Support NeoGAF

Night_Trekker · May 20, 2013

jschreier said:
2) For over a century now, anonymous sources have been an essential part of investigative journalism in every field. Without anonymous sources, there is no investigative journalism. Do you think people would ever risk their lives and careers to help expose crime and corruption and misdoings if they couldn't speak anonymously?

But the article ultimately had nobody willing to publicly confirm the allegations from the anonymous sources. You can't run an article with no substantial proof and expect people to believe it without asking questions. You can have hundreds of anonymous sources if you like, but that will never make up for verifiable proof.

This is investigative journalism, ladies and gentlemen. This is exactly what people say they want more of in gaming. Every single day, on NeoGAF elsewhere. And now Kotaku is getting backlash because the subject of an unflattering investigative report is denying those unflattering accusations a few days after realizing that his crowdfunding campaign - a campaign that has been sketchy since the beginning - was failing miserably?

No, the backlash is coming from the lack of verifiable sources in the article. Dyack, even if he's a liar and wastrel, was right to point that out.

And how professional of you, to call the campaign "sketchy." Why? Because a bunch of people on the internet irrationally distrusted Dyack and co. based on the very article we're discussing? Are you serious?

Stephen will inevitably have more to say whenever he posts about this on Kotaku. But it's really, really disappointing to see how some of you have been reacting in this thread. Why would any gaming journalist want to do investigative work when the hardcore gaming crowd will immediately attack them (and - holy shit! - put the word "journalism" in scare-quotes) as soon as the subject of an unflattering report issues a denial? You don't need a journalism degree to understand this stuff.

Kotaku ain't the New York Times. Readers have no reason to trust the unsubstantiated claims from Kotaku writers. In fact, we have a lot of good reasons to be skeptical given the site's recent output.

Writing articles like this gets your site hits, and the hits are what pay your bills. And, proof or not, making serious accusations at least superficially makes it look like Kotaku is doing serious journalism. I'm starting to think that's the reasoning behind all Kotaku's "serious" articles lately: to lend the site an air of credibility it hasn't earned.

spindoctor · May 20, 2013

bumclot said:
You don't have to break a source's confidentiality, you take the info they have given you and find someone who is willing to confirm on the record.

Surely if it were that easy all this wouldn't be a problem.

Here's a question... if the editors of Kotaku are satisfied that the information is legit, can they print the story citing anonymous sources or do they have to expose those sources to you as well no matter what?

freddy said:
I think the timing of this article is highly questionable. It's been shopped around for a while but Kotaku decides to publish it right when crowd funding is going on? It leaves a bad taste in my mouth that it's possible Kotaku is trying to scuttle the crowd funding.

It came out a few months ago dude.

Night_Trekker said:
And how professional of you, to call the campaign "sketchy." Why? Because a bunch of people on the internet irrationally distrusted Dyack and co. based on the very article we're discussing? Are you serious?

Umm... let's not forget the rest of his history shall we?

Clov · May 20, 2013

I'm a bit surprised that people on NeoGaf of all places are defending Dyack. While I'm no fan of Kotaku, I think I'll trust them over him in this case. They did their research! It's not as though Dyack has anything to prove them wrong, either. If you want to give Dyack your money, go ahead, but I won't be trusting him with mine.

Night_Trekker · May 20, 2013

spindoctor said:
Surely if it were that easy all this wouldn't be a problem.

Here's a question... if the editors of Kotaku are satisfied that the information is legit, can they print the story citing anonymous sources or do they have to expose those sources to you as well no matter what?

That's a strawman. Nobody is asking Kotaku to out their sources. We're asking them to get some verification we can trust before publishing an article like this. If they want to talk about doing real journalism, that's going to be necessary.

But maybe posting the article as is got them what they wanted anyway?

spindoctor said:
Umm... let's not forget the rest of history shall we?

But how does all of that make the SotE project itself sketchy? It gives people reason to be wary, absolutely. I was not willing to donate at first. But when Precursor is taking steps--like using Kickstarter instead of just their own site, and making and posting this video--to assuage those fears, why does this new company (which Dyack isn't running) still have to be treated like Silicon Knights? Dyack isn't in charge of anything related to business anymore. Does just being in the building mean he's contaminating everybody with project failure?

I have no faith that this project will be successfully funded. I'm almost certain it won't, and not because of the stink of SK's past, either. People just don't care enough to donate enough money, IMO. And Dyack is not my favorite person in the industry. I was here when he lost his shit and was justifiably banned. His behavior was disgustingly juvenile.

But still: new company. New management. Dyack doesn't control the purse strings. So... what really makes the SotE project itself sketchy? If it's just feelings of distrust, Dyack has earned that, without question. But he's not in charge anymore, and he's at least trying to answer some of the questions people have. It's looking less and less "sketchy" by the minute, even if it's obviously a doomed project.

Clov said:
I'm a bit surprised that people on NeoGaf of all places are defending Dyack. While I'm no fan of Kotaku, I think I'll trust them over him in this case. They did their research! It's not as though Dyack has anything to prove them wrong, either. If you want to give Dyack your money, go ahead, but I won't be trusting him with mine.

That's the problem: we have no proof they actually did.

jschreier · May 20, 2013

Margalis said:
The article you claim was just anonymous sources used named sources, public records and the company's own literature. And not just in a tangential way to establish irrelevant factoids - the sources used are key to the piece.

What in the fuck are you talking about?

By the way I only skimmed and only the first third of that article.

You understand that the meat of the story - the allegations that Zell turned the company into a "frat house" - is made up of anonymous sources, correct? Supplementary quotes from analysts and board members help make this a better-rounded story, but they are not the story.

After Mr. Michaels arrived, according to two people at the bar that night, he sat down and said, watch this, and offered the waitress $100 to show him her breasts. The group sat dumbfounded.

Here was this guy, who was responsible for all these people, getting drunk in front of senior people and saying this to a waitress who many of us knew, said one of the Tribune executives present, who declined to be identified because he had left the company and did not want to be quoted criticizing a former employer. I have never seen anything like it.

A woman who used to work at the Tribune Company in a senior position, but did not want to be identified because she now worked at another media company in Chicago, said that Mr. Michaels and Marc Chase, who was brought in to run Tribune Interactive, had a loud conversation on an open balcony above a work area about the sexual suitability of various employees.

The conversation just wafted down on all of the people who were sitting there. She also said that she was present at a meeting where a female executive jovially offered to bring in her assistant to perform a sexual act on someone in a meeting who seemed to be in a bad mood.

A company spokesman said the investigation found that the executive and the woman denied the incident and the inquiry could find no evidence that such an incident had occurred or that any harassment had taken place. But a person who worked in security at the time confirmed to The New York Times that a security guard reported seeing the incident. That person declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the issue.

These are serious allegations, printed in the New York Times based on anonymous sources. That is my point.

Clov · May 20, 2013

Night_Trekker said:
That's the problem: we have no proof they actually did.

We don't have any that they didn't either, do we? We'll get nowhere at this rate.

I guess we'll just have to believe what we want to believe, and I don't think I'll believe Dyack, even though I'm a big fan of Eternal Darkness.

TheBaronOfNA · May 20, 2013

freddy said:
I think the timing of this article is highly questionable. It's been shopped around for a while but Kotaku decides to publish it right when crowd funding is going on? It leaves a bad taste in my mouth that it's possible Kotaku is trying to scuttle the crowd funding.

Wah?

It camed like 6 or 5 months ago...

freddy · May 20, 2013

spindoctor said:
It came out a few months ago dude.

My bad. Then the timing for the answer to the article is suspect then. Looks like they are leveraging this to create some attention.

My apologies to Kotaku.

jschreier · May 20, 2013

Night_Trekker said:
But the article ultimately had nobody willing to publicly confirm the allegations from the anonymous sources. You can't run an article with no substantial proof and expect people to believe it without asking questions. You can have hundreds of anonymous sources if you like, but that will never make up for verifiable proof.

I sure hope you're asking questions! I certainly am. I have no interest in convincing you to believe this story. I am only here to try to address peoples' misconceptions about how this story was handled and how journalism works in general. It's hard not to respond to inane statements like "Why the fuck did Kotaku publish an article that has no sources to back it up? anonymous sources?! Are you kidding me? Game journalism is getting worse every second."

Night_Trekker said:
And how professional of you, to call the campaign "sketchy." Why? Because a bunch of people on the internet irrationally distrusted Dyack and co. based on the very article we're discussing? Are you serious?

This, for starters: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=56968620&postcount=62

Delusibeta · May 20, 2013

I suppose the fundamental point is that Kotaku's name was, is and always will be mud for quite a few posters on here, and everything they do is subsequently wrong and inaccurate in their minds. (Or indeed any other site owned by Gawker, except Lifehacker, which seems to be the exception for most people for some reason).

Night_Trekker · May 20, 2013

Clov said:
We don't have any that they didn't either, do we? We'll get nowhere at this rate. I guess we'll just have to believe what we want to believe, and I don't think I'll believe Dyack, even though I'm a big fan of Eternal Darkness.

Once again: Kotaku made the claims. The burden of proof is on them to verify them and convince us, not on Dyack and co. (or anybody else) to disprove those claims... because we have no reason to believe the claims in the first place!

And at this point, this is less about Dyack's credibility than it is about Kotaku's.

jschreier said:
This, for starters: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=56968620&postcount=62

Which could be proof of malice... or just proof they used standard legal boilerplate when crafting their terms of use. Which is what Precursor said before updating their terms of use page. A poster on GAF even speculated that's what happened before Precursor responded.

And that detail would only be interpreted as sketchy in light of the the claims made by the Kotaku article in question! This is fairly circular logic, don't you think?

Margalis · May 20, 2013

jschreier said:
You understand that the meat of the story - the allegations that Zell turned the company into a "frat house" - is made up of anonymous sources, correct?

You understand that your whole story is made up of anonymous sources, correct?

The meat, the bun, the lettuce and the tray it's served on.

These are serious allegations, printed in the New York Times based on anonymous sources. That is my point.

Nobody is saying you can't use anonymous sources. Kotaku used ONLY used anonymous sources.

Anonymous source says a guy is a sleaze? Well, we have documentation of a previous court case, some extremely fishy language in the company handbook, and extremely inappropriate and sexual press release that probably constitutes sexual harassment by itself, etc. All of those lend credence to the anonymous sources claims.

The NYT piece has all sorts directly relevant falsifiable claims. The piece you are defending has zero.

Kusagari · May 20, 2013

The main sources in the Tribune article might have been anonymous but the named secondary source help back up their believability. It's a vastly different situation than the Kotaku article.

I've worked as a journalist and I think people in this field too often lean on stories with nothing but anonymous sources. It's especially problematic for an outlet like Kotaku which isn't exactly trusted to begin with.

The New York Times can get away with stories like this but when Kotaku can't get a single named source to substantiate what they're reporting then of course people will see red flags.

Clov · May 20, 2013

Night_Trekker said:
Once again: Kotaku made the claims. The burden of proof is on them to verify them and convince us, not on Dyack and co. (or anybody else) to disprove those claims... because we have no reason to believe the claims in the first place!

And at this point, this is less about Dyack's credibility than it is about Kotaku's.

This is a fair enough point, and Kotaku never has been the most credible site. It would be nice if they made some sort of follow-up article to validate the information they uncovered, to put any doubts to rest.

Robertto · May 20, 2013

jschreier said:
I think you have some fundamental misunderstandings here. Let me try to clear a few things up.

1) "Off the record" means that something cannot be used in a story. This was a story that directly quoted eight anonymous people. They were all on the record - they just asked to speak anonymously. There is a big difference.

2) For over a century now, anonymous sources have been an essential part of investigative journalism in every field. Without anonymous sources, there is no investigative journalism. Do you think people would ever risk their lives and careers to help expose crime and corruption and misdoings if they couldn't speak anonymously?

Here's a good example from the most distinguished newspaper in the world. For a story in 2010, the New York Times' David Carr interviewed a ton of current and former employees in order to paint the picture of how Sam Zell ran the Tribune into the ground. There was no documentation. There were no emails. Just Carr's anonymous sources. And these were far more serious allegations than anything in Kotaku's Silicon Knights story: we're talking sexual harassment, among other things. As a reporter for a paper with ridiculously high standards, Carr edited and reported until he knew he had the truth, and he corroborated the details accordingly.

Guess how the Tribune responded? Denial.

This is investigative journalism, ladies and gentlemen. This is exactly what people say they want more of in gaming. Every single day, on NeoGAF elsewhere. And now Kotaku is getting backlash because the subject of an unflattering investigative report is denying those unflattering accusations a few days after realizing that his crowdfunding campaign - a campaign that has been sketchy since the beginning - was failing miserably?

I don't know why Wired (or other outlets) turned down this story, but I do know that Stephen and Andrew edited it a great deal - and reported a lot more - during the months after the email in this thread, which was sent in January of 2012. Kotaku's story was published in October of 2012. This story has been in the works for a very long time, and it looked a lot different in January 2012 than it did when it was published, from what I've seen and heard.

Stephen will inevitably have more to say whenever he posts about this on Kotaku. But it's really, really disappointing to see how some of you have been reacting in this thread. Why would any gaming journalist want to do investigative work when the hardcore gaming crowd will immediately attack them (and - holy shit! - put the word "journalism" in scare-quotes) as soon as the subject of an unflattering report issues a denial? You don't need a journalism degree to understand this stuff.

I want to go on the record, and say i loved the article, i thought it was fantastic, i really do hope for so much more of this type of story, because really all the drama of the gaming industry happens behind closed doors, and what we get to see is this polished façade, of how the PR wants to spin things.

Also shout to stephens big peice on the perth SuperDea, i thought that was brilliant, and needs to be encouraged more.

We have to wade through so much chaff like "top 5 locations we'd like to see a GTA game", or "games that deserve movies", that when a feature with a genuine story and insight behind it should be celebrated.

SupaNaab · May 20, 2013

Shiggy said:
- Average salary 25000-30000$ higher than St.Catherines area and comparable to that at large publishers in larger cities

I've lived in St. Catharines (it's not Catherine) all my life, the average income is very low. I always found it extremely weird how obsessed Dyack is with making it some big gaming hub. By moving to Hamilton he essentially gave up on a very long and stubborn career goal to make his hometown thrive. It seemed to undermine a lot of potential for SK since they could have been in a city like Toronto.

From wikipedia
Poverty
The median total family income of $64,500 for the St. CatharinesNiagara census metropolitan area is the lowest in Ontario (2009).

Night_Trekker · May 20, 2013

Robertto said:
We have to wade through so much chaff like "top 5 locations we'd like to see a GTA game", or "games that deserve movies", that when a feature with a genuine story and insight behind it should be celebrated.

So because most games journalism articles are not even trying to present themselves as anything but puff pieces, we should accept and celebrate unverified claims in articles like this one because the article appears superficially (just lacks the proof) to be a serious works of journalism?

I dunno, my standards are higher than that.

jschreier said:
You understand that the meat of the story - the allegations that Zell turned the company into a "frat house" - is made up of anonymous sources, correct? Supplementary quotes from analysts and board members help make this a better-rounded story, but they are not the story.

But the meat of the story is untrustworthy without the "supplementary quotes." They don't just "make [it] a better-rounded story," they verify the story.

If Kotaku is serious about bringing legitimacy to its games journalism articles, they have to hold themselves to a higher standard than just printing accusations without verification. Anyone can post anonymous quotes. Journalists have to do more than that. If the site's writers continue, in the future, to post similar articles without verified sources, Kotaku will remain, in the eyes of people with actual standards, a tabloid-style enthusiast press blog scrambling for site hits.

Morrigan Stark · May 20, 2013

jschreier said:
This, for starters: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost...0&postcount=62

Uhhh what? They amended that legal stuff long ago by saying they'd refund all donations if the goal wasn't met, and besides, it doesn't make sense to call them sketchy based on the generic "cover-your-ass" legalspeak of the project. All Kickstarters are like that. -_-

shinra-bansho · May 20, 2013

Morrigan Targaryen said:
Uhhh what? They amended that legal stuff long ago by saying they'd refund all donations if the goal wasn't met, and besides, it doesn't make sense to call them sketchy based on the generic "cover-your-ass" legalspeak of the project. All Kickstarters are like that. -_-

Kickstarter itself is based on an all-or-nothing proviso, so it's inaccurate to say that all Kickstarters are like that. The lack of a minimum aggregate goal as a requirement for keeping pledges is distinct. If such language has been removed that's good, but if there was an initial intent to keep any funding, regardless of whether the funding goal was reached that does not instil confidence.

NateDrake · May 20, 2013

shinra-bansho said:
Kickstarter itself is based on an all-or-nothing proviso, so it's inaccurate to say that all Kickstarters are like that. The lack of a minimum aggregate goal as a requirement for keeping pledges is distinct. If such language has been removed that's good, but if there was an initial intent to keep any funding, regardless of whether the funding goal was reached that does not instil confidence.

That wasn't from Kickstarter. That was when it was only on Crowdfunding and it was quickly changed.

Morrigan Stark · May 20, 2013

shinra-bansho said:
Kickstarter itself is based on an all-or-nothing proviso, so it's inaccurate to say that all Kickstarters are like that. The lack of a minimum aggregate goal as a requirement for keeping pledges is distinct. If such language has been removed that's good, but if there was an initial intent to keep any funding, regardless of whether the funding goal was reached that does not instil confidence.

The linked post mentioned the fact that they don't have to give the money back once they start the project even if they don't manage to finish the project. This is true of Kickstarter as well. If a Kickstarter goal is reached, they can keep the money and run and there's not much Kickstarter can do.

NateDrake said:
That wasn't from Kickstarter. That was when it was only on Crowdfunding and it was quickly changed.

Yup.

shinra-bansho · May 20, 2013

Morrigan Targaryen said:
The linked post mentioned the fact that they don't have to give the money back once they start the project even if they don't manage to finish the project. This is true of Kickstarter as well. If a Kickstarter goal is reached, they can keep the money and run and there's not much Kickstarter can do.

I was referring to this part: "Precursor Games will accept donations immediately upon receipt; there is no minimum aggregate goal for funding."

Which appeared to imply that rather than pledges that are only necessitated upon the project being fully funded (as with Kickstarter) these were non-refundable donations, regardless of whether a funding goal was reached. But if such wording has been removed, then it is moot.

Takamura-San · May 20, 2013

I just finished reading the Kotaku Article.

And the whole thing is hearsay.

All of it. There's as of now a single piece of proof on the whole thing.

Now, these are some serious allegations going on there. "This is not Company X is developing this secret game that is going to be announced in E3 kind of thing."

The article is claiming many things without evidence.

-Dyack is ran SK like a dictator.
-He disregards publishers demands.
-He siphoned publisher money to other projects.

And other things... all based on anonymous hearsay.

No wonder wired didn't want to publish this....

So Stephen or Jason... You mean to tell me that those 8 sources could not produce an email that could validate any of these claims? An internal communication sent to employees telling them to devote sources to ED2? Nothing? Yet, you publish this on the back of what could be 8 disgruntled employees?

I have no stake with Dyack, but it seems irresponsible to run this kind of article based on just the information that you had.

element · May 20, 2013

this video is painful to watch.

They really should have opened with Paul and Shawn, then gone to Denis apologizing saying he learned from the mistakes at SK.

Just comes off way too defensive.

Also linking to teach people about Journalism Ethics doesn't help.

Man God · May 20, 2013

Putting extra money into XMD just makes the final days of Silicon Knights look even worse if true. That game makes Too Human look like a masterpiece.

Big-E · May 20, 2013

Really shitty that the article wasn't taken to task when it was released. I think a lot of GAF looked over the faults of the article at the time because of Dyack's persona and reputation. Wired seems to be smart in that they know what they are doing but it seems that Kotaku is more concerned about the clicks than anything else.

Imbarkus · May 20, 2013

Man God said:
Putting extra money into XMD just makes the final days of Silicon Knights look even worse if true. That game makes Too Human look like a masterpiece.

Okay but if Denis is leading in creative capacity, what do the last days of Silicon Knights have to do with the business decisions of this new company?

Man it's like that CEO Paul and COO Shawn aren't even there, the way people talk.

element · May 20, 2013

Man it's like that CEO Paul and COO Shawn aren't even there, the way people talk.

By not opening the video themselves, they empower that messaging that Denis is somehow still in charge.

If they run Precursor, they should have been the ones to open the video, IMO.

I understand their view that the article was so off base that they didn't want to comment, but they did so by letting Denis talk about ethics.

They really shouldn't have attempted to clear all wrongs of the article in this video and discredit the writer. It should have been the new leadership expressing that they have learned a great deal from their time at SK and hope to make great games at Precursor.

bhlaab · May 20, 2013

I'd like to believe you Dyack but you have to understand there's no hard evidence besides one non-credible source.

RoombaDance · May 20, 2013

I won't believe anything until other people in the industry not currently working for Precursor publicly voice support for them. Just a simple "Dyack is always a pleasure to work with" can go a long ways.

I'll give him one thing, the man's smart. If there's one thing people trust less than Dyack, it's Kotaku.

In the end, I don't think this team wants anything more than to make ED2. Who knows if they can actually do it, but they'll be putting everything they can into it.

element · May 20, 2013

I won't believe anything until other people in the industry not currently working for Precursor publicly voice support for them. Just a simple "Dyack is always a pleasure to work with" can go a long ways.

This would go a LONG way!!

RyougaSaotome · May 20, 2013

bhlaab said:
I'd like to believe you Dyack but you have to understand there's no hard evidence besides one non-credible source.

Dying.

Cold. Ice cold.

RoombaDance · May 20, 2013

element said:
This would go a LONG way!!

Has anyone publicly done this? Right now the strongest words in support I've seen are from Jonnyboy117 in this thread.

Mael · May 20, 2013

Well on the one hand kotaku actually earned some respect from me for how they handled the whole Simcity fiasco.
On the other hand an article with serious allegations and no proofs but earsay to back it up is kinda....
Also if what Dyack says is true then someone can verify the following :

- SK put more money into X-Men Destiny than they received from Activision as they wanted it to be better than their last game
- Half way through the project, Dyack sat down with Activision executives and talked about how to improve the game after having paid 2 million more than they got paid
- Activision was stunned by this; they appreciated it and even told Dyack it was not a good business move
- SK had open policy when working with partners; used Perforce and Hansoft; Activision could look at both databases and see which employee worked on what project
- External audits confirmed this

Allegation of why Silicon Knights left Nintendo
- Relationship between Dyack and Nintendo still close
- Iwata recommended that SK would become a second party
- Nintendo and SK went different ways because they wanted to create different types of games
- Nintendo were not oppressive but constructive

Allegation of claims that artists are a "dime a dozen"
- "Nothing could be further from the truth"
- Average salary 25000-30000$ higher than St.Catherines area and comparable to that at large publishers in larger cities
- People like Kevin Gordon would not work with him for over 20 years and many others stayed at SK for 10-15 years

Allegation of Activision demanding to know about staff leaving
- Turnover rate was low
- Former SK employees congratulated to Precursor campaign, Dyack does not believe this would have happened if they were treated poorly

This on the other hand makes a lot of sense if you have 2 brain cells working together :

- Article says that 8 people totalling 45 years of experience were interviewed; Dyack says that people with only 5 years at SK would not know the budget allocation; those people who knew the allocation were not interviewed

As of now it's kinda conflicting and I guess if I was someone who had proof that my company was misusing funds given by a customer and wanted to pay back myformer employer in kind I don't think I'd go see the press more than the judges or the fleeced customer for that...

Jobbs · May 20, 2013

I'm not 100% up on all of this, but I saw it says SK and Nintendo parted ways because they wanted to make different kind of games.

And SK made X-Men Destiny.

SK wanted to make X-men Destiny?

Mael · May 20, 2013

Jobbs said:
I'm not 100% up on all of this, but I saw it says SK and Nintendo parted ways because they wanted to make different kind of games.

And SK made X-Men Destiny.

SK wanted to make X-men Destiny?

What's so hard to understand?
It's an established licence and regardless of how it turned out it could have been an interesting prospect.
That or they really needed the money.

reptilescorpio · May 20, 2013

For what it matters jschreier I don't think Kotaku did anything wrong in this instance and appreciated the work done by those involved.

Jobbs said:
I'm not 100% up on all of this, but I saw it says SK and Nintendo parted ways because they wanted to make different kind of games.

And SK made X-Men Destiny.

SK wanted to make X-men Destiny?

Dyack wanted to make Too Human.

That failed.

So they went to contract work to pay the bills (and the millions eaten up suing Epic).

Very similar thing happened to TimeGate (did their own thing, failed financially, were taken down by suing another company which failed).

Mael · May 20, 2013

reptilescorpio said:
For what it matters jschreier I don't think Kotaku did anything wrong in this instance and appreciated the work done by those involved.

I'm puzzled by this kind of stance too, I mean they basically published a pamphlet againt SK without anything to back it up.
Unless I'm mistaken they didn't even contact SK about it for the piece.

reptilescorpio · May 20, 2013

Mael said:
I'm puzzled by this kind of stance too, I mean they basically published a pamphlet againt SK without anything to back it up.
Unless I'm mistaken they didn't even contact SK about it for the piece.

Writer of article, in a letter to sources.

SK has refused to provide comment

Mael · May 20, 2013

reptilescorpio said:
Writer of article, in a letter to sources.

Then that's terrible PR from SK's part guess they reap what they sow here.
Still I'm finding hard to believe none of the allegations couldn't be corroborated by some other external source, I mean even from a reputable news source I would have trouble taking it that seriously.
So coming from Kotaku...

Inflammable Slinky · May 20, 2013

Mael said:
I'm puzzled by this kind of stance too, I mean they basically published a pamphlet againt SK without anything to back it up.
Unless I'm mistaken they didn't even contact SK about it for the piece.

yknow you can fact-check anonymous sources, right?

it's not like you just go to a message board, copy 8 internet posts, and then run with that.

Bobs Big Boy · May 20, 2013

Story in question aside, this is what I needed to see more of for the Kickstarter. Give us reasons to believe and remove doubts.

On the story, not taking sides. Either way, it's better that the discussion is happening now.

element · May 20, 2013

RoombaDance said:
Has anyone publicly done this? Right now the strongest words in support I've seen are from Jonnyboy117 in this thread.

I haven't seen it, at least not in any scale.

Take Defense Grid 2, there was a clear message of "the industry like these guys, help them", while in this there isn't that same support coming from within the industry.

Margalis · May 20, 2013

Jobbs said:
I'm not 100% up on all of this, but I saw it says SK and Nintendo parted ways because they wanted to make different kind of games.

And SK made X-Men Destiny.

SK wanted to make X-men Destiny?

I'm sure SK wanted to make the stuff that spoke to them like Too Human but developers have to pay the bills. As a small independent developer sometimes you take what you can get.

Mael · May 20, 2013

Inflammable Slinky said:
yknow you can fact-check anonymous sources, right?

it's not like you just go to a message board, copy 8 internet posts, and then run with that.

Well it might as well be there's only the side of the former employees.
Nothing from ATVI, SK or a 3rd party.

KingFire · May 20, 2013

jschreier said:
Do you live in a world in which journalists don't protect their sources? Or do you just have no understanding of what journalism actually is?

This story had eight sources. Verified by both the writer and editor.

I hope you did not major in journalism. If the writer does not have veritable sources/proofs, then the best he can do is find them before publishing his "article." Even the title of the article is so childish and unprofessional. I am not a fan of DD or SK, but that article was really damaging and had many controversial claims, and those claims were unproven.

scytheavatar · May 20, 2013

Omikaru said:
I've had a laugh at Dyack's expense because of his dealings with GAF and the 1up Yours podcast fiasco, but if Kotaku's hatchet job of Dyack and SK was founded on the basis of lies -- and I should add that I'm open to listening to Kotaku's side of the story too, but their explanations had better be good, because some of Dyack's explanations to these allegations are convincing to me -- then I think it's probably the worst thing Kotaku has done in recent memory. Without a doubt.

At any rate, since Dyack has now responded, I think it's fair that we shouldn't let GAF's past dealings with him cloud our evaluation of what he said, just because the Kotaku story confirms our biases. Let's wait and see what Kotaku has to say and go from there.

And if what Dyack says is true, and other outlets rejected the piece where Kotaku accepted it, then it's pretty damning stuff, and goes a long way to confirm the biases (rational or otherwise) that people hold against Kotaku in regards to its quality of reporting, and how low their standards are.

Since Kotaku has done a lot of good stuff lately, especially some of the longer articles written by Jason Schreier and Kirk Hamilton, I hope for their sake that Dyack wasn't unscrupulously attacked like this. I'd probably not read the site again if that's the case.

Even if what that is in the Kotaku article is complete BS why would it make any differences? It's pretty undeniable that Silicon Knights's Legacy of Kain/Eternal Darkness days are ancient history and they have been a complete joke with their efforts in Too Human/X-Men Destiny. And there's not much reason to expect much from a new game with Denis Dyack's name attached.

Jobbs · May 20, 2013

I'm looking at SK's list of games, and honestly, I'm not sure why this name is as familiar to me as it is. They don't seem to actually have any games I consider good personally. And yet Dyack is sort of a well known character. Is this just because of all of the Too Human drama?

edit: eternal darkness was pretty good, my bad.

rakhir · May 20, 2013

This looks to me like a big damage-control video with Dyack just saying "Nooooope" for thirty minutes. After all he has done and said over the years i have no reason to believe him.

I thought that the Kotaku story was really good when i read it months ago. If DD really think they have been defamed he can sue for libel, but i have a feeling he won't do it.

MarkusRJR · May 20, 2013

I see this as two possible situations:

-What Denis saying is true. This means that while they didn't take any money from Activision, they just couldn't produce a quality product. That alone removes any confidence that SOTE will be a quality product. Their last two games they've made on their own were dreadful and the death of SK was entirely their own fault. There is no reason to support SOTE then.

-What Denis said isn't true. This means he is untrustworthy and a liar. That would explain the lack of quality in X-Men Destiny, and that would mean that there is still talent in SK/PG despite their recent poor games. But while there is talent there I would never give my money to fund their game, knowing that the higher ups from SK are involved with PG. I wouldn't know what they'd do with the money and I wouldn't be able to trust them to put out a quality product (money could go elsewhere).

Of course it could just as easily be somewhere in the middle of those two situations. Either way that still means that there isn't a good reason to help fund SOTE. Honestly, he should have just responded to Kotaku's article way before and not treated his fans like shit, then they might have a chance now. They never responded to people on their forums and mostly ignored them until they needed money for SOTE.

Support NeoGAF

Denis Dyack Addresses Kotaku Allegations [Silicon Knights]

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Neo Member

Member

Member

Arrogant Smirk

Member

Member

Arrogant Smirk

Member

Member

Member

Non-Canon Member

Member

As Sartre noted in his contemplation on Hell in No Exit, the true horror is other members.

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Similar threads