NoctisVsStar
Member
agreed
-
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.
Kotaku has been blacklisted by Bethesda Softworks and Ubisoft
- Thread starter Nirolak
- Start date
agreed
Just because they have a right to blacklist doesn't mean it's the smart thing for them to do.
Fair enough. But you could say the same about Kotaku running an article about leaked info.
Sure, you "could", but I'd disagree with it.
I think it was very smart for Kotaku to publish this. It's of major interest to their readers, it's a major exclusive scoop, so if they didn't run it, another outlet would've gotten the information anyway.
And in the end, their being blacklisted doesn't really negatively affect their coverage. As Totilo describes in his post, it just changes their coverage. In some ways for the better.
And they still get the financial incentive of hits which allows them to continue to pay people who can get future scoops and write actual investigative stories much more interesting than simple leaks. Like their Destiny feature.
wanderingprostheyltite
Member
But according to Jason it most certainly does, the example he gave was giving comments on stories, providing interviews etc. They don't have that access or relationship now, and he mentioned they've made many attempts since the blacklist to reach out, so clearly it is in their benefit to have access otherwise they wouldn't bother reaching out so much. Personally I don't think it was worth it for a couple mostly snoozer tier "leaks", seems like the aggregate benefit going forwards would have been much higher had they not published those.
edit: Yes, other outlets can provide interviews and comments as well, but how does that help kotaku?
I meant that it doesn't significantly affect their coverage, and for each area it damages, they have other ways to improve it.
My point around other outlets is that, if Kotaku didn't publish it, another outlet would have published it. So Bethesda/Ubisoft are still in the same position, the shitty employee is still being a shitty employee, and Kotaku misses out on the financial incentive they'd otherwise be able to get.
piratethingy
Self professed bad raider
Yup.
Can't blame the game companies for trying to protect their investments. They don't owe games journalists shit. Maybe they're overreacting, but that's totally their right. It's also totally within Kotaku's rights to report on the Blacklisting. I don't see a problem with the actions of either party here.
I just don't see what benefit there is to the publishers to have stories run without their input/comment, to have large venues avoid their PR events, to have their developers and producers unavailable for interviews promoting their products, and to have reviews held-off & potentially limit day-1/week-1 sales. Not to mention increasing the credibility of negative reviews from that outlet. It just seems like a bunch of loss for no actual win.
Delusibeta
Banned
Bluntly: if I was a head of a big publisher (or even an indie developer) and information about the games I was working on was leaked by a games website years before it's in a state I'd be confident in revealing to the general public, you can bet your bottom dollar that said games website is being sent to Coventry. Kotaku's attitude reeks of entitlement, which will hit them as developers and publishers alike realise that the games press is entirely optional.
Dio Brando
Banned
As a journalism student(not that it makes my point more important or anything like that), i think there's two sides to this.
An example:
Case number 1: A game is announced, but nothing else is shown. comes a site, and gets an insider, that says that the game will feature this and that, like AC Victory, when the publisher has a whole marketing plan, and depending on what information the site has/leaked, it could hurt sales.
Case Number 2: A site got an insider, who talks about a troubled development, and how the publisher isnt exactly telling the truth on the marketing. the whole Prey 2 situation obviously works here as well.
On case number 1, it just feels clickbaity. doesn't serve any purpose besides that. Being surprised you got blacklisted is laughable. With that said, i do think that blacklisting is something archaic. Feels like wanting to creating an echo chamber, as one can see more pronounced on youtubers like Jim Sterling, that has been blacklisted for years by Konami.
Case Number 2: completely justified. what journalism was made, in it's essence,to do. TBF, it's something Kotaku has been doing a lot lately, and it brings joy to my heart.
EDIT: in case i didnt make myself clear, or got misinterpreted:
I dont think journalists should go hand in hand with publishers, as in do the hype machine. Maybe i'm wrong on saying that the case 1 feels clickbaity, even if i like reading them as a reader. I dunno.
An example:
Case number 1: A game is announced, but nothing else is shown. comes a site, and gets an insider, that says that the game will feature this and that, like AC Victory, when the publisher has a whole marketing plan, and depending on what information the site has/leaked, it could hurt sales.
Case Number 2: A site got an insider, who talks about a troubled development, and how the publisher isnt exactly telling the truth on the marketing. the whole Prey 2 situation obviously works here as well.
On case number 1, it just feels clickbaity. doesn't serve any purpose besides that. Being surprised you got blacklisted is laughable. With that said, i do think that blacklisting is something archaic. Feels like wanting to creating an echo chamber, as one can see more pronounced on youtubers like Jim Sterling, that has been blacklisted for years by Konami.
Case Number 2: completely justified. what journalism was made, in it's essence,to do. TBF, it's something Kotaku has been doing a lot lately, and it brings joy to my heart.
EDIT: in case i didnt make myself clear, or got misinterpreted:
I dont think journalists should go hand in hand with publishers, as in do the hype machine. Maybe i'm wrong on saying that the case 1 feels clickbaity, even if i like reading them as a reader. I dunno.
But at the same time it's also the fault of the publishers for cultivating this attitude and instilling it in this culture that we always crave the new hotness at any means necessary. It's an endless cycle.
EDIT: Many indies seem pretty open and even participate in screenshot saturdays on Twitter. Many even might show the game in an odd state just because something hilarious happened and they felt like sharing it. It would be harder to leak their stuff since they're more willing to share and show some of the development progress.
The Real Abed
Perma-Junior
This reminds me of the Gizmodo iPhone 4 debacle.
Pathfinder
Member
Well, it's comforting to know that if Penny Arcade's popularity dies out, they can always take up a career in catering.
I don't buy the argument that pre-announce leaks mean you're losing net sales for an already annualized franchise. In any case, petulance over the Victory leak likely more about it being embarrassing to show fans they were actively working on a sequel while Unity was still broken. Neogaf considered that newsworthy, we definitely had a huge thread about it.
So there's nothing but speculation? Or going from your posts, only speculation that leaves zero room for there the possibility of negative consequences for Bethesda and Ubisoft?
Pathfinder
Member
Yeah, I'm crying myself to sleep tonight thinking about the money that Bethesda and Ubisoft are not going to make for their buggy titles.
I came to post that exact comic. There is also an entry from Jerry talking about this.
And I completely agree. I can understand doing some sort of leak if it's for something big and newsworthy -- something that could even harm a company's standing with the public. But most of the covering has in fact been "Start Shit", and their habit of parading their pride in it because it's The Gawker Way has earned them the contempt and blacklisting of companies.
It isn't that you need to kiss the companies' feet, but there is such a thing as boundaries. It seems that in the name of journalism, some people have said to hell with boundaries, let's just mindlessly push the envelope as much as possible.
I for one am glad they're doing this to Kotaku. And not just them - but anyone else that acts like they have. Kotaku have good people in it, but the philosophy they subscribe to is fucked up more often than not.
Familienoberhauptvogel
Banned
It's a complete whitewashing of the situation though. Framing the multinational corporation as an innocent "developer" who had their confidence betrayed by the evil-by-nature journalist. As has been pointed out, the information reported on was not given in confidence but intended to be shared.
The one point that the comic does make is that journalism will report on these things by its nature, so expecting otherwise is pointless. It's clear which side they're coming down on in this comparison though. It also happens to be the side that pays them money.
Novel Mike
Member
Welp this is blowing up even more...
Those watching on Twitter Boogie and Jason had a disagreement (Boogie said Kotaku blacklisted him for support Gamergate, Jason said he was lying, Boogie told him to fuck off) and now Boogie is making a very angry video about the whole thing (which I likely won't watch because I really can't stand Boogie).
Not just that of course I've seen pretty much all forms of press weigh in on the Kotaku story some nice and understanding agree to disagree (such as Brandon Jones of Gametrailers) others like Boogie not so much.
I think personally my biggest problem with Kotaku is how the attitude reflected by the stories and the articles seems very much that they are better then everyone else for what they do(even though they are not and are just as always expressing opinions). They don't give review scores so they constantly talk about how review scores fuck everything up (even though a yes or no answer is in the end still a score a 0 or 1), they tell everyone not to preorder games and do nothing but lament any bad thing about preorders, and of course this whole situation where they are the ones leaking things so of course they are better then every other outlet who doesn't.
They main not mean for it to come across that way but it certainly does to me at least. I find it odd this story is blowing up so much now though its certainly not the first time Kotaku has brought it up I just don't get what has garnered the attention this topic is getting now.
Those watching on Twitter Boogie and Jason had a disagreement (Boogie said Kotaku blacklisted him for support Gamergate, Jason said he was lying, Boogie told him to fuck off) and now Boogie is making a very angry video about the whole thing (which I likely won't watch because I really can't stand Boogie).
Not just that of course I've seen pretty much all forms of press weigh in on the Kotaku story some nice and understanding agree to disagree (such as Brandon Jones of Gametrailers) others like Boogie not so much.
I think personally my biggest problem with Kotaku is how the attitude reflected by the stories and the articles seems very much that they are better then everyone else for what they do(even though they are not and are just as always expressing opinions). They don't give review scores so they constantly talk about how review scores fuck everything up (even though a yes or no answer is in the end still a score a 0 or 1), they tell everyone not to preorder games and do nothing but lament any bad thing about preorders, and of course this whole situation where they are the ones leaking things so of course they are better then every other outlet who doesn't.
They main not mean for it to come across that way but it certainly does to me at least. I find it odd this story is blowing up so much now though its certainly not the first time Kotaku has brought it up I just don't get what has garnered the attention this topic is getting now.
I don't even understand what Kotaku blacklisting a youtuber would mean. They didn't write articles about Boogie? Do they write articles about most youtubers?
Every youtuber who didn't get an article on Kotaku could they say were 'blacklisted' by this definition. This just feels really weird. It's like someone going, "YOU'RE blacklisted? OH yeah? Well you're blacklisting ME!" ... wat.
Every youtuber who didn't get an article on Kotaku could they say were 'blacklisted' by this definition. This just feels really weird. It's like someone going, "YOU'RE blacklisted? OH yeah? Well you're blacklisting ME!" ... wat.
Agreed 100%.
I would agree that they're coming from the side that pays them money, but that's ok. Journalists get their money by catering to the userbase that visits them. Both sides are doing it for the money, so that renders that point moot, I think.
The multinational corportations are far from innocent, but it doesn't mean that it makes them bad for blacklisting Kotaku. They had to have known it was coming if they kept it up, and kept it up they did.
Why Kotaku Was Right To Go Public When They Were Blacklisted By Two Major Video Game Publishers
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkai...e-blacklisted-by-major-video-game-publishers/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkai...e-blacklisted-by-major-video-game-publishers/
I would submit that Jerry is hardly impartial on this topic. Being a self-styled media boundary-breaker, he's always had an apocalyptic view of traditional media outlets. He's also got a fairly cozy relationship with a lot of developers, and enjoys a good bit of the insider access he thinks journalists don't deserve (but apparently he and his .txts and .jpgs are different somehow, even though companies give him this access for the same reason they do Kotaku et al?). And I find his opinion of games journalists as jackals just looking for the perfect angle at which to bite the hand that feeds to be a pretty shallow understanding of the relationship.
Can't say I hold his opinion on this issue in very high regard. His apologism for the PR-machine side of this is disappointing to say the least.
Novel Mike
Member
Well I decided to watch the video its here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-Ll7h85-78
For anyone who cares to see it and right there in the video is my biggest problem with this. They did contact Boogie to get his side of a story about youtubers and marketing deals for Shadows of Mordor. If he was blacklisted as he claimed why the hell would they have bothered to contact him at all?
I've watched the video and I'm even more confused. Was there a later news story about Boogie that he wasn't allowed to give an official comment on? What is the blacklisting here? He literally says, like, "They didn't respond to my tweets" ...
EmCeeGramr
Member
Kept what up? The comic and newspost frames this as the publisher being betrayed by a mean ol' bullying journalist after being honest with secrets and the nasty ol' journo spreading misinformation for their evil hateful gain.
The reality is that Kotaku was given information about games by leakers who wanted it to be published, and Kotaku did so accurately; that Fallout 4 would be set in Boston, and here was a page or two of information about it from a casting call (as Jason said, they didn't post the whole thing they got), and screenshots of Assassin's Creed showing that year's setting with disclaimers that they were unfinished.
Beyond that, they posted investigative stories about the Prey 2 situation and the troubles surrounding the newest Doom game, which are both well known debacles.
As much as people are trying to shift the focus to the question of, "Hypothetically, leaks could ruin games." instead of the actual reality, in which Kotaku did investigative reports that served the public interest, and several stories about wholly expected but unannounced AAA games that would also be of interest to consumers unless you are really so hypnotized by corporate hype cycles that "spoiling an announcement" is a real concern in your bizarre world.
silvermember
Banned
Oh my friend, you dun screw the pooch.
It is a contributor. Prepare for that statement to be repeated by the people who support the PR machine.
Neoriceisgood
Member
This is literally exactly how he acted in the gamergate thread. The dude's basically absolutely paranoid & treats personal criticisms or comments questioning his character as declarations of war he needs to escalate over.
EmCeeGramr
Member
also lol at the part of Jerry's post where he implies that maybe Kotaku is LYING about being blacklisted, who knows, I really don't care about Kotaku or what they say!!!!!!!!
I can't tell whether that's trying way too fucking hard to seem edgy and uncaring, or if he's really gone so far down the "I read Trust Me, I'm Lying," swallow-the-red-pill-and-see-how-far-the-rabbit-hole-goes path that he really thinks that there's a possibility of that here.
I can't tell whether that's trying way too fucking hard to seem edgy and uncaring, or if he's really gone so far down the "I read Trust Me, I'm Lying," swallow-the-red-pill-and-see-how-far-the-rabbit-hole-goes path that he really thinks that there's a possibility of that here.
They can make the argument on behalf of their exhibitors if they want I guess, but it's far more like advertising in that case. It's slightly worse still given that they've cultivated an audience based on cynicism towards those things. Now it seems like they've switched sides because there's more in it for them.
Yeah I wouldn't say they're necessarily bad for doing it. Possibly misguided, but I'm not sure blacklisting particular outlets has all that much effect on their bottom line.
Someone made a good point earlier that hearing about blacklisting tends to make you more cynical of positive coverage in general. I hope realising this is just a step towards the marketing departments of large pubs having a more open relationship with the press.
That's what he means by "blacklist." This is what gamergaters actually believe.
Clockwork5
Member
I'll admit that there is not much of one. But a lot of that has to do with the fact that publishers do inform the general public and most games journalism simply directs people to those press statements and announcements.
However I think Austin Walker of GB does a good job with bigger questions surrounding games, what makes them "fun", social commentary etc. and does not deal with facts that are easily found with a 5 second Google search. He also is respectful of the publishers and doesn't leak sensitive or embargoed information. That is an example of a role for "you".
I watched it more closely, and Boogie seems to get angry at the assertion he wasn't blacklisted because he personally *believed* he was blacklisted, and he would never deceive others about how he felt. He's saying, "Are you saying I didn't believe I was blacklisted? I did!"
For some reason he's not getting the issue is was Boogie *actually* blacklisted. And as mentioned before, what would that even look like.
I thought the same thing. "IF they were blacklisted" is such a weirdly Trumpian truther suggestion and he tries so hard to just toss it out there and make it seem like "Hey, not that I actually care, but what if...?"
Jerry's entire media worldview is predicated on the idea that he and his site are "new media" and the "old media" are over. Thing is, in a lot of ways his site is just as old media as Kotaku, to whatever extent such distinctions actually exist outside the minds of people like Jerry. Also, the old media have been "over" for fifteen years now according to him.
Adam Tyner
Member
That's misrepresenting their position, though. The idea is that a reviewer might write a few thousand words about a game, but all many (most?) users see is the number at the bottom. They're more prone to debating about the number -- why is this a 7.4 when this other game scored a 7.6? This game deserves at least a 7.8! -- than they are the text of the review, which I bet often go unread by the people arguing about a review the most. Since the numbers are a distraction, ditch 'em in favor of something more meaningful.
I'd love to see a site use a scale that means something: say, Skip It, Rent It, Wait for a Price Drop, Recommended, Essential. You can obviously map that from 1 to 5 as well, but at least expressly saying "Wait for a Price Drop" conveys a point, while 3.4 really doesn't. I'd also argue that mapping numbers to something that aren't meant to have numbers mapped to 'em just mucks up the works.
If I was Ubisoft, I would spill the beans about everything about the next Assassin's Creed to Kotaku extremely early, before it even has a chance to leak, and then give them an embargo so they can't post about it till it's officially revealed. Because Kotaku is bound to find out no matter what, but this way they can't post about it lol.
I don't even know what you're going on about. Kotaku has had plenty of controversy in the past, so let's not paint them as some eminence in the games journalism world.
My point was, they kept publishing things that the companies did not want published at all. They kept pushing the envelop with this. It's obvious that at some point the companies would get fed up with this and decided to blacklist Kotaku and other sites that have been acting like Kotaku has.
I mean, they need to protect their interests.
As I said earlier as well, leaks when they serve a specific purpose other than "Start Shit" as Jerry put it is something that that I can get behind on. Sometimes, those things are needed, and it's definitely in their job description as a journo to follow leads. But there are boundaries, and Kotaku kept pushing it. They thought they could keep doing it under the name of journalism. Naturally, they would get burned by that at some point.
It's not about who the good guy or bad guy is. It's just, let's not be surprised about the outcome.
Real disappointed by the Penny Arcade stance. I still basically like those dudes but man do they ever Blow It Big Time on some things.
Yeah no kidding. It rings weird in the same way GamerGators always sharing links to Kotaku behind archive.org links does. Like, we're going to pay close attention to this thing and care about this thing and form emotional investments in this thing, but we're going to pretend we're somehow outside it.
Yeah no kidding. It rings weird in the same way GamerGators always sharing links to Kotaku behind archive.org links does. Like, we're going to pay close attention to this thing and care about this thing and form emotional investments in this thing, but we're going to pretend we're somehow outside it.
EmCeeGramr
Member
I don't see anything about the things they've been blacklisted over as "starting shit" unless you're the world's thinnest skinned marketing executive.
Novel Mike
Member
I agree with you 100% and I know that is largely what they are trying to say my problem is with how they seem content to lord their opinion over everyone else who doesn't do it in the same way.
What? Do you even know what an embargo is? It's not like Kotaku can be bound by pain of death or something. What power do Ubi even have in that relationship to leverage, anyway? Kotaku already aren't getting privileged access.
Neoriceisgood
Member
Fyi all the stuff he's saying about neogaf posts is fairly similar.
I think people pointed out it's still homophobic to throw around f*g left and right if you only do it on websites where you won't get banned for it, to him that translates to "They think I'm a horrid piece of shit".
Going by the way he self-immolated on gaf I don't find it shocking at all how he's dealing with this situation.
By giving Kotaku a bigger reason to not even give a single fuck? Not really seeing it.
Why do you get so hung up on those specific examples when people are tired of Kotaku's/Gawker's ways in general?
+people and devs like Notch speaking out against Kotaku.
There have been plenty of threads here on neogaf too criticizing their ways.
Yeah, it's kind of sad at this point now =/