Ethics in games journalism is the goofiest subject to ever have become a culture war that led to doxxing and death threats from two sides both trying to outdo each other in the victimhood stakes.

kearneybobs · 24-11-2015 11:06pm

Robert ninja wrote: »

That gif is sourced from a show that got its information entirely from games media. You saying a quick edit of that is a big deal? I was actually just looking for the gif on its own in google but that one came up and thought it was perfect.

I don't think I'm wrong in saying that what Links234 means is, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that we need to remove Kotaku from the equation when discussing this. Instead of Kotaku think 'no name games website'. It allows an all encompassing discussion about the problem at hand, without letting people's biases (positive and negative) get in the way of the bigger discussion to be had.
By posting memes.gif about Kotaku you bring the discussion back to you not liking Kotaku, detracting from a bigger discussion about the relation ships between developers/publishers and ALL games websites. Yes, what Kotaku has done has gotten to this point, but they're not alone in what seems to be endemic in the games/games journalism industry.

gizmo · 24-11-2015 11:07pm

Robert ninja wrote: »

Since when is anyone getting offended?

Perhaps offended is the wrong word but I'm not sure how else to describe it really. I find the lengths you've gone to across both threads to downplay the actions of the publishers involved, criticise the publication rather than focusing on the actual problem at hand and dismiss the article in question, particularly with the language and standard of opposing links used, to be utterly bizarre to be honest.

The positions of most of the threads on KIA too are all over the place, it's almost like many of them think it would have been more ethical for Kotaku to sit on the information they received in each instance for fear of damaging their relationship with the publishers in question rather than printing the stories.

Robert ninja wrote: »

As for the rest of your post, you're responding to what I said about most games sites as if I was referencing the Kotaku article. I wasn't. I already said I have no problem with the original leak.

Not exactly, the article provides a fairly straightforward look at the treatment the press can receive when they're seeking comment from a publisher about information they've received from an outside source. It directly contradicts the section of your reply which I quoted. The fact that the journalist in question was from Kotaku is totally irrelevant in this case as per the email from the Arkane CD.

Robert ninja · 25-11-2015 12:54pm

gizmo wrote: »

Perhaps offended is the wrong word but I'm not sure how else to describe it really. I find the lengths you've gone to across both threads to downplay the actions of the publishers involved, criticise the publication rather than focusing on the actual problem at hand and dismiss the article in question, particularly with the language and standard of opposing links used, to be utterly bizarre to be honest.

The lengths I've gone through? You mean a few clicks?

And what is the actual problem at hand? That the press and the publishers have been too close for too long a time? I can agree on that. Whatever the issue at hand is, have at it. I'm all for more discussion. I'm actually tired of drama in here and want people to get back to the topic everyone seems so desperate to focus on but seem to think I'm some juggernaut in the way.

gizmo wrote: »

The positions of most of the threads on KIA too are all over the place, it's almost like many of them think it would have been more ethical for Kotaku to sit on the information they received in each instance for fear of damaging their relationship with the publishers in question rather than printing the stories.

I don't visit KIA often but I know it's made up of different people so you get different attitudes. No surprise.

gizmo wrote: »

Not exactly, the article provides a fairly straightforward look at the treatment the press can receive when they're seeking comment from a publisher about information they've received from an outside source.

Ok. That treatment is them not being given favors by companies' marketing arms... which doesn't matter. Or shouldn't.

kearneybobs wrote: »

I don't think I'm wrong in saying that what Links234 means is, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that we need to remove Kotaku from the equation when discussing this. Instead of Kotaku think 'no name games website'. It allows an all encompassing discussion about the problem at hand, without letting people's biases (positive and negative) get in the way of the bigger discussion to be had.

k

kearneybobs wrote: »

By posting memes.gif about Kotaku you bring the discussion back to you not liking Kotaku

No I don't, you do. I posted a gif that I thought was funny when I was just looking for a picture from that crappy law and order show. You can laugh at it or ignore it for the shytty tumblr gif it is. I get it, you think it was juvenile or completely not funny, in bad taste, etc. Sorry.

kearneybobs wrote: »

detracting from a bigger discussion about the relation ships between developers/publishers and ALL games websites.

If a gif can distract the entire thread from such an important topic... and not some offensive or pornographic gif, nor a spam of them. Just a single gif. Then you're choosing to be distracted and are taking it way too seriously. Just ad-block or something if you cant handle seeing it. Or watch the video of that original clip... it makes me laugh every damn time I see it without fail.

kearneybobs wrote: »

Yes, what Kotaku has done has gotten to this point, but they're not alone in what seems to be endemic in the games/games journalism industry.

Indeed.

But look lads, no hard feelings. I don't know how I come across online (and I mostly don't care) but I really mean no ill. Maybe its the way I type or my sense of humour. I'm glad to see everyone taking a pretty hard stance on game journalism ethics

despite the GG denial

.

Let's get back on topic, so. Because of Gawker's U-turn on what it wants to write about, does anybody think Kotaku will get shut down? And would the timing be bad because of OP? Perhaps set a bad precedent?

Blacklisting, Integrity in games journalism... At what cost?

Comments