Strawman. You can require disclosure of Patreon backing (as Polygon has done) without banning it altogether.
-
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.
Games Journalism! Wainwright/Florence/Tomb Raider/Eurogamer/Libel Threats/Doritos
- Thread starter papersleeves
- Start date
- Status
Strawman. You can require disclosure of Patreon backing (as Polygon has done) without banning it altogether.
Some of those tweets -- this one in particular -- are rather misleading. We've always had procedures in place to avoid conflicts of interest with bigger game developers. We're not interested in discriminating against indies or anyone else.
But whatever, I feel like I've said my piece in this thread. TL;DR -- I believe it's important for game journalists to separate themselves from any sort of journalist/developer clique or bubble.
i think part of the problem is how vital connections are in this industry in terms of getting work and information. nobody seems entirely willing to cut the cord because of how much of a symbiotic relationship exists between games development and the enthusiast press. i'm of the belief that nobody truly goes into games "journalism" to do the journalism part of the job. they want to cover games sure, but i don't think very many want to put in the time, effort, or invest in the massive self restraint required to do the journalism side of things properly and as professionally as possible.
they want to know the scoops early, they want to play the games before they come out, they want to chum it up with industry figures they admire, they want to go to the events like e3/pax/gdc/gamescom/tgs, they want a supposedly fun job where they can make money off of commentating on their favourite pastime, or they eventually want to use working in the press as a stepping stone to actually making video games. and that's kind of the problem, because it breeds complacency, it grooms these people to accept a status quo of "this is how things are and they will not change", and how you have to play the game to succeed, be nice to publishers, socialise, get involved with people, make friends.
i don't think there's any direct bribery in the enthusiast press at all (though somebody really needs to look at advertising on press sites a lot more closely), but there's a big game of capturing hearts and minds at play. publishers want journalists to buy into the hype as much as they want regular consumers to do, because if the hype game works they're going to get a good review, and good reviews do help push games. as a result, the press are often coddled and coerced with free swag, previews, review events, launch parties, etc. no, they aren't getting big fat cardboard cheques or brown paper bags full of money, but like i said, it's a hearts and minds game, it's all about the little things, and all about the treats swaying the subconscious into associating positive feeling with a product or a team. they get involved with the developers, they talk to them, they might even make friends with them, they get personal too. there's a psychology to this, and while i don't think there's a crack team of behavioural psychologists working in a publisher's marketing department to find ways to make the press soft on their products, i think publishers are aware that if they treat the press nicely they will receive some degree of favourable treatment that may enhance or complement the hype they've already built with them.
when something in this plan goes wrong on the consumer back-end (i.e the mass effect 3 ending), the press are kind of the first line of defence for the publisher whether they know it or not. they have bought into the hype game and have made some level of personal connection with the developers to have created a personal involvement that they feel the need to defend the game as if they are defending themselves (e.g calling people entitled when they are displeased with the product). it makes for a worrying precedent when vocal groups of consumers are vilified for not liking something or feel like they were lied to (in the case of me3, they definitely were lied to).
ideally the press and publishers alike need to create a wedge so this doesn't happen. they both need to understand the consumer more and stop treating them as fickle or dumb. they buy your stuff, they give you the page clicks, treat them more with respect. but they won't though, because this press/publisher relationship really works best for the both of them, and there's a tremendous power in that. it also makes both of them a lot of money. no amounts of boycotts or petitions or internet outrage will put a major dent in either of them. it's up to the press and publishers to do the right thing and create some separation.
but they won't.
they want to know the scoops early, they want to play the games before they come out, they want to chum it up with industry figures they admire, they want to go to the events like e3/pax/gdc/gamescom/tgs, they want a supposedly fun job where they can make money off of commentating on their favourite pastime, or they eventually want to use working in the press as a stepping stone to actually making video games. and that's kind of the problem, because it breeds complacency, it grooms these people to accept a status quo of "this is how things are and they will not change", and how you have to play the game to succeed, be nice to publishers, socialise, get involved with people, make friends.
i don't think there's any direct bribery in the enthusiast press at all (though somebody really needs to look at advertising on press sites a lot more closely), but there's a big game of capturing hearts and minds at play. publishers want journalists to buy into the hype as much as they want regular consumers to do, because if the hype game works they're going to get a good review, and good reviews do help push games. as a result, the press are often coddled and coerced with free swag, previews, review events, launch parties, etc. no, they aren't getting big fat cardboard cheques or brown paper bags full of money, but like i said, it's a hearts and minds game, it's all about the little things, and all about the treats swaying the subconscious into associating positive feeling with a product or a team. they get involved with the developers, they talk to them, they might even make friends with them, they get personal too. there's a psychology to this, and while i don't think there's a crack team of behavioural psychologists working in a publisher's marketing department to find ways to make the press soft on their products, i think publishers are aware that if they treat the press nicely they will receive some degree of favourable treatment that may enhance or complement the hype they've already built with them.
when something in this plan goes wrong on the consumer back-end (i.e the mass effect 3 ending), the press are kind of the first line of defence for the publisher whether they know it or not. they have bought into the hype game and have made some level of personal connection with the developers to have created a personal involvement that they feel the need to defend the game as if they are defending themselves (e.g calling people entitled when they are displeased with the product). it makes for a worrying precedent when vocal groups of consumers are vilified for not liking something or feel like they were lied to (in the case of me3, they definitely were lied to).
ideally the press and publishers alike need to create a wedge so this doesn't happen. they both need to understand the consumer more and stop treating them as fickle or dumb. they buy your stuff, they give you the page clicks, treat them more with respect. but they won't though, because this press/publisher relationship really works best for the both of them, and there's a tremendous power in that. it also makes both of them a lot of money. no amounts of boycotts or petitions or internet outrage will put a major dent in either of them. it's up to the press and publishers to do the right thing and create some separation.
but they won't.
DISCLAIMER: this does not apply to all press outlets or publishers. i am also aware this happens in other forms of media press and is an inherent problem due to the fact big money can be made from both selling a product and covering it via a website or magazine.
Lowlander2
Banned
From what I gather, the rulebooks, particularly in matters of legal infringement, were passed down from rulings of court records, penned by tribunals similar to the manner in which a bill is formed. The big one over here in Australia is the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance's (MEAA) Code of Ethics.
My media ethics and law classes were forged less from demonstrating what the correct plan of action is and more a demonstration of several case studies of previous errors, and the consequences of those errors, and a great number of these were around the time News of the World fell apart. There's something to be said about how media law is forged from court records and little else, and this has been a HUGE debate, particularly when it comes to whistleblower regulations, but given the code is privy to update lobbying every couple of years, and the code as is emphasises more airy guidelines than objective, hardline rules ("Do not allow (X) to undermine your accuracy, fairness or independence"), it does its job.
just because they're unbelievably awful and spewing horrible, hateful garbage doesn't mean that they can't flag up legitimate ideas. i mean al-qaeda have legitimate points. the response seems to be 'don't negotiate with terrorists', but listening and engaging even when you disagree on fundamentals isn't the same as pandering.
i think ultimately yes, you don't want to marginalize voices that are already marginalized. but i don't really understand how this is a serious blow to patreon and supporting independent developers. kotaku doesn't have that many writers, not that much is taken out of the pockets, and this doesn't preclude them from covering those people and signal boosting. if anything, removing the financial link can give them the freedom to do more coverage without it all feeling incestuous (if totilo is courageous about it, anyway).
Strawman:
"Misrepresenting someone's argument to make it easier to attack."
Your argument was that "Keogh and others" implied Kotaku was caving to "misogynistic anti-Zoe Quinn mobs". I agreed with your assessment and posited that this notion will be used to silence anyone requesting transparency in reporting.
I don't think it is a serious blow; I just think it's a dubiously arbitrary place to draw the line in the name of "objectivity."
RedNumberFive
Banned
That's probably for the best considering all the freelance PR they do for their bros. They are so compromised that they just need to cut the pretense and embrace it.
I'm sorry but anyone who uses twitter to argue isnt actually looking to express a well thought out idea, they are just drive by pot shots. And if anyone things that staying away from possible impropriety is misogynistic, imo, they are politically motivated and has less to do with the reality of the situation. I'd say if you are going to critique Kotaku on anything, it's that they still allow donations to kickstarter which has just as much if not more so potential to have impropriety going on.
I think they need to accept they're on the wrong side of things. They can play down their reviews all they like, but they exert a huge amount of influence through the podcast, quick looks etc.
Shame really, I like GB
Kind of baffled to see this thread again, but it's probably a good place to note that Rab has acquired the rights to Independent Charles from Microsoft and will be creating new episodes. Also, there was some kind of videogame houseparty in a pub at the weekend that I'm deeply disappointed to have missed.
It's neither arbitrary (imho) nor in the name of "objectivity." They do it because funding someone's livelihood has a different quality than funding someone's project. It means being slightly too close to a person they are supposed to cover and it creates an unnecessary dependency between the journalist and the artist. And Kotaku does it in the name of "potential conflicts of interest."
But none of this matters in the grand scheme of things. The main locus of video game reporting has shifted from websites to YouTube personalities. And the multi-channel networks that own their videos don't seem to give a damn about any kind of ethics, incl. conflicts of interest.
I disagree. Both are a problem, because you(Kotaku/any game website) probably are going to cover it. The problem then becomes you(Kotaku) having employee's who have invested into a project and then teh consumer has to assume you are able to maintain the same level of objectivity(when having perfect objectivity is already impossible in a subjective field).
I agree that bothinvesting in a person or in a projectare at least a potential problem and that websites should avoid doing it, or at least have disclaimers about it. The difference, imo, is that investing in a person creates a stronger, more personal bond between the journalist and the artist, and therefore its worse than financially supporting a Kickstarter. But I have no real evidence at hand to back that up.
I think anytime you invest money into something you are clouding what the consumer trust is untainted opinion. Regardless of what you think is worse you are still pretty much saying "trust me, I can handle this". There is enough stuff in all forms of life that shows, that type of mindset rarely works out in favor of the reader. People like to believe they are above the influence... most of the time people are wrong, imo(just not in ways that are easily recognizable) and I think there are enough studies out there to show that your environment and actions effect you in more ways then what is empirically available.
Delusibeta
Banned
On the one hand, I am uncomfortable with games writers kickstarting games and Patreoning developers due to the high emotional investment they (and anyone else who kickstarts games and Patreoning developers) have made. On the other hand, games writers are all hype(wo)men, and the reputation of the industry has been long eroded by hyperbolic previews, news indistinguishable from PR and reviews that are blatantly influenced by launch hype. Half of a dozen of one, six of the other, tbh.
Ultimately, I believe games journalism as we know it is on its last legs, and the something-for-everyone approach exhibited by sites such as Kotaku will be replaced by PR direct from publishers and developers, GiantBomb-esque personality driven sites and specialists dedicating in certain areas (e.g. feminist criticism of video games, or sites dedicated to indie games, for sake of example) funded primarily by crowdfunding and (ironically) Patreon (and whatever services supplant it). Gamespot, for example, is definitely moving towards the GiantBomb model (apparently because they are regularly getting fewer hits than GiantBomb).
Bonus point: literally anyone can be a games journalist (even The Mittani), and the point where the term is redundant has long since passed. It's a bit like "indie games", to be honest: the term has outlived it's usefulness.
Ultimately, I believe games journalism as we know it is on its last legs, and the something-for-everyone approach exhibited by sites such as Kotaku will be replaced by PR direct from publishers and developers, GiantBomb-esque personality driven sites and specialists dedicating in certain areas (e.g. feminist criticism of video games, or sites dedicated to indie games, for sake of example) funded primarily by crowdfunding and (ironically) Patreon (and whatever services supplant it). Gamespot, for example, is definitely moving towards the GiantBomb model (apparently because they are regularly getting fewer hits than GiantBomb).
Bonus point: literally anyone can be a games journalist (even The Mittani), and the point where the term is redundant has long since passed. It's a bit like "indie games", to be honest: the term has outlived it's usefulness.
PedroLumpy
Member
Well, with GB I've felt they're pretty good with disclosing their ties. Personally, I prefer disclosure and leave it to the reader to judge. But I can understand the outright bannings of certain behavior.
No, what giantbomb does is fine, they are an op-ed with no real "reporting" so you dont really have to worry about them being dishonest about a report, because they dont really do it. However if they ever really get in reporting it will be a problem. The only issue is they do reviews, honestly, and it isnt even that they do review's honestly it is more a problem with the industry putting weight values on those reviews. I'd say if Giantbomb could take themselves off metacritic it would no longer be an issue, full stop.
BennyBlanco
aka IMurRIVAL69
What ever happened to Rab Florence?
DryvBy
Member
I love GB (only gaming site I visit outside of GAF), but their podcast isn't influencing anyone to buy anything with Jeff being on it. Jeff hates practically everything.
funkystudent
Member
I remember when Double Fine had some f2p IOS game out and Jeff was trying to talk about it on the Bombcast without just saying it wasn't very good. It was the most awkward thing.
I think Kotaku is completely wrong with this new rule.
Practically speaking this means that money to commercial games is okay, money to indie games is prohibited. That's it. Patreons and similar systems are the revenue model for many indie games because they are too small for other ones. This is exactly like saying you can't say, "I just bought this game and it was awesome, here's why I really like it." ... That's the the kind of writing you want to eliminate? Either critics can give money to games or they can't, specifically ruling out Pateon is insane.
Disclosure is always good, just like you should say whether you bought a game or got it for free. That's the only thing that is relevant here and even in that case, I think it's more important to disclose when you did NOT pay for something.
Practically speaking this means that money to commercial games is okay, money to indie games is prohibited. That's it. Patreons and similar systems are the revenue model for many indie games because they are too small for other ones. This is exactly like saying you can't say, "I just bought this game and it was awesome, here's why I really like it." ... That's the the kind of writing you want to eliminate? Either critics can give money to games or they can't, specifically ruling out Pateon is insane.
Disclosure is always good, just like you should say whether you bought a game or got it for free. That's the only thing that is relevant here and even in that case, I think it's more important to disclose when you did NOT pay for something.
Is not getting money from Kotaku employees really going to affect indie devs that much? Not that many people work there and (I assume) they weren't donating that much money.
Last I saw he was ripping the shit out of Cards Against Humanity and Max Temkin on RPS.
They kind of have by doing one review every couple of months.
Last I saw he was ripping the shit out of Cards Against Humanity and Max Temkin on RPS.
They kind of have by doing one review every couple of months.
They are not completely wrong on the rule, they are partially wrong because kickstarter isnt included, but the idea behind it isnt wrong. As for teh bold that is just nonsense, there is a reason why in most forms of media you are not supposed to cover things that you invest in, and kickstarter and Patreons is an investment in the hopes of seeing content from a company or person.
I don't understand why you people don't understand that gaming press is an enthusiast press.
FFS.
If a music journalist buys tickets to a Kanye concert are they not allowed to write a review of Kanye's album because they contributed money to Kanye?
Journalists also donate money to political campaigns that they cover.
If she were funding him on Patreon that would be very different. Or a politician giving money to a journalist.
Spoiler: Game Journalism will always be biased because people who get into it like video games. They are not objective outsiders. They are also all financially incentivized for the industry as a whole to do well as that will directly impact ad revenue.
FFS.
If a music journalist buys tickets to a Kanye concert are they not allowed to write a review of Kanye's album because they contributed money to Kanye?
Journalists also donate money to political campaigns that they cover.
If she were funding him on Patreon that would be very different. Or a politician giving money to a journalist.
Spoiler: Game Journalism will always be biased because people who get into it like video games. They are not objective outsiders. They are also all financially incentivized for the industry as a whole to do well as that will directly impact ad revenue.
Delusibeta
Banned
Literally just launched his new site today, which will also house his gaming writings from henceforth. He's also got the rights for The Independent Charles Show back from Microsoft and is making more of that.
Very much agree. I feel like everyone is taking crazy pills here!
Could say the same thing about preordering.
How is it different than any journalist who buy a DLC season pass, a pre-order, Steam Early Access, kickstarter, a one year sub to an MMO or PS plus, or throws money in the hat of a local musician?
I couldn't agree more. The handwringing over this seems really overblown.
No you cant. Like literally, you cant. Preordering isn't an investment.
One is buying a product, the other is literally investing.
Moon_frogger
Member
I'm sure others will say it but no . No no no. Take a moment to reflect on how actually wrong you are.
It's literally not investing.
Journalist not covering things they 'invest' is about the concern that a journalist can buy stock, increase the perceived value of a company in the public sphere by intentionally distorting the reporting, so the the stock price goes up, then they sell their stock at the new high price before it crashes back down to the normal price. (Or the reverse via short selling, doesn't matter positive or negative)
How is that type of investing at all relevant here?
Kickstarter is not an investment unless you get a return on that investment that I was unaware of outside of the product itself.
I own a board game company and I contribute to a couple of board game podcasts patreon accounts and I know a few of them have backed my kickstarter projects.
Explain it to me, as I'm clearly too oblivious to understand the depths of your wisdom.
I honestly do not see how preordering does not fall under your definition of "investing" but backing a kickstarter (for a copy of the game) does.
Your bold examples are silly. If someone was an investor or partner in Kanye's music I would not rely on them for giving me info on Kanye's music or person, and if a website actively condoned their people to invest in music personalities I would not advise anyone to go to them for reporting on quality and what not. And there are many journalism ethic rules that believe you should not be contributing to political campaigns. You are right, most game websites are nothing more then advertisement for companies, but if you want to be able to claim you are a reporting website, you should not be involved with investments.
BennyBlanco
aka IMurRIVAL69
Bookmarked. Rab is one of the very best in the biz.
People seem to forget that you get rewards for contributing to someone on Patreon - and the more you contribute, the better the rewards you get.
Personally I have to give many props to Totillo, he actually takes games journalism seriously and doesn't want any of the garbage that usually pollutes it on his websites.
Personally I have to give many props to Totillo, he actually takes games journalism seriously and doesn't want any of the garbage that usually pollutes it on his websites.
You dont have to get money back for you to be investing, the return would be the game, since if you didn't back it, it wouldn't exist(or at least if a set amount of people didnt back it). You can invest in something or someone and not expect money but instead content. The value you get out of it can be relative.
If I'm 'invested' in Kanye then I might pretend to like Kanye so people buy his stuff and I make money on my investment.
I back Patreons to get games -- just like I buy tickets to see a concert, or a season pass to a tv show that hasn't haired yet, or I buy into early access and hope they developer actually makes the content they developed. How is this 'investing' in any sense of the word?
You're not making sense. The point of giving to patreons is so they can exist(you are investing in their brand), buying a ticket or season pass is buying a product or service(a literal commercial service).
I would think that most people are backing Patreons (and certainly Kickstarters) to receive specific products/services.
Yes, but you are investing in creating of a product to obtain the product(pay for the investment). Without that investment they wouldn't exist. I mean, I guess if you want to get existential about it, all forms of buying anything is a form of investment. Normally though investment is meant more along the lives of giving money in the belief or hope of getting something in return, the end product(the return on investment) or service doesn't exist at the immediate point of investment.
I don't understand this at all. I'm 'investing' in their 'brand'? I'm paying money so that I get more games.
Lowlander2
Banned
Not from the people that I've been following, which is everyone tuned into the indie scene. It's always for the people and what they represent, not the games/articles themselves. Everyone who isn't into development or journalism seems into them for the games/articles/what-have-you, but those are into those fields back Patreons for the people, the icons.
And I know that this is all anecdotal, which basically means I expect to get responses like "that is not the impression I get from the people I follow." Which is fine. Unfortunately, it's definitely the case for me.
That's really not what investing is...
You are paying money in the hopes of getting more games, you have no guarantee you will see a return on your investment(or that you will get what you invested the money for). An investment doesn't guarantee you a product, kickstarters could fail, be corrupt or ect. Same with anything, really. The production capability of that good or service would not exist without your(everyone who invested) dollars.
- Status