Support NeoGAF

[JesseEwiak]

Honestly, if I had to deal with people accusing of me being paid off or a shill every day, or saying I don't know anything about my job because I gave too low/high a score to a game, I'd likely put something like that in my ethics disclosures as well.

 

[deltatheta]

wallow in the "I know something you don't" sea of tweets.

This really bugs me. I realize that embargoes are a necessary evil, but a journalist's job is to provide information to the public. You shouldn't really be bragging about making an agreement to not do your job.

 

[Curufinwe]

Bit of a bump, but I thought this note from Stephen Totilo (Kotaku EiC) today was worth bringing up:



I think the whole Zoe Quinn thing is a non-story that has been discussed to death, but I really wanted to highlight the bolded.

Critics funding dev Patreons is fucking weird and I'm really glad that if anything positive has come out of this mess it is that outlets are concious of the more subtle ways readers think the critic/dev/pub relationship is messed up. I doubt any sane person here thinks publishers are distributing brown bags of cash, but there is a continued sentiment that these technically separate industries aren't as clearly defined as they should be.

But, disappointingly, once again it's Kotaku leading the charge and thinking this warrants mentioning - even some of my favourites like Giant Bomb are silent on the issue.

Kudos to Kotaku for taking it seriously.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Honestly, if I had to deal with people accusing of me being paid off or a shill every day, or saying I don't know anything about my job because I gave too low/high a score to a game, I'd likely put something like that in my ethics disclosures as well.

Well, then. You'd fit right in, I guess. Playing up the victim and having a general disdain for your audience seems relatively common amongst those who do gaming journalism.

This really bugs me. I realize that embargoes are a necessary evil, but a journalist's job is to provide information to the public. You shouldn't really be bragging about making an agreement to not do your job.

I think it's the enthusiast factor, where most people writing about games started out as mere game fans like most of the people on this forum and others. When suddenly faced with unprecedented access to their hobby, I think a lot of them just can't help but brag and show off that they are now 'above' the sea of common forum-goers. It's probably a similar mentality that compels so many to defend anti-consumerist corporate measures the like of which we saw before the amazing Xbox 180.

 

[Hasney]

Decided to look at Polygons ethics thingy and I mean completely dislike his writing style, way he presents opinions and his, er, charts, but at least he took it seriously and just laid it out.

Ethics Disclosure:
I back the following writers or content creators on Patreon: Daphny Drucilla Delight David, Mattie Brice, Zoe Quinn, Erika Moen, Cara Ellison, Critical Distance, Indie Haven, Jenn Frank

One thing to note from Polygon though, is it specifically Patreon they have to write out? Is everything else fair game and they're taking the ruling literally of just disclosing that?

 

[JABEE]

Polygon just added an Ethics Disclosure section to their writer's profiles where they have to disclose any Patreons they are donating to and other things like review events, etc.

This is a good thing. They should include these things at the top of articles they are writing. If you were wined and dined by Rockstar, you should list what you did and if you are friends with people at Rockstar.

This kind of disclosure makes it easier for editors to hit on these conflicts of interest before they happen. It may be difficult to enforce when the leaders of these sections participates in funding games.

I think a better step would be to stop funding developer Kickstarters/Patreons. I feel that's a worthy sacrifice to make for your audience. Not sure why there is such backlash at Polygon.

 

[APF]

They never disclose that info, though. Just look at Arthur Gies' timeline, and, wallow in the "I know something you don't" sea of tweets.

I guess what you're saying here is that some info from discussions with devs is revealed and some is not. This is common in journalism however, especially if they're discussing things that are dependent on timing (eg unreleased or unannounced games that they want to talk about but aren't ready for publicity at the moment). I can't really find it in myself to be angry at that in particular, but it's annoying and unprofessional when writers make a point of saying they have info they can't publicize, just for the sake of saying it.

 

[JABEE]

Outside the stupid controversy and idiotic MRA raids, disclosure should be a fundamental part of being a journalist.

I'm surprised that people thought it was cool to fund or donate to projects that they would eventually cover, unless there job title was professional evangelist. Not giving charitable donations to publishers you are going to have to cover is not much to ask from the media.

Just disclosure seems like a lenient policy. I'm with Totillo on this.

 

[jschreier]

Kudos to Kotaku for taking it seriously.

We always have taken this stuff seriously, especially when it comes to bigger games/companies. But we didn't think/talk enough about our relationships with smaller developers, so I'm glad we are doing it now.

BTW, in case anyone's wondering, Stephen sees a significant difference between Kickstarter and Patreon, and I happen to agree -- donating to a Kickstarter is putting money into a game (or other project), while donating to a Patreon is giving money to a person. The latter feels way less appropriate for journalists, which is why Stephen has instituted a policy that no Kotaku writers should be donating to game dev Patreons.

 

[CambriaRising]

We always have taken this stuff seriously, especially when it comes to bigger games/companies. But we didn't think/talk enough about our relationships with smaller developers, so I'm glad we are doing it now.

BTW, in case anyone's wondering, Stephen sees a significant difference between Kickstarter and Patreon, and I happen to agree -- donating to a Kickstarter is putting money into a game (or other project), while donating to a Patreon is giving money to a person. The latter feels way less appropriate for journalists, which is why Stephen has instituted a policy that no Kotaku writers should be donating to game dev Patreons.

Makes sense. I support that.

 

[zhorkat]

We always have taken this stuff seriously, especially when it comes to bigger games/companies. But we didn't think/talk enough about our relationships with smaller developers, so I'm glad we are doing it now.

BTW, in case anyone's wondering, Stephen sees a significant difference between Kickstarter and Patreon, and I happen to agree -- donating to a Kickstarter is putting money into a game (or other project), while donating to a Patreon is giving money to a person. The latter feels way less appropriate for journalists, which is why Stephen has instituted a policy that no Kotaku writers should be donating to game dev Patreons.

Is there a policy on the amount that somebody can contribute to a Kickstarter? I think Polygon's stance is that their writers can back Kickstarters for video games, but only the minimum amount required to get a copy of the game, which seems appropriate if you're not going for an outright ban.

 

[tim.mbp]

Polygon's blanket profile disclosures seems silly. They should just disclose within whatever article, review, etc.

 

[PedroLumpy]

We always have taken this stuff seriously, especially when it comes to bigger games/companies. But we didn't think/talk enough about our relationships with smaller developers, so I'm glad we are doing it now.

BTW, in case anyone's wondering, Stephen sees a significant difference between Kickstarter and Patreon, and I happen to agree -- donating to a Kickstarter is putting money into a game (or other project), while donating to a Patreon is giving money to a person. The latter feels way less appropriate for journalists, which is why Stephen has instituted a policy that no Kotaku writers should be donating to game dev Patreons.

Why does he feel donating to a person is less appropriate than a game?

 

[Curufinwe]

Why does he feel donating to a person is less appropriate than a game?

Less personal attachment.

 

[TwoDurans]

I was reading an article on TechCrunch earlier and saw this:

"Disclosure: My significant other works at General Catalyst, an early investor in Snapchat."

It was oddly refreshing. Would it kill game journos to do something similar?

 

[tim.mbp]

Less personal attachment.

Aren't they more likely to cover a game though?

 

[jschreier]

I was reading an article on TechCrunch earlier and saw this:

"Disclosure: My significant other works at General Catalyst, an early investor in Snapchat."

It was oddly refreshing. Would it kill game journos to do something similar?

There's nothing refreshing about TechCrunch's disclosures. TechCrunch is full of gross conflicts of interests that go WAY beyond anything in game journalism, even beyond game journos dating people at the companies they cover. This, for example: http://valleywag.gawker.com/techcrunchs-revolving-door-keeps-spinning-1626539819

We have and do disclose relevant friendships and relationships as necessary, but we haven't been diligent enough about making sure it happens every time. That's going to change.

 

[Curufinwe]

Aren't they more likely to cover a game though?

I don't mind them covering a game they Kickstarter so long as they tell us. It could make them go easier or harder on it, I suppose.

Vinny from GB backed Star Citizen... I still really want to see him quick look it in 2016 or whenever.

 

[aeolist]

We always have taken this stuff seriously, especially when it comes to bigger games/companies. But we didn't think/talk enough about our relationships with smaller developers, so I'm glad we are doing it now.

BTW, in case anyone's wondering, Stephen sees a significant difference between Kickstarter and Patreon, and I happen to agree -- donating to a Kickstarter is putting money into a game (or other project), while donating to a Patreon is giving money to a person. The latter feels way less appropriate for journalists, which is why Stephen has instituted a policy that no Kotaku writers should be donating to game dev Patreons.

it does mean, however, that kotaku writers are free to directly support the livelihoods of game developers so long as they are large enough. banning patreons affects only the smallest and neediest developers who are most often women and minorities.

so personally i find this to be kinda gross.

 

[TwoDurans]

There's nothing refreshing about TechCrunch's disclosures. TechCrunch is full of gross conflicts of interests that go WAY beyond anything in game journalism, even beyond game journos dating people at the companies they cover. This, for example: http://valleywag.gawker.com/techcrunchs-revolving-door-keeps-spinning-1626539819

We have and do disclose relevant friendships and relationships as necessary, but we haven't been diligent enough about making sure it happens every time. That's going to change.

I was just talking about how it was on the bottom of the article and present instead of having to hunt for it. Simmer.

 

[jschreier]

it does mean, however, that kotaku writers are free to directly support the livelihoods of game developers so long as they are large enough. banning patreons affects only the smallest and neediest developers who are most often women and minorities.

so personally i find this to be kinda gross.

Well, for starters, I'm not sure many of us were backing game dev patreons in the first place, so from a practical perspective I don't know if this will affect much.

But the logic is that it's the difference between buying a product and pledging money to an individual. I know Stephen has thought about it a lot, and he decided that the latter feels inappropriate for a journalist. I see what you're saying, though.

 

[Zaph]

it does mean, however, that kotaku writers are free to directly support the livelihoods of game developers so long as they are large enough. banning patreons affects only the smallest and neediest developers who are most often women and minorities.

so personally i find this to be kinda gross.

Kickstarter is basically the pre-order model. Ban that and you may as well ban pre-orders too.

IMO the bigger concern is the promotion of current KS projects, as press coverage can heavily influence whether a project ends up funded or unfunded. IMO, even the slightest relationship there should prevent the entire publication from covering the project until the funding period is over.

 

[DrROBschiz]

Kickstarter is basically the pre-order model. Ban that and you may as well ban pre-orders too.

A bigger concern is the promotion of current KS projects, as press coverage can heavily influence whether a project ends up funded or unfunded. IMO, even the slightest relationship there should prevent the entire publication from covering the project until the funding period is over.

OK so no kickstarter reporting whatsoever?

Its totally possible to report on things without endorsing them. Maybe make weekly kickstarter column that just presents whatever is going on that week?

 

[Deitus]

it does mean, however, that kotaku writers are free to directly support the livelihoods of game developers so long as they are large enough. banning patreons affects only the smallest and neediest developers who are most often women and minorities.

so personally i find this to be kinda gross.

Donating money to people they cover is a conflict of interest, full stop. That many people who have patreons are women and/or minorities does not make it any less of a conflict of interest.

Games writers directly support the livelihoods of game developers every single time they buy a game.

 

[Giolon]

Donating money to people they cover is a conflict of interest, full stop. That many people who have patreons are women and/or minorities does not make it any less of a conflict of interest.

Exactly. There's nothing in the rules that says they can't publicize or talk about the Patreons of developers that they think is a good cause (though that has some of its own ethical considerations).

I'm glad Kotaku has taken this step.

 

[aeolist]

Donating money to people they cover is a conflict of interest, full stop. That many people who have patreons are women and/or minorities does not make it any less of a conflict of interest.

Games writers directly support the livelihoods of game developers every single time they buy a game.

i think you might have a misconception about the kind of developers that use patreon. for the most part they are far too small to be covered by kotaku, and many of them do not create for-profit games that people can buy.

 

[JABEE]

There's nothing refreshing about TechCrunch's disclosures. TechCrunch is full of gross conflicts of interests that go WAY beyond anything in game journalism, even beyond game journos dating people at the companies they cover. This, for example: http://valleywag.gawker.com/techcrunchs-revolving-door-keeps-spinning-1626539819

We have and do disclose relevant friendships and relationships as necessary, but we haven't been diligent enough about making sure it happens every time. That's going to change.

Good to hear, Jason. You guys seem to be running a tight ship.

 

[Kaiterra]

How exactly is game journalists donating to indie devs' Patreons any more of an ethical conflict than games journalists buying games at retail?

 

[JABEE]

Well, for starters, I'm not sure many of us were backing game dev patreons in the first place, so from a practical perspective I don't know if this will affect much.

But the logic is that it's the difference between buying a product and pledging money to an individual. I know Stephen has thought about it a lot, and he decided that the latter feels inappropriate for a journalist. I see what you're saying, though.

I think KickStarter is closer to donating than purchasing a product. That's one where it would be better to be safe than sorry, but that's Kotaku's decision.

If you donated money to a project, you are already to invested in it to avoid a conflict of interest. It's a very avoidable conflict. The relationship stuff is the tricky part.

 

[APF]

I dislike both donations--kickstarter or patreon--for people covering the industry. In both cases you're making a contribution to the individuals; kickstarting a project is not a pre-order, it's an investment with a potential known return. Covering either type of campaign is no problem or conflict however, even if you know the people in question. Just disclose the relationship, if there is any.

 

[aeolist]

How exactly is game journalists donating to indie devs' Patreons any more of an ethical conflict than games journalists buying games at retail?

it stops anyone from being able to give money to zoe quinn and keeps the mouthbreathing women-hating mobs from constantly spamming totilo's twitter account

 

[RockTurtle]

it stops anyone from being able to give money to zoe quinn and keeps the mouthbreathing women-hating mobs from constantly spamming totilo's twitter account

is the whole concept of doritos pope lost on you?

the *supposed* marriage of games journalists peddling the wares of their friends or companies they hope to get a job from soon hasn't been an issue for years?

no, must always be MRA boogey men.

come on.

 

[Fotheringay]

it stops anyone from being able to give money to zoe quinn and keeps the mouthbreathing women-hating mobs from constantly spamming totilo's twitter account

Because only neckbeards could see actively paying someone's wages as a conflict of interest. Gimme a break.

 

[Averon]

How exactly is game journalists donating to indie devs' Patreons any more of an ethical conflict than games journalists buying games at retail?

When I buy a game, I'm supporting the entire development team that made it. That is, my money's not going to a single person. Patreons, as far as I understand them, is directly supporting a single person.

Donating to a Patreon is far more personal than buying a game. That's the difference, and that's where the conflict of interest forms.

 

[Fehyd]

Saw the post on Kotaku earlier. Have to say I'm definitely happy with how things are being handled, and that the whole Patreon/ close relationship stuff is being awknowledged. I think that's the most important thing to come from this.

 

[JABEE]

How exactly is game journalists donating to indie devs' Patreons any more of an ethical conflict than games journalists buying games at retail?

Because it is too close. Sites like KickStarter and Patreon thrive on selling people on the fact that they are helping budding artists and developers. Giving money directly to the people making the product puts you in a situation where you can be easily discredited as an evangelist for a cause or game.

This is the independent gaming press. In order to do that job you should do your best to eliminate apparent conflicts of interest. Not donating to KickStarter or Patreon are easy conflicts to avoid.

 

[Wereroku]

I don't mind them covering a game they Kickstarter so long as they tell us. It could make them go easier or harder on it, I suppose.

Vinny from GB backed Star Citizen... I still really want to see him quick look it in 2016 or whenever.

Actually it would be more likely to make the person more critical. Investing your money into something like that makes you much more critical than if it were given for free.

 

[JABEE]

it stops anyone from being able to give money to zoe quinn and keeps the mouthbreathing women-hating mobs from constantly spamming totilo's twitter account

Wouldn't that allow more people to know about this without some "mouth-breather" to point out that the people writing articles about this topic are patrons or have a vested interest in Zoe's projects.

In a press where this kind of closeness wasn't accepted, there would be less ammunition for people to go with. Even the most ignorant of readers or bigoted readers wouldn't be able to drag your name through the mud. It's about inviting and embracing scrutiny knowing that you have your bases covered.

 

[aeolist]

Wouldn't that allow more people to know about this without some "mouth-breather" to point out that the people writing articles about this topic are patrons or have a vested interest in Zoe's projects.

In a press where this kind of closeness wasn't accepted, there would be less ammunition for people to go with. Even the most ignorant of readers or bigoted readers wouldn't be able to drag your name through the mud. It's about inviting and embracing scrutiny knowing that you have your bases covered.

you cannot convince me that this policy will lead to more coverage of the really small indie development scene at kotaku

it is equally laughable to suggest that crazed paranoiacs will ever be stifled by a lack of solid evidence or even possible innuendo

 

[ActuallyHulk]

This makes me extremely happy. Extremely. I won't say though that I have no qualms remaining but I do find this to be a very big step in the right direction. I won't weigh in in Kickstarter vs Patreon because I can honestly see the merit in what both sides are saying, but I will say once more that I'm glad about this.

 

[SnakeEyes]

There's nothing refreshing about TechCrunch's disclosures. TechCrunch is full of gross conflicts of interests that go WAY beyond anything in game journalism, even beyond game journos dating people at the companies they cover. This, for example: http://valleywag.gawker.com/techcrunchs-revolving-door-keeps-spinning-1626539819

We have and do disclose relevant friendships and relationships as necessary, but we haven't been diligent enough about making sure it happens every time. That's going to change.

Thank you Jay, and without being snarky, I hope someone has had words with Patricia Hernandez in particular on this issue!

 

[JABEE]

you cannot convince me that this policy will lead to more coverage of the really small indie development scene at kotaku

it is equally laughable to suggest that crazed paranoiacs will ever be stifled by a lack of solid evidence or even possible innuendo

The press shouldn't need to invest money in a scene to cover a scene. If a scene exists to cover, then they should cover it. At what point are the press covering something of their own creation.

 

[Brakke]

What are the stakes even here? How much money could people possibly have been spending in Patreon?

 

[aeolist]

The press shouldn't need to invest money in a scene to cover a scene. If a scene exists to cover, then they should cover it. At what point are the press covering something of their own creation.

i'm saying coverage is beside the point, it didn't happen before and it won't happen now. these people and projects are not flashy or attention-grabbing to kotaku's main audience, so it really doesn't matter what the ethics policy is.

 

[Deitus]

it stops anyone from being able to give money to zoe quinn and keeps the mouthbreathing women-hating mobs from constantly spamming totilo's twitter account

You seem to be approaching this from an emotional angle, but that's rather the issue here. If games media is to be impartial, they cannot be invested, emotionally or financially, in the games they cover, or the people who make them. A certain amount of bias is unavoidable, but steps should be taken to minimize it.

If you are saying "these game developers could not survive without the donations of games writers" that is absolutely a problem. If the people making the donations view it this way, that makes them incapable of writing about these people in an impartial manner.

Maybe not every developer who has a patreon will get coverage from Kotaku, Polygon, et al., but can you honestly claim none of them do? I saw Zoe Quinn, as well as other familiar names in the post above about the patreons a Polygon writer donated to. Long before all of the tabloid nonsense came out about Zoe, she was in fact getting coverage from games media for her games. And who's to say a no name today won't ever find enough success to merit coverage in the future?

Kotaku is perhaps playing it safe with a blanket ban. But when we are talking about ethics and impartiality, playing it safe is a much better bet than constantly skirting the line.

 

[Kaiterra]

is the whole concept of doritos pope lost on you?

the *supposed* marriage of games journalists peddling the wares of their friends or companies they hope to get a job from soon hasn't been an issue for years?

no, must always be MRA boogey men.

come on.

But in those instances, the game journalists are the ones reaping the profits, not the other way around.

 

[Myggen]

Ok, donating to a "patreon" seems pretty weird to me, but I'm not really seeing how it's a conflict of interest worthy of all this scrutiny and hand-wringing. Ditto a kickstarter. Obviously if the relationship were reversed, and journalists were receiving money from game devs, that would be a problem. I guess the patreon or kickstarter implies that the journalist in question really likes this person's games, but... that doesn't really seem like a big issue? Journalists have all kinds of strong opinions on things and write stuff based on those opinions all the time without necessarily letting us know.

I don't know much about patreon as I hadn't heard of it before a few days ago, but it's just a more formalized version of the old "donate button" to support someone's work, yes? Obviously actually investing in a company means you have a conflict of interest because you stand to gain from it. Do the journalists stand to gain in some way from this patreon thing?

I don't see how it's a bigger problem than a game journalist buying/pre-ordering and enjoying a products from a particular dev.

 

[aeolist]

Ok, donating to a "patreon" seems pretty weird to me, but I'm not really seeing how it's a conflict of interest worthy of all this scrutiny and hand-wringing. Ditto a kickstarter. Obviously if the relationship were reversed, and journalists were receiving money from game devs, that would be a problem. I guess the patreon or kickstarter implies that the journalist in question really likes this person's games, but... that doesn't really seem like a big issue? Journalists have all kinds of strong opinions on things and write stuff based on those opinions all the time without necessarily letting us know.

I don't know much about patreon as I hadn't heard of it before a few days ago, but it's just a more formalized version of the old "donate button" to support someone's work, yes? Obviously actually investing in a company means you have a conflict of interest because you stand to gain from it. Do the journalists stand to gain in some way from this patreon thing?

patreon is basically a recurring subscription fee that goes to directly support someone. it works like kickstarter in that you may get rewards that can be backer exclusive or not.

the funny part of this is that if a kotaku writer wants to cover a patreon backer-exclusive project they will now have to go to the developer and ask for a copy of the software for free instead of just purchasing it like they would with any other game.

 

[BearPawB]

I want my journalists to like games.
I want my journalists to like game developers.

It is why I will defend Justin McElroy for the end of time for his excitement for skyirm.
I was excited for skyrim, damn right i want someone covering videogames for a living to be excited about it.

That being said, a patreon seems a little...skeevy

Kickstarter to me is saying, "i love this series/idea and what to see this get made" Which is fine. Journalists can get excited about games.

But people directly supporting another persons livelihood seems like a much bigger problem.

Basically, I am with kotaku on this one.

 

[Giolon]

patreon is basically a recurring subscription fee that goes to directly support someone. it works like kickstarter in that you may get rewards that can be backer exclusive or not.

the funny part of this is that if a kotaku writer wants to cover a patreon backer-exclusive project they will now have to go to the developer and ask for a copy of the software for free instead of just purchasing it like they would with any other game.

That's assuming that the game isn't available generally for sale (or otherwise released for free) and is only available via the Patreon subscription.