There has been a curious disconnect on this issue versus how most everything else is treated in games media.
The usual practice of reporting on a subject in games media is:
-Get the story out there as quickly as possible, even before all the facts are in, and make updates or corrections to the story later.
-If a rumor is going around that has any shred of believability, report on it while making clear that it is a rumor.
-If an unnamed source is giving an outlet exclusive info, give that info up front and run with the story as if it were fact, while leaving enough wiggle room for the benefit of the doubt.
-If a company representative says something, run with it and give them no benefit of the doubt. Follow-up articles and analysis articles are good to go.
Yet, when it comes to Microsoft's used games and always-online policy, the operating policy has largely been (as explained by many on this board who claim to be games journalists and the coverage from most gaming sites):
-Despite all of this information coming straight from high-level MS employees, let's not report on these things as fact or do any additional probing to find out what really might be going on here.
-Treat these conflicting official statements as rumors and speculation, but let's not do any follow up or analysis articles on what impacts these various proposals might have on the industry at large. At most, we'll write something about how poorly coordinated the messaging was from MS, yet completely ignore the content of what was said (despite the fact that these policies would directly impact tens of millions of gamers!)
-Just maintain silence until Microsoft chooses to talk about it again.
This issue is huge. If MS were to go through with much of what they claimed they would, it would represent the largest shift in the console gaming industry in several years. If ANY issue deserved intense analysis on unconfirmed data (let alone that the information WAS confirmed and came from on-the-record public MS employee statements until they contradicted themselves so much), it would be this one. Requiring an online connection for a games console and restricting lending or reselling of physical copies of games would directly affect tens of millions of game consumers, and yet this issue apparently isn't worth discussing to most games media outlets?
I could see not reporting on the Twitter campaign, but to see wholesale silence on this issue from most games media outlets is inexcusable.
When a decent yet respected journalism outfit such as CNN sees it is fit to accurately report on the state of this issue (despite the fact that CNN has little interest in videogames and famously thought the Wii U Gamepad was an add-on to the original Wii), shouldn't that clue every single games journalism outfit into the fact that this is a big issue and that it is totally fair game to cover and discuss?
