How does a tech journalist report on hardware that has only been released to kickstarter backers, and is not available for purchase?
-
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.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Games Journalism! Wainwright/Florence/Tomb Raider/Eurogamer/Libel Threats/Doritos
- Thread starter papersleeves
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
How does a tech journalist report on hardware that has only been released to kickstarter backers, and is not available for purchase?
Review copy. If they are not given one or the kickstarter refuses to give them one, they should report that.
Maybe you should read this thread if you dont think people have serious issues with a lot of this.
I don't think people are OK with this. I think it makes no sense to single out Patreon, or even crowdfunding as a whole, while doing nothing to address other ethical concerns.
I don't think people are OK with this. I think it makes no sense to single out Patreon, or even crowdfunding as a whole, while doing nothing to address other ethical concerns.
I agree it is a double standard. They shouldn't allow their reporters to fund any project in the field they cover. However, I'm not going to discourage them from starting to try to show less
impropriety. And websites that do not follow the standards should be called out, if they try and sell themselves as "reporters" or "journalists". I agree there is corruption, that doesnt mean I'm going to poopoo trying to have less of it, because they still are doing a lot of stuff I dont agree with.
So you prefer they are given gifts, vs pay for things. And your position is that this will not influence their perspective.Review copy.
Uh, they should write an article whining over a small independent creator possibly not having the money or hardware available to just hand out to you, Famous Tech Journalist? This is a better proposition to you?If they are not given one or the kickstarter refuses to give them one, they should report that.
I think your response shows how little thought people are actually putting into these demands for gaming outlets.
So you prefer they are given gifts, vs pay for things. And your position is that this will not influence their perspective.
A review copy isnt a gift, and if they are given gifts it should be reported and sent back. They shouldn't be allowed by their employer to take anything work related home, except for work.
Uh, they should write an article whining over a small independent creator possibly not having the money or hardware available to just hand out to you, Famous Tech Journalist? This is a better proposition to you?
I think your response shows how little thought people are actually putting into these demands for gaming outlets.
If that independent wants media attention about their product, that is more then speculatory? Yes, they should. A kickstarter doesn't automatically deserve press coverage in detail.
So you prefer they are given gifts, vs pay for things. And your position is that this will not influence their perspective.
I don't think games writers paying for things is the issue. It's an attempt to prevent writers from getting emotionally invested in the games they cover.
But in your example of a writer who is doing a story about a game in kickstarter that has no retail copy available, they could expense the cost of the minimum kickstarter backer level to get a copy of the game.
A review copy isnt a gift, and if they are given gifts it should be reported and sent back. They shouldn't be allowed by their employer to take anything work related home, except for work.
Actually, that reminds me of a gross practice that I wish people would put a stop to; lending review copies of a game to friends and co-workers. Review copies of a game serve a functional purpose, but they should not be treated as "free games". When you are done reviewing the game, you should be done with the review copy. If you get the urge to play the game again 6 months later for fun, you should buy your own copy. I've heard some things about people using Steam press accounts to play several year old games just so they don't have to pay for them, and that really shouldn't happen.
A review copy isnt a gift
Before kickstarter was a thing, not paying for games was actually a major concern of people handwringing over game journalism, because for one thing, it places an obstacle to evaluating a critical question in many gamers' minds about ROI. How quickly things change! Now it's no big deal.
If that independent wants media attention about their product, that is more then speculatory? Yes, they should. A kickstarter doesn't automatically deserve press coverage in detail.
Huh? Your responses here are weird, as though you don't actually understand what you're writing or responding to. But re: the above, the entire point of kickstarter is that these are people who do not have the money to do this without support. It might not seem like it now, but it's actually only very recently that larger companies have been using it as a funding vehicle.
I don't think games writers paying for things is the issue.
It was! Apparently people no longer care about something we had long threads about here.
But in your example of a writer who is doing a story about a game in kickstarter that has no retail copy available, they could expense the cost of the minimum kickstarter backer level to get a copy of the game.
But now you run into the conflict of the organization funding a project (and note that my point was about hardware, since for games a dev could probably just hand out a key / copy, but a hardware maker has to produce the item)
It's an attempt to prevent writers from getting emotionally invested in the games they cover.
...that's pretty much impossible by definition in enthusiast media. If they care about gaming at all, they should be emotionally invested, to some extent, in the games they cover.
I'd argue (and clearly I'm not the only one) that you'd be better off maximizing transparency - stating factors that might affect your coverage upfront - rather than banning journalist/dev interactions.
Not only that, but is it better to, say, get a review of a fighting game by a fighting game fan, or by someone who isn't invested in the genre? Do you want someone who doesn't know about DOTA 2 (eg vs someone who plays a lot) covering The International? You need enthusiasm in enthusiast press....that's pretty much impossible by definition in enthusiast media. If they care about gaming at all, they should be emotionally invested, to some extent, in the games they cover.
Before kickstarter was a thing, not paying for games was actually a major concern of people handwringing over gaming journalism, because for one thing, it places an obstacle to evaluating a critical question in many gamers' minds about ROI. How quickly things change! Now it's no big deal.
Well that is a philosophical stance, it's one I respect and I'm not completely on one side or the other. I agree that the ROI is near impossible for reviewers to ascertain, yet at the same time it is hard to make journalists pay for it all(then again, I dont believe product reviews of games from the press is all that helpful in this day and age) and I have advocated not paying attention to reviews. And while I still feel this way, I do not believe review copies are gifts, but I do agree they distort value.
I'm not sure how you think your response was adequate to what I just said. It doesn't matter if they couldnt survive without support, that doesn't mean the product needs to be funded by the reporter so they can get their hands on a copy or product. If the kickstarter group wants the press to talk about it or give it attention then they either need to add that into the budget of their goals or they need to rely on the people backing their projects. The media does not need to fund a kickstarter though, "for the public".Huh? Your responses here are weird, as though you don't actually understand what you're writing or responding to. But re: the above, the entire point of kickstarter is that these are people who do not have the money to do this without support. It might not seem like it now, but it's actually only very recently that larger companies have been using it as a funding vehicle.
Lowlander2
Banned
That "developers you should not support" image been posted yet?
It has more in common with the Zoe Quinn and JonTron spat, and it's barely relevant there. It holds no place here.
Only an idiot would consider a review copy a gift. It's given to the company for the purpose of reviewing it, not to an individual reviewer. It's not something that's able to be resold and the reviewer wouldn't be spending their own money on buying the game anyways. That would come out of the company account.
I don't understand why this discussion has gotten to be about enthusiasm and interest and emotional investment.
Developers and journalists should not have direct financial ties with one another. If they do then it should be disclosed. If a developer and publisher are closer than is expected in a working relationship then that should disclosed as well.
That's where it starts and ends for me. Really all that's important is disclosure. If everything is out in the open then there's no room for foul play.
Developers and journalists should not have direct financial ties with one another. If they do then it should be disclosed. If a developer and publisher are closer than is expected in a working relationship then that should disclosed as well.
That's where it starts and ends for me. Really all that's important is disclosure. If everything is out in the open then there's no room for foul play.
It was! Apparently people no longer care about something we had long threads about here.
Sorry, but I don't think I get what you are referring to.
But now you run into the conflict of the organization funding a project (and note that my point was about hardware, since for games a dev could probably just hand out a key / copy, but a hardware maker has to produce the item)
Organizations do not have emotions or opinions that can be swayed. If the writer is completely insulated from the business side of things (which admittedly is not always the case), I don't see how this would be a conflict.
...that's pretty much impossible by definition in enthusiast media. If they care about gaming at all, they should be emotionally invested, to some extent, in the games they cover.
I'd argue (and clearly I'm not the only one) that you'd be better off maximizing transparency - stating factors that might affect your coverage upfront - rather than banning journalist/dev interactions.
Sorry, I meant emotionally invested in the creator. If someone is reviewing a work of art, I would assume it would produce some emotional reaction from them. For preview coverage though, I think many would prefer a more impartial approach. Frankly, I'm pretty sick of the hyperbolic language you see in preview coverage that only serves to feed the hype machine. But that's a bit of a tangent.
And yes, they should absolutely prioritize transparency. I don't think avoiding impropriety and being transparent need to be mutually exclusive.
No, once again you're not really taking the time to try and understand what I'm saying here. Imagine you--you yourself, not you as a member of a large corporation--invent a game streaming device and put the idea of producing it into kickstarter. I am a journalist who is interested in reporting on it, when the first beta is available to backers. You're an independent creator who already is stretched thin financially, and literally don't have the money to create spares to give to reporters, if they haven't backed and therefore have covered the cost of materials. I am then unable to report on your device, despite both of us being interested. Meanwhile, a dozen youtubers just back the project and have extensive reviews available to everyone.I'm not sure how you think your response was adequate to what I just said. It doesn't matter if they couldnt survive without support
So if Polygon the organization was contributing to Zoe Quinn's patreon no one would have a problem with it.Organizations do not have emotions or opinions that can be swayed.
No, once again you're not really taking the time to try and understand what I'm saying here. Imagine you--you yourself, not you as a member of a large corporation--invent a game streaming device and put the idea of producing it into kickstarter. I am a journalist who is interested in reporting on it, when the first beta is available to backers. You're an independent creator who already is stretched thin financially, and literally don't have the money to create spares to give to reporters, if they haven't backed and therefore have covered the cost of materials. I am then unable to report on your device, despite both of us being interested. Meanwhile, a dozen youtubers just back the project and have extensive reviews available to everyone.
I understand what you are saying, and I dont understand why you think the reporter should fund it, simply because they want to cover it. I get that budgets are tight, and that you have to make tough decisions, that still doesnt mean you should fund a project in the industry you cover. And if you want to be able to fund projects you are interested in, try and get a job at a giantbomb like site or go work at youtube. However, if you want to be a reporter/journalist and work at a site that claims to be reporters/journalists I think you should follow the general editorial code of ethics. Also, you can allow guest editorial people(op-eds) to come in and talk about things you can not(as long as you clearly label what it is). If you want to just be enthusiast press and work at an enthusiast press place, I have no problems with it, as long as your employer doenst claim to be something it is not.
RichyDevil
Member
To me this all smacks of everyone involved taking themselves waaaaaaaay too seriously.
I mean, for crying out loud. No one thinks 'games journalism' is even a real thing other than the 'games journalists' themselves. The games media is imploding on itself for many reasons, none of which have to do with ethics. It has to do with a business model that does not work anymore. This is all a whole bunch of people shouting at each other while their ship is sinking.
If you consider yourself a 'games journalist', get out now. If you haven't already been laid off. It's an impossible situation.
Meanwhile, all of the other stuff surrounding this topic just makes everyone associated with games look utterly foolish. A shame.
I mean, for crying out loud. No one thinks 'games journalism' is even a real thing other than the 'games journalists' themselves. The games media is imploding on itself for many reasons, none of which have to do with ethics. It has to do with a business model that does not work anymore. This is all a whole bunch of people shouting at each other while their ship is sinking.
If you consider yourself a 'games journalist', get out now. If you haven't already been laid off. It's an impossible situation.
Meanwhile, all of the other stuff surrounding this topic just makes everyone associated with games look utterly foolish. A shame.
So if Polygon the organization was contributing to Zoe Quinn's patreon no one would have a problem with it.
If Polygon the organization was contributing the bare minimum to Zoe Quinn's patreon in order to give one of their writers access to a copy of a game they were expected to write about, no one should have a problem with that. Some people would have a problem, because some people are assholes that are looking for excuses to hate Zoe and Polygon.
But they would have their bases covered ethically.
To me this all smacks of everyone involved taking themselves waaaaaaaay too seriously.
I mean, for crying out loud. No one thinks 'games journalism' is even a real thing other than the 'games journalists' themselves. The games media is imploding on itself for many reasons, none of which have to do with ethics. It has to do with a business model that does not work anymore. This is all a whole bunch of people shouting at each other while their ship is sinking.
If you consider yourself a 'games journalist', get out now. If you haven't already been laid off. It's an impossible situation.
Meanwhile, all of the other stuff surrounding this topic just makes everyone associated with games look utterly foolish. A shame.
I'd disagree, I'd say you can point to ethics being a factor in why the business struggles.
Also, I'd say a 93 billion dollar market should be taken at least a little bit seriously, dont you think, and the ethics behind it? People are getting rich in this market, serious reporting would be nice(about the market, not the games).
If Polygon the organization was contributing the bare minimum to Zoe Quinn's patreon in order to give one of their writers access to a copy of a game they were expected to write about, no one should have a problem with that. Some people would have a problem, because some people are assholes that are looking for excuses to hate Zoe and Polygon.
But they would have their bases covered ethically.
Instead of doing that, if you really want to check out a game ,prior to its release to the public and you cant get a review copy, why not just allow an op-ed on the game and allow someone "out of office" talk about it so you get your coverage? You can mark it as such, and you can keep all your actual reporters and journalists from any perception of impropriety.
That is actually allowed according to the code of ethics.
RichyDevil
Member
I'd disagree, I'd say you can point to ethics being a factor in why the business struggles.
Also, I'd say a 93 billion dollar market should be taken at least a little bit seriously, dont you think, and the ethics behind it? People are getting rich in this market, serious reporting would be nice(about the market, not the games).
We can agree to disagree about the ethics issue causing major financial difficulty for the games media business. I don't think it's a factor, but obviously it's a topic that people love to discuss. I'd argue that more than 90% of the people that read major gaming websites don't think about things like that. They just want to know the latest info or read the latest review.
And of course it would be great for serious reporting in a large industry. But that clearly needs to come from major media outlets with actual reporters, not enthusiast websites with barely-out-of-college inexperienced writers or jaded, wanna-be-developer-or-community-manager types that fill most of the remaining (and dwindling) roles in the business.
The mainstream games media takes itself far more seriously than anyone else. And that's ultimately half if its downfall; the othet half being that there is not a market that can economically sustain its ancient business model.
Instead of doing that, if you really want to check out a game ,prior to its release to the public and you cant get a review copy, why not just allow an op-ed on the game and allow someone "out of office" talk about it so you get your coverage? You can mark it as such, and you can keep all your actual reporters and journalists from any perception of impropriety.
That is actually allowed according to the code of ethics.
Yeah, I don't think Polygon funding a Patreon is actually the best approach. Honestly, I doubt most indie devs would have any problem providing review copies if it meant they got coverage.
But in the hypothetical case that the only way to cover a game (that is for some reason absolutely vital to cover) is to fund a Patreon, doing so in a way that shields the writers from personal investment would be the way to go. Your idea is probably better though.
To me this all smacks of everyone involved taking themselves waaaaaaaay too seriously.
I mean, for crying out loud. No one thinks 'games journalism' is even a real thing other than the 'games journalists' themselves. The games media is imploding on itself for many reasons, none of which have to do with ethics. It has to do with a business model that does not work anymore. This is all a whole bunch of people shouting at each other while their ship is sinking.
If you consider yourself a 'games journalist', get out now. If you haven't already been laid off. It's an impossible situation.
Meanwhile, all of the other stuff surrounding this topic just makes everyone associated with games look utterly foolish. A shame.
There's a Jim Sterling video on game journalism that it's near impossible to actually be a journalist in this industry. The industry, mainly the big publishers, are so tight lipped they try to keep control over everything that even outright denying any developer who speaks out, and many journalists and bloggers sit around and do nothing and just accept the way things are. I believe his video was a call to action to have more journalists actually be journalists and stop accepting the lies and misinformation that they give you. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/8371-Cloak-and-Dagger
We can agree to disagree about the ethics issue causing major financial difficulty for the games media business. I don't think it's a factor, but obviously it's a topic that people love to discuss. I'd argue that more than 90% of the people that read major gaming websites don't think about things like that. They just want to know the latest info or read the latest review.
And of course it would be great for serious reporting in a large industry. But that clearly needs to come from major media outlets with actual reporters, not enthusiast websites with barely-out-of-college inexperienced writers or jaded, wanna-be-developer-or-community-manager types that fill most of the remaining (and dwindling) roles in the business.
The mainstream games media takes itself far more seriously than anyone else. And that's ultimately half if its downfall; the othet half being that there is not a market that can economically sustain its ancient business model.
I agree that most dont care and I agree that the market doesn't support a market purely driven by game industry market news(outside of maybe like 1 or 2). I do think that gaming sites that want to be taken seriously most definitely need to cover more then just games(or the entertainment industry). I do think the best way to cover that side of the market is to just cover markets in general, but I guess that would require different hiring practices and a different type of viewpoint in general.
I'm really speaking more about those sites that dont want to be enthusiast press.
Glass Shark
Banned
I don't understand why you people don't understand that gaming press is an enthusiast press. [...] 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.
This is pretty much what I've resigned myself to. I don't blame anyone for asking for more from games press, but I have strong doubts that it can ever reach the level of journalistic ethics or "objectivity" that many seem to ask for. It's too far gone, the web of friendships and nepotism is too entrenched. I don't believe that the games press is some big conspiracy, it just doesn't know any better than to be this way.
At least games are still fun.
SovereignSnake
Banned
So recently I have been keeping up with the whole', "Games Journalism" thing regarding Zoe Quinn and Kotaku. Low and behold someone That I regularly agree with made a video about it. http://youtu.be/TzmbWaTCc-E I don't see Zoe Quinn as the problem. The problem is that something like this coould have ever happen. I have only visted Kotaku once and so it shall stay that way.
So recently I have been keeping up with the whole', "Games Journalism" thing regarding Zoe Quinn and Kotaku. Low and behold someone That I regularly agree with made a video about it. http://youtu.be/TzmbWaTCc-E I don't see Zoe Quinn as the problem. The problem is that something like this coould have ever happen. I have only visted Kotaku once and so it shall stay that way.
I usually don't like this dudes videos but I will agree with this.
No, see you have it backwards; the budget is tight for the inventor, so they can't just hand out review devices (and even if they did, as we've already discussed there are negative implications of just receiving expensive products for free; the point again is that for crowdsourcing in particular this is relatively uncharted territory where current models of propriety don't really mesh well).I understand what you are saying, and I dont understand why you think the reporter should fund it, simply because they want to cover it. I get that budgets are tight, and that you have to make tough decisions, that still doesnt mean you should fund a project in the industry you cover.
Which says nothing about journalists participating in a crowdsourced project for the goal of reviewing or informing the public. It likely will say something about getting free stuff however. And the alternative is not simply that you don't get to talk about something, it's that other venues are able to perform your job better than you.And if you want to be able to fund projects you are interested in, try and get a job at a giantbomb like site or go work at youtube. However, if you want to be a reporter/journalist and work at a site that claims to be reporters/journalists I think you should follow the general editorial code of ethics.
Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face! It's so bizarre to me that you'd prefer this to simply being transparent about backing a kickstarter.Also, you can allow guest editorial people(op-eds) to come in and talk about things you can not(as long as you clearly label what it is).
No, see you have it backwards; the budget is tight for the inventor, so they can't just hand out review devices (and even if they did, as we've already discussed there are negative implications of just receiving expensive products for free; the point again is that for crowdsourcing in particular this is relatively uncharted territory where current models of propriety don't really mesh well).
I dont get how you think I dont understand this, it still doesnt change anything. And if your opinion is review copies are a problem as well, then I'd say don't review it.
Which says nothing about journalists participating in a crowdsourced project for the goal of reviewing or informing the public. It likely will say something about getting free stuff however.
What? I think I've made it quite clear I dont think journalists should fund industry that they cover.
Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face! It's so bizarre to me that you'd prefer this to simply being transparent about backing a kickstarter.
And I think it's bizarre you think something that has been done in journalism for decades is more problematic then having someone who is funding a project cover said project(as a paid employee of a paper/news site).
Same. It's the main reason why I've stopped being a regular visitor of the games-reporting sites. The gaming enthusiast community is much more diverse, continues discussion of games after they're released, and for the major portion of the press that are just being mouthpieces of PR outlets, the content there is the same and heck, people do it all for free, not sponsored by developers or publishers (well, except for paid posting which hopefully is rare). I don't claim to be representative of the masses, but I do wonder if these gaming sites are really on the mass-market scale and will be able to grow using its current business model.This is pretty much what I've resigned myself to. I don't blame anyone for asking for more from games press, but I have strong doubts that it can ever reach the level of journalistic ethics or "objectivity" that many seem to ask for. It's too far gone, the web of friendships and nepotism is too entrenched. I don't believe that the games press is some big conspiracy, it just doesn't know any better than to be this way.
At least games are still fun.
Getting free games? Fine.
Getting free booze at events? Fine.
Being socially chummy with developers? Fine.
Giving a dev whose games you like $10 a month? GET OUT THE PITCHFORKS, YOU'RE TOO CLOSE TO THE DEVELOPERS.
I agree with you on how this particular incident maybe doesn't make sense if you look at all the other freebies journalists get. And in general it's a very small piece of the puzzle.
However, looking at the big picture, I think people are just simply getting uncomfortable with how close gaming journalism is with the industry it covers. There is a "nitpicking" aspect to this entire issue, but if it spotlights the elephant in the room that is baseline journalistic integrity, that's probably a good thing.
So no gaming site can review games now. Maybe you just want Gamasutra instead of say Kotaku or Polygon.And if your opinion is review copies are a problem as well, then I'd say don't review it.
Again you appear not to understand the thread of conversation. Your quote ended: "you should follow the general editorial code of ethics" and I replied, "Which says nothing about journalists participating in a crowdsourced project for the goal of reviewing or informing the public. It likely will say something about getting free stuff however."What? I think I've made it quite clear I dont think journalists should fund industry that they cover.
Letters to the Editor and other sorts of external editorial content are not reviews by biased sources. I... didn't think I'd have to say something so obvious.And I think it's bizarre you think something that has been done in journalism for decades is more problematic then having someone who is funding a project cover said project(as a paid employee of a paper/news site).
Also: http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2011/oct/11/us-press-publishing-new-york-times
So no gaming site can review games now. Maybe you just want Gamasutra instead of say Kotaku or Polygon.
Well if you dont want people covering an indsutry they are investing in and you dont think they should get review copies... That would be the only option. And actually, I'd prefer more http://www.gamesindustry.biz/ type stuff.
Again you appear not to understand the thread of conversation. Your quote ended: "you should follow the general editorial code of ethics" and I replied, "Which says nothing about journalists participating in a crowdsourced project for the goal of reviewing or informing the public. It likely will say something about getting free stuff however."
Funding projects in the industry that would not exist without said funding is investing in the industry. I'm not sure how you would think the person financially invested in Pillars of Eternity would not be investing in the industry they are covering.
Letters to the Editor and other sorts of external editorial content are not reviews by biased sources. I... didn't think I'd have to say something so obvious.
Huh? There are plenty of instances of having op-ed writers writing for papers, they cover all sorts of things you dont see from typical reporters, that a reporter couldn't cover without the appearance of impropriety.
That actually doesnt disprove my point, it just says there needs to be more transparency, which is true. In that article it talks about how the op-ed needs to make known conflicts of interest. This is pretty much what people are advocating for, so I dont see the problem.
This is why you were getting so much pushback for using the word "investment" earlier. These guidelines refer to actual monetary investments from which you are expecting a return.
So then if you dont want to view it as an investment(even though by the definition an investment could be material and not simply monetary) view it like contributing to political party(Olberman example). I'd still say though that going by what the ECE says, investment of any kind for a return(material or monetary) would give the appearances of such conflicts.
This is why you were getting so much pushback for using the word "investment" earlier. These guidelines refer to actual monetary investments from which you are expecting a return.
Paying people to make things on kickstarter and patreon is being invested in their success if you're a journalist because the better they do the more your articles about them get viewed which leads to more money. So in the case of press and journalists they shouldn't be doing that.
Paying people to make things on kickstarter and patreon is being invested in their success if you're a journalist because the better they do the more your articles about them get viewed which leads to more money. So in the case of press and journalists they shouldn't be doing that.
The phrase "invested in their success" is so vague as to be without content. Further, covering something to make it more popular and getting more clicks out of it has literally no connection to funding projects. And I'm pretty sure the latter is a sin shared by literally anyone who has ever written about anything ever.
No, the guidelines refer to actual investment in the finance sense of the word. You can absolutely make the argument that Patreon or Kickstarter could get journalists more emotionally involved than they ought to be (several people have made good versions of this argument in this very thread), but citing these guidelines and then calling Patreon "investment" feels a lot like playing fast and loose with terminology to make an unearned point.
And I'd say splitting hairs between what you get in return for your financial or an economical investment is playing fast and loose, to try and make a loophole to be able to invest(economically) in something. The rules in place about investment is about conflict of interest, so I'm not sure how investment in the economical sense would differ from the financial sense, unless your only goal was to find a loophole.
Paying people to make things on kickstarter and patreon is being invested in their success if you're a journalist because the better they do the more your articles about them get viewed which leads to more money. So in the case of press and journalists they shouldn't be doing that.
eh, press can get a lot of mileage on a developer not doing well also.
SlowRevolution
Member
Twitter is such a shitty platform to discuss this stuff on.
Not really a fan of how Alex handled that in general, but I guess it's not a huge surprise.
Twitter is such a shitty platform to discuss this stuff on.
Not really a fan of how Alex handled that in general, but I guess it's not a huge surprise.
just caught this do these people complaing think that Jason has power over anything in neogaf?
EDIT: Ya know what Jason I like the most out of Kotaku and hope you do well even further in the future.
What cliff os referring to is actual sexual relationship. Not "being on bed" for advancements. 2 different things entirely. He's not defending people writing articles about their significant others projects. Just that there shouldn't be a rule saying you can't date journalistCliffy B is a perpetual twitter shit poster, how he got so famous as a personality is beyond me. Rod Fergusson is and was the much cooler of the two. But unfortunately the guys you WANT to want the spotlight rarely do.
Ok. Let's go back for a moment to the guidelines you cited:
Even if it weren't already obvious to anyone who has ever read codes of ethics or conflict of interest policies in any other industry, we can pretty easily figure out what sort of investment they're talking about from context. Can you invest in Kickstarter through your 401k? Are there broad-based mutual funds that cover a wide variety of gaming IndieGoGos and so keep you from needing to disclose? If you invest in a Patreon on the basis of insider information will you get busted by the SEC?
The answer to all of these questions is no, because the type of investment being talked about is financial investment. The word has other possible definitions (e.g. emotional investment), but that doesn't mean these policies apply to all of them.
I'd say you are looking at it from the literal sense, without seeing why it is an ethical issue. And the conflict of interest doesn't come from strict a legal sense. The point of the code of ethics is the ethics, not necessarily the legalities. So again, I'd say taking the point of the code of ethics(and even specifically investment) as that literally, where only thing that matters is financial investment, I think that is trying to find a loophole in ethics, to justify it. The reason you are not allowed to invest in companies is conflict of interest, so you become someone who's objectivity(the limited amount anyone has) is put into question. So, again, I dont see how the an economical investment changes the point of not investing in the industry you cover.
As for the bold, well duh, obviously it is talking about investment in the financial investment sense, but the point of that rule is conflict of interest. Like I said I dont see how you can gloss over what I said about it still being a conflict of interest even if it is an economical investment.
Ok, well, I'm not sure how I could make this any more clear, so *shrug*.
I get what you are saying, you are saying because you can say "emotional investment" that if you can apply it to an economical one you can apply it to all of them, but I disagree. I'm saying since both require monetary investment from the consumer it is in the same vein and reasoning.
speculawyer
Member
Gaming journalism is a corruption trap. I can't imagine it being very honest.
It is a combo of companies will multi-billion dollar market caps giving games to relatively low-paid journalists to review. I can't imagine how that does NOT end up in some corruption of the journalistic content.
Now it is probably not as bad as I make it sound . . . the AAA games with the massive budgets are generally going to be good because of all that work in them. But I can't help but assume that the publishers will do what they can to get good reviews. And besides . . . who else is going to advertise on videogame websites/magazines other than publishers?
I can't help but assume it is largely corrupt.
It is a combo of companies will multi-billion dollar market caps giving games to relatively low-paid journalists to review. I can't imagine how that does NOT end up in some corruption of the journalistic content.
Now it is probably not as bad as I make it sound . . . the AAA games with the massive budgets are generally going to be good because of all that work in them. But I can't help but assume that the publishers will do what they can to get good reviews. And besides . . . who else is going to advertise on videogame websites/magazines other than publishers?
I can't help but assume it is largely corrupt.
I get what you are saying, you are saying because you can say "emotional investment" that if you can apply it to an economical one you can apply it to all of them, but I disagree. I'm saying since both require monetary investment from the consumer it is in the same vein and reasoning.
No, he's saying actual financial investments return profits in terms of actual money. If I invest in company x and then make a ton of money on that investment by covering them, that's unethical.
If I buy milk and then I write a story about how delicious milk is and more people buy milk, I get nothing, because I bought it.
Unless patreons/kickstarters/IGG campaigns start actually paying backers, they're the former.
What bothers ME about this whole thing is that it is yet another aspect of trying to move games writing away from talking about the individuals who make them. You're not allowed to give a Patreon money but you can deck out your office in a replica ocarina and master sword and go to the symphony of the goddesses and nobody will bat an eye when you interview Aonuma?
Gaming journalism is a corruption trap. I can't imagine it being very honest.
It is a combo of companies will multi-billion dollar market caps giving games to relatively low-paid journalists to review. I can't imagine how that does NOT end up in some corruption of the journalistic content.
Now it is probably not as bad as I make it sound . . . the AAA games with the massive budgets are generally going to be good because of all that work in them. But I can't help but assume that the publishers will do what they can to get good reviews. And besides . . . who else is going to advertise on videogame websites/magazines other than publishers?
I can't help but assume it is largely corrupt.
reviews are not journalism. they could and should be criticism, but that's not journalism.
https://twitter.com/jeffgerstmann/status/504423496642854912
Where does me paying $300 of my own money for a lifetime Star Trek Online account put me on todays new Game Journalist Alignment Scale?
No, he's saying actual financial investments return profits in terms of actual money. If I invest in company x and then make a ton of money on that investment by covering them, that's unethical.
If I buy milk and then I write a story about how delicious milk is and more people buy milk, I get nothing, because I bought it.
Unless patreons/kickstarters/IGG campaigns start actually paying backers, they're the former.
What bothers ME about this whole thing is that it is yet another aspect of trying to move games writing away from talking about the individuals who make them. You're not allowed to give a Patreon money but you can deck out your office in a replica ocarina and master sword and go to the symphony of the goddesses and nobody will bat an eye when you interview Aonuma?
And if your coverage of a kickstarter that you personally put money into gets more stretch goals because you cover it more, then another kickstarter, or talk it up more then other kickstarters that is unethical, if it is motivated by your financial input into a kickstarter. You still are incentivized, because you get more in return the better the kickstarter does.
And if your coverage of a kickstarter you put money into gets more stretch goals because you cover it more, then another kickstarter, or talk it up more then other kickstarters that is unethical if it is motivated by your financial input into a kickstarter. You still are incentivized, because you get more in return the better the kickstarter does.
the more you get........of something that has little/no actual real world value, more often than not, particularly since stretch goals are often for things that go into an actual sold product so that anyone who buys it eventually will get it.
if you continue to follow this logic, it will eventually lead you to "writers shouldn't write about games because the only reason people read games writing outlets is to read games writing so it gets them paid!"
- Status
- Not open for further replies.