• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

The Games Journalism Thread: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

Fantastapotamus

Wrong about commas, wrong about everything
I'd like to believe that it is just poor wording and the image is unintentional but damn.
Saying "Devs are lying about Kickstarter!" and using an image from a current, very popular KS to then link to an article that's not about said KS is pretty low.
 

Zaph

Member
2t4XWPW.png

2je2Epb.png

https://twitter.com/patrickklepek/statuses/602583664111669248

Update (4:50 p.m.): Hey, everyone! The headline for Worth Reading has been changed. How come? Previously, it was written as “Some Kickstarters Are Lying About Game Budgets,” which echoed a line in my piece about how some Kickstarters are “lying” about their budgets. My language was too blunt and, in an attempt to shorthand an article I was highlighting, did a disservice to the Kickstarters whose budgets were being described. While some Kickstarters may be misleading people about their budgets, the ones highlighted in the article I was linking to and referenced in our own article here, have explained to potential backers that the amount of money they’re asking for doesn’t constitute a full budget for their game. Some backers may not realize this, but the information, to some extent, is there. That makes these Kickstarters and their approach worth writing about, and it makes the phenomenon of asking backers for significantly less money than the cost of development worthy of discussion, but it doesn’t constitute lying. I apologize for my mischaracterization.
 

jholmes

Member

This doesn't explain using that Yooka-Laylee picture.

Seriously everyone here was trying to tell me what a genius Patrick Klepek was and Tina Amini had that masturbatory "boom" bullshit when they hired him but nobody can explain to me what's so great about the guy. All I know is he dogpiled on Silent Hills without adding to the discussion and then pulled this bush league crap right here. Far from impressed.
 

gogojira

Member
I like Patrick typically but his whole "scoops" breakout came from a story that had already been broken by another outlet hours before, they just didn't have GB's reach.

Shitty article and a weak apology for a bold and wrong headline.
 

mnz

Unconfirmed Member
I like Patrick typically but his whole "scoops" breakout came from a story that had already been broken by another outlet hours before, they just didn't have GB's reach.

Shitty article and a weak apology for a bold and wrong headline.
That West/Zampella stuff happened before he was at Giant Bomb.
 

gogojira

Member
His nickname for breaking stories and getting the scoop. We can move on from that, I was more focused on the reversal credit and this shitty headline.
 

Zaph

Member
This doesn't explain using that Yooka-Laylee picture.

Seriously everyone here was trying to tell me what a genius Patrick Klepek was and Tina Amini had that masturbatory "boom" bullshit when they hired him but nobody can explain to me what's so great about the guy. All I know is he dogpiled on Silent Hills without adding to the discussion and then pulled this bush league crap right here. Far from impressed.

Patrick's a good guy, but he's kinda been pinned (partially by his own doing) as an investigative journalist like his colleague Jason Schreier. He isn't. His passion seems to be more on the human interest pieces which aren't for everyone. Personally, I just don't care about gaming as a 'culture' to be into that stuff.
 

oti

Banned
I like Patrick typically but his whole "scoops" breakout came from a story that had already been broken by another outlet hours before, they just didn't have GB's reach.

Shitty article and a weak apology for a bold and wrong headline.

Yeah GB really played up the whole MS DRM 180 as if Patrick reported it first. He was the first big name to do so but not the first. I worked for an outlet when it happened and read his article before their site went down. We were pretty much the only German site reporting it right when it happened with the source gone (of course we linked to GB). Happy day for us too.
 
I like Patrick a lot, and I really love his style of writing and his opinions, even when I don't agree. I really value that when he makes a mistake, he's about as honest and public about it as you could hope.

But I didn't, and still don't, like his decision to move to Kotaku. It's just a very odd fit. Honestly, it feels like anytime anyone at Kotaku writes something substantial they're automatically doing themselves a disservice because the structure of the site makes everything disappear so quickly. Kotaku puts out great, well thought out work sometimes, but it's immediately lost amidst the facebook feed of fluff posts. I know I'd be pissed if I spent hours on a thought piece or an interview, and I came to the site an hour later to see it pushed half a page down by posts like "Let's try this new flavor of Oreo"
 

Maiden Voyage

Gold™ Member
I like Patrick a lot, and I really love his style of writing and his opinions, even when I don't agree. I really value that when he makes a mistake, he's about as honest and public about it as you could hope.

But I didn't, and still don't, like his decision to move to Kotaku. It's just a very odd fit. Honestly, it feels like anytime anyone at Kotaku writes something substantial they're automatically doing themselves a disservice because the structure of the site makes everything disappear so quickly. Kotaku puts out great, well thought out work sometimes, but it's immediately lost amidst the facebook feed of fluff posts. I know I'd be pissed if I spent hours on a thought piece or an interview, and I came to the site an hour later to see it pushed half a page down by posts like "Let's try this new flavor of Oreo"

This echoes my thoughts mostly. I don't 'dislike' his decision, he just became harder to follow since I rarely visit Kotaku. He did great work at GB and I'm glad to see his hard work and honesty continue.

I remember him saying that he was playing around with headline styles a few months before he left GB. Though all I could find was a topic at GB where someone pointed out that his style was changing. In retrospect, I think he was experimenting for the same of switching outlets but I generally believe he has good intentions.
 

HowZatOZ

Banned
Twitter

Way different business structure that he has to adapt to. Before he just wrote the story now he was to write it and make sure it gets enough views to keep the bosses happy.
Heh, the "Kotaku" way isn't exactly the best way to get your content across in a headline. Should have just called it something like "A Look Into Kickstarter Game Budgets" but that may not be click bait enough.
 

Jintor

Member
it's the inescapable truth you run into: if you don't clickbait the shit out of your article, you won't get the clicks
 

Fantastapotamus

Wrong about commas, wrong about everything
it's the inescapable truth you run into: if you don't clickbait the shit out of your article, you won't get the clicks

I mean....that's basically Gawker's single business model and they seem to be doing very well.
Doesn't mean you can't critisise it though.
 

jschreier

Member
Twitter

Way different business structure that he has to adapt to. Before he just wrote the story now he was to write it and make sure it gets enough views to keep the bosses happy.
This isn't true. Nobody at Kotaku is under any obligation to get any number of views, and in fact earlier this year our company replaced our old traffic-based bonus system with a metric that gives us bonuses based on the quality of our best stories every month.

The problem here -- a problem every working writer has run into at some point or another -- is that the headline oversimplified a nuanced issue. It happens, especially when a headline is workshopped (as they almost always are) by staffers who haven't read the piece yet. Patrick, who is a workhound and one hell of a reporter, as most of you know, isn't to blame for that.

Also, too many of you are misusing the word clickbait. "Clickbait" refers to a headline that forces you to read the article in order to understand what it's talking about -- think "Fallout 4 Release Date Announced" rather than "Fallout 4 Announced For June" -- not a headline that grabs your attention. Headlines are supposed to catch your eye.
 

Zaph

Member
It happens, especially when a headline is workshopped (as they almost always are) by staffers who haven't read the piece yet

Jason, come on. I've defended Kotaku a fair bit in the past because I think it's one of the few outlets that deserve to call their work games journalism rather than enthusiast press, but maybe that company policy needs workshopping too?
 

duckroll

Member
Also, too many of you are misusing the word clickbait. "Clickbait" refers to a headline that forces you to read the article in order to understand what it's talking about -- think "Fallout 4 Release Date Announced" rather than "Fallout 4 Announced For June" -- not a headline that grabs your attention. Headlines are supposed to catch your eye.

Would you prefer the term "flamebait" then? Because I think what people try to get across is not so much the attention grabbing part of it, but how certain headlines are deceptively engineered to make people feel either outraged or validated on a touchy subject. It's what tabloids do all the time.
 

jschreier

Member
Jason, come on. I've defended Kotaku a fair bit in the past because I think it's one of the few outlets that deserve to call their work games journalism rather than enthusiast press, but maybe that company policy needs workshopping too?
Nah, workshopping our headlines makes them way better. This was just an unfortunate convergence of negative factors: it was a half-day; it was a piece directing people to go read other articles (and therefore way harder to summarize in a headline); the image didn't really fit, etc. Again, it happens. We're more transparent about our mistakes than most, but Patrick really doesn't deserve the shit he's been getting (although I see that GamerGate got involved, which explains a lot).
 

Zaph

Member
Nah, workshopping our headlines makes them way better. This was just an unfortunate convergence of negative factors: it was a half-day; it was a piece directing people to go read other articles (and therefore way harder to summarize in a headline); the image didn't really fit, etc. Again, it happens. We're more transparent about our mistakes than most, but Patrick really doesn't deserve the shit he's been getting (although I see that GamerGate got involved, which explains a lot).

It wasn't the workshopping part, as you know peer review is common practice at most publications, but doing so without reading the piece.
 
did the definition of "clickbait" change or am i missing something? is there an official source on it?
This isn't true. Nobody at Kotaku is under any obligation to get any number of views, and in fact earlier this year our company replaced our old traffic-based bonus system with a metric that gives us bonuses based on the quality of our best stories every month.

The problem here -- a problem every working writer has run into at some point or another -- is that the headline oversimplified a nuanced issue. It happens, especially when a headline is workshopped (as they almost always are) by staffers who haven't read the piece yet. Patrick, who is a workhound and one hell of a reporter, as most of you know, isn't to blame for that.

Also, too many of you are misusing the word clickbait. "Clickbait" refers to a headline that forces you to read the article in order to understand what it's talking about -- think "Fallout 4 Release Date Announced" rather than "Fallout 4 Announced For June" -- not a headline that grabs your attention. Headlines are supposed to catch your eye.

so what this tells me that the business of Kotaku isn't 100% genuine and some cooking is made to ensure the maximum amount of hits. I'm not naive enough to know it hasn't always been this way or standard in other businesses. you gotta do you.

you are an entertainment system based on hits, and you gotta maximize how you can. but take into account that now that's basically 2 confirmations that things aren't all peachy and honest at kotaku from you and patrick. The "kotaku way" where headlines are not double-checked for accuracy, but for potential readership.

but keep handwaving it as a passee goof.

Nah, workshopping our headlines makes them way better. This was just an unfortunate convergence of negative factors: it was a half-day; it was a piece directing people to go read other articles (and therefore way harder to summarize in a headline); the image didn't really fit, etc. Again, it happens. We're more transparent about our mistakes than most, but Patrick really doesn't deserve the shit he's been getting (although I see that GamerGate got involved, which explains a lot).

oh no we got exposed, better blame it on gamergate!
 

Stumpokapow

listen to the mad man
Also, too many of you are misusing the word clickbait. "Clickbait" refers to a headline that forces you to read the article in order to understand what it's talking about -- think "Fallout 4 Release Date Announced" rather than "Fallout 4 Announced For June" -- not a headline that grabs your attention. Headlines are supposed to catch your eye.

I view clickbait as two separate but intertwined categories of inflammatory and misleading content:
1) Content that obfuscates the purpose of the article in order to compel clicks ("The Outrageous Thing One US Senator Did") -- HuffPo is probably the most extreme example of this practice, but you guys do it too. That headline could be "Nintendo Makes Games Seem Cheaper in Japan by Not Including Tax" and the reason the premise is buried is because fewer people would click if they knew it was a pedantic thing about tax-included pricing policies. Like, this is literally a headline in the vein of "One Weird Trick".

2) Content that makes a deliberately inflammatory or extreme point to lure interest ("Watch_Dogs is the worst game I've ever played!") that is not sustained by the content of the article's argument. Which is what this article was, and is a lot of what people allege gaming sites do routinely at this point.

The ways in which they are different are obvious, but the ways in which they are similar merits them both the label. In both cases, the headline sacrifices a reader's ability to infer the thrust of the article from the headline in such a way that drives more clicks while lowering user satisfaction. They are both techniques that rely on a measure of deception, in other words.

If you've gotta do it to keep your job, I guess you've gotta do it to keep your job. The business is what it is at this point. But let's not pretend it's doing the readers a service.
 
Nah, workshopping our headlines makes them way better. This was just an unfortunate convergence of negative factors: it was a half-day; it was a piece directing people to go read other articles (and therefore way harder to summarize in a headline); the image didn't really fit, etc.

The specific headline is messed up, yes, but the real core problem is that the piece it's based on is extraordinarily poor. Personally I'm less interested in how the headline got fucked up (which we all agree it did, and can all see an easy fix for) than why a poorly supported piece like that got spotlighted in the first place.
 

Fantastapotamus

Wrong about commas, wrong about everything
This isn't true. Nobody at Kotaku is under any obligation to get any number of views, and in fact earlier this year our company replaced our old traffic-based bonus system with a metric that gives us bonuses based on the quality of our best stories every month.

The problem here -- a problem every working writer has run into at some point or another -- is that the headline oversimplified a nuanced issue. It happens, especially when a headline is workshopped (as they almost always are) by staffers who haven't read the piece yet. Patrick, who is a workhound and one hell of a reporter, as most of you know, isn't to blame for that.

Also, too many of you are misusing the word clickbait. "Clickbait" refers to a headline that forces you to read the article in order to understand what it's talking about -- think "Fallout 4 Release Date Announced" rather than "Fallout 4 Announced For June" -- not a headline that grabs your attention. Headlines are supposed to catch your eye.

Come on now.
Choosing the headline "Kickstarter are lying about game budgets" and including an image from the biggst current Kickstarter is totally a clickbait title.
First thought pretty much everyone had when seeing this was "Oh shit, the Yooka Laylee peopel are lying to us?" Don't tell me the title made it clear what that article was about.

Good on Patrick for apologizing and changing it but it was totally a clickbait title. Whether intentional or not.

The specific headline is messed up, yes, but the real core problem is that the piece it's based on is extraordinarily poor. Personally I'm less interested in how the headline got fucked up (which we all agree it did, and can all see an easy fix for) than why a poorly supported piece like that got spotlighted in the first place.

Yeah, this too.
That Polygon article was really not "worth reading"
 
N

Noray

Unconfirmed Member
I like Klepek a lot, but Kotaku's been nothing bad a bad influence. "Konami Sucks" is a headline? Really? Come the fuck on.
 

jschreier

Member
I view clickbait as two separate but intertwined categories of inflammatory and misleading content:
1) Content that obfuscates the purpose of the article in order to compel clicks ("The Outrageous Thing One US Senator Did") -- HuffPo is probably the most extreme example of this practice, but you guys do it too. That headline could be "Nintendo Makes Games Seem Cheaper in Japan by Not Including Tax" and the reason the premise is buried is because fewer people would click if they knew it was a pedantic thing about tax-included pricing policies. Like, this is literally a headline in the vein of "One Weird Trick".
Actually, I think that headline is fine. The story isn't that they make their games seem cheaper by not including taxes; it's that they list those games next to third-party games that do include taxes, therefore making first-party titles seem cheaper. That's a bit hard to sum up in an article's title, so I don't really see a problem with angling it as a "How [Thing Happens]." By nature any article title that includes an interrogative word -- even if it doesn't ask a question -- is going to require readers to open the article for a proper explanation, so to some extent that is indeed "clickbait," but this strikes me as harmless because you don't feel cheated once you've read it. You don't feel like you had to click just to get information that could've been summed up in the headline.

That's the key, right? A headline has to resonate and draw people without making them feel misled or aggravated once they actually see the article. It's a task easier said than done, and there's a wide margin between boring and baity, but what's most important from a media outlet's perspective is to make readers feel like a given article was worth their time. I used the release date example because "[Game] Release Date Revealed" is one of the most frustrating headlines I can imagine -- it actively aggravates readers and wastes their time for the sake of a click. If something can be summed up nicely in the headline without sacrificing punchiness or quality, then it should be.

2) Content that makes a deliberately inflammatory or extreme point to lure interest ("Watch_Dogs is the worst game I've ever played!") that is not sustained by the content of the article's argument. Which is what this article was, and is a lot of what people allege gaming sites do routinely at this point.

The ways in which they are different are obvious, but the ways in which they are similar merits them both the label. In both cases, the headline sacrifices a reader's ability to infer the thrust of the article from the headline in such a way that drives more clicks while lowering user satisfaction. They are both techniques that rely on a measure of deception, in other words.

If you've gotta do it to keep your job, I guess you've gotta do it to keep your job. The business is what it is at this point. But let's not pretend it's doing the readers a service.

I think there's a big difference between being hyperbolic to get attention and using inflammatory language to make a point. A headline like "Konami Sucks" or "Fuck Pre-Orders" can enhance an editorial's argument, assuming that argument is passionate and cogent. Headlines are most effective -- not just at driving readers but as rhetorical techniques -- when they're brutally honest and written in the way people actually talk to one another. They just can't be misleading (whether or not that's intentional), as the headline was in this case.

Besides, driving clicks at the cost of user satisfaction is not a sustainable business model. Upworthy had a meteoric fall because Facebook changed its algorithms to cut down on that type of soulless click-mongering. And although Kotaku has certainly run bad headlines over the years, I think our readership has grown so significantly (from ~5m readers/month in 2012 to ~12m in 2015) because we publish interesting things.
 
Actually, I think that headline is fine. The story isn't that they make their games seem cheaper by not including taxes; it's that they list those games next to third-party games that do include taxes, therefore making first-party titles seem cheaper. That's a bit hard to sum up in an article's title, so I don't really see a problem with angling it as a "How [Thing Happens]." By nature any article title that includes an interrogative word -- even if it doesn't ask a question -- is going to require readers to open the article for a proper explanation, so to some extent that is indeed "clickbait," but this strikes me as harmless because you don't feel cheated once you've read it. You don't feel like you had to click just to get information that could've been summed up in the headline.

That's the key, right? A headline has to resonate and draw people without making them feel misled or aggravated once they actually see the article. It's a task easier said than done, and there's a wide margin between boring and baity, but what's most important from a media outlet's perspective is to make readers feel like a given article was worth their time. I used the release date example because "[Game] Release Date Revealed" is one of the most frustrating headlines I can imagine -- it actively aggravates readers and wastes their time for the sake of a click. If something can be summed up nicely in the headline without sacrificing punchiness or quality, then it should be.



I think there's a big difference between being hyperbolic to get attention and using inflammatory language to make a point. A headline like "Konami Sucks" or "Fuck Pre-Orders" can enhance an editorial's argument, assuming that argument is passionate and cogent. Headlines are most effective -- not just at driving readers but as rhetorical techniques -- when they're brutally honest and written in the way people actually talk to one another. They just can't be misleading (whether or not that's intentional), as the headline was in this case.

Besides, driving clicks at the cost of user satisfaction is not a sustainable business model. Upworthy had a meteoric fall because Facebook changed its algorithms to cut down on that type of soulless click-mongering. And although Kotaku has certainly run bad headlines over the years, I think our readership has grown so significantly (from ~5m readers/month in 2012 to ~12m in 2015) because we publish interesting things.

You win! I guess we can lock the thread. Case closed!
 
I hope this is ok to discuss in this thread.

IGN:

An anonymous source has reportedly told Rooster Teeth that Microsoft is in talks with Konami to purchase and release Silent Hills as an Xbox One exclusive.

We reached out for clarification and were told "Microsoft does not comment on rumor or speculation." We have also reached out to Konami and will update you when we know more.
According to Rooster Teeth's source, Silent Hills is 80% complete, and Microsoft is trying to purchase the property for "billions" of dollars by E3 this year – where it will officially reveal the game as an Xbox One exclusive. It could reportedly be released as soon as March 2016.

Konami pulled the PT demo for Silent Hills from the PlayStation Store "as a show of good faith to Microsoft," Rooster Teeth said.

The author, Brian Albert, defends the piece on Twitter:



I'm faced with a few questions.

1- If a comedy site like Rooster Teeth does a video about an anonymous tip they got, and even they don't seem to believe it, should you, as a games journalist, write a story about it?

2- If the credentials of the supposed anonymous tipster are only that he/she once correctly guessed that there would be a Kinectless Xbox, does that make them more or less credible than the average person of the street?

3- Is publishing an article about a rumor of which, arguably, not a single part makes any sense at all, responsible games journalism?
 

Stumpokapow

listen to the mad man
total embarrassment anyone would cover this, it's a transparently stupid, idiotic claim, and "i don't think it's true but i posted it anyway because why not" is a standard that gets GAF members juniored

Brief moment of sanity:
- The game is not 80% done, KojiPro has been working on MGS5
- You can't "buy the game", you'd need to get the team to make it. MS doesn't have a spare team, so is MS buying KojiPro? Why would they do so?
- Billions of dollars is probably an order of magnitude more than the total gross, let alone profit, of the entire Silent Hill series so far

If the rumour was "MS working with Konami to co-publish Silent Hills so the game gets made", that would be moderately more believable.

But when all the details are fan rumour tier, and the reporting is coming from a completely anonymous source, not even identified by his or her company or position... why would anyone cover it?
 
Plenty of red flags about that rumour but does Rooster Teeth break stories all that much? Is this a thing they do?

Now really a site I think of when I think rumours and breaking stories. Dont think I have ever been directed their way when it came to a story... ever.
 
Plenty of red flags about that rumour but does Rooster Teeth break stories all that much? Is this a thing they do?

Now really a site I think of when I think rumours and breaking stories. Dont think I have ever been directed their way when it came to a story... ever.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they just made up the dumbest rumor they could think of to see who would take the bait. Like when CAG fooled Kotaku a number of years ago about the Xbox Granite.

http://kotaku.com/5052203/what-is-the-xbox-pure-update
 
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they just made up the dumbest rumor they could think of to see who would take the bait. Like when CAG fooled Kotaku a number of years ago about the Xbox Granite.

http://kotaku.com/5052203/what-is-the-xbox-pure-update

Well I looked up the video where they broke this story and Edit. actually I miss heard. They sad Bag... not a word that sounds like Bag.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACGy46iB58k

And the rest of the channel is random clickbait or your standard gaming youtube stuff of a nerdy attractive girls recapping the days stories which is what it is. Looking at their past videos they dont exactly spout rumour bullshit like this on the regular so its worth mentioning this is out of character for them.

https://www.youtube.com/user/know/videos


Anyway everything being said I wouldnt trust this source or run this story on my site if I ran a news section.
 

Sayers

Member
Didn't IGN make a big deal about how they were overhauling the way they report on rumors after The Last Guardian cancellation embarrassment? Now they are reporting a rumor they admit sounds bogus and are working to confirm it AFTER they report it.
 
Didn't IGN make a big deal about how they were overhauling the way they report on rumors after The Last Guardian cancellation embarrassment? Now they are reporting a rumor they admit sounds bogus and are working to confirm it AFTER they report it.

those clicks though

Talking about overhauling the way they report is just damage control.
 

Fantastapotamus

Wrong about commas, wrong about everything
Stuff like this is just embarrassing.
Saying "Hey, 85% of the informations seems like BS but I think parts of it *could* be real so let's publish this story" is just fucking ludicrous.
What this really is is "Hey, people like to read about Silent Hills, let's publish this stupid thing somebody said on the internet and people will read it!"

I can just claim that we will see Voodoo Vince 2 at E3, developed by former members of Team Silent, coming to XBone in September 2015. It's an FPS now though.
Don't worry, an anonymous source told me. And hey, *parts* of it *could* be real, right?
 
Didn't IGN make a big deal about how they were overhauling the way they report on rumors after The Last Guardian cancellation embarrassment? Now they are reporting a rumor they admit sounds bogus and are working to confirm it AFTER they report it.
I honestly don't think they care, unlike some sites out there. They got their clicks.
 
I hope this is ok to discuss in this thread.

IGN:




The author, Brian Albert, defends the piece on Twitter:



I'm faced with a few questions.

1- If a comedy site like Rooster Teeth does a video about an anonymous tip they got, and even they don't seem to believe it, should you, as a games journalist, write a story about it?

2- If the credentials of the supposed anonymous tipster are only that he/she once correctly guessed that there would be a Kinectless Xbox, does that make them more or less credible than the average person of the street?

3- Is publishing an article about a rumor of which, arguably, not a single part makes any sense at all, responsible games journalism?

I wish he would've answered which parts of it seemed realistic. Konami issued a statement to IGN, the site that he works for, yesterday morning to tell them that they were still going to be making games in the Silent Hill series. This was before the rumor even hit. Yet by the evening they were running a rumor that claimed that Konami was selling the IP. So just the idea that Konami would be selling it didn't even make sense. Another aspect of the rumor is that they claimed that P.T. was removed from PSN because of the buyout. But you can still buy multiple Silent Hill games and other things like avatars and themes from PSN.

So how hard do you really need to work to disprove a rumor when there isn't even a single aspect of it that made sense?
 

Morrigan Stark

Arrogant Smirk
Embarrassing moment from IGN, and even more embarrassing is this journalist tweeting that he's not embarrassed when he clearly should suck it up and admit it was a mistake. smh
 
The Last Guardian debacle was way more embarrassing because they used the word "officially" in their headline, even after Sony publicly said it wasnt cancelled. So they had a headline that said "Rumor: The Last Guardian officially cancelled."
 
Top Bottom