Support NeoGAF

[ScatheZombie]

I'm not a big name in the industry. I have a few journalists I follow (some following me) on twitter and I genuinely like the discussions we have there. Not once have I ever had a journalist/member of the games media saunter into my DMs and asking something like, "Hey, want to tell me about all of the cool secret stuff you're working on? I totally won't write about it on my site." This has never happened to me. I doubt it happens to high profile people (who would be worth asking) either.

I'm also a very, very small name in the industry, but I have had this happen to me (more than once). The most notable time, our team was doing a press junket for a new release (the members of this team are fairly big names in the industry now - having worked at a very high level at places like Amazon and Blizzard) and both G4 and Machinima continually, and aggressively, tried to pump me for more information they knew they weren't supposed to get. That's their job. I don't fault them for it. But I'm also not going to act like it doesn't happen.

But maybe that's a difference between in-person interaction where they have a dev in front of them versus online interaction where they would be basically blind-questioning you on Twitter.

 

[Dicktatorship]

He is also pro-GG, uses words like "fag", as well as receives gifts from publishers and console makers. No wonder he attacked Kotaku for defense his beloved PC publisher (admits he is a PC fanboy as well).

He is not as "innocent" as he passes off at times.

And Kotaku has done nothing to "harm him".

Where you see a villain, I see a troubled man who receives nice things from companies. We've all got our own problems man.

 

[v0yce]

Why are you omitting my whole quote, and only framing what you want?

Take something out of context to support your narrative, eh?

Nope.

Great right up, and sad but true when many think there is or should be a relationship.

The minute you form a relationship outside of objective reporting, is the minute your integrity has been compromised.

You do understand that Kotaku wants this relationship back right?

Jason himself has said as much

We have tried many, many times in many, many different ways to talk to them and resolve things. It didn't work.

This weird "We're not in a relationship. Except we are in a relationship. And we need that relationship to do our job well. Except we're doing great work without that relationship." stuff he's writing (and you're buying) is all over the place. They don't need the Publisher's PR line to pick up or early review copies to do objective reporting. But they want that stuff back. They want back in that relationship that other game sites have with said Publisher.

 

[Nairume]

Good post. Wonder if those last two PA comics were published before they started striking deals to make strips for major video game publishers.

Let's find out! The first comic was posted in January of 2006, while the second was November of 2007

Checking PA Presents, which has most of their work for hire done for various publishers, their first one was a Wild Arms miniseries done in July of 2002. For Ubisoft alone, they've got 15 projects between March of 2003 (Pandora Tomorrow) and November of 2011 (Future Soldier). Eight of those predate the comic about games journalist finding their balls, an additional five came out after the journalist comic but before the Gerstman Firing comic, and then two came out after both.

Incidentally, I have to put up the "most of" qualifier for what is included in PA Presents, because they don't list the Fallout 3 comic they did for Bethesda

 

[jschreier]

This weird "We're not in a relationship. Except we are in a relationship. And we need that relationship to do our job well. Except we're doing great work without that relationship." stuff he's writing (and you're buying) is all over the place. They don't need the Publisher's PR line to pick up or early review copies to do objective reporting. But they want that stuff back. They want back in that relationship that other game sites have with said Publisher.

You see the difference between the "relationship" metaphor in my tweet and a professional business relationship, right? We wanted to resolve things privately and work with these companies again -- notsomuch to get free copies of their games but so we could more properly do our jobs as reporters. That doesn't mean we're on the same team, despite what many in this industry believe.

 

[Samurai G0SU]

Kotaku has been blacklisting me for years. Not once has Totilo or Schreier responded to my many comments on Kotaku or on Reddit. Not once. I will no longer stand by and be blacklisted. #teardownthiswall

this made me laugh.

YESSSS lol

 

[Marow]

I'm not entirely sure why I see people intepretating them wanting to still be in touch with the publisher as a sign of wanting to get back in bed with them. Being friendly and on good terms does not equal being PR machines. We're talking about a publisher that refuses any sort of contact, going as far as not commenting on stories. Of course you'd want to be able to receive a comment or such, no?

 

[ultron87]

Nope.



You do understand that Kotaku wants this relationship back right?

Jason himself has said as much

This weird "We're not in a relationship. Except we are in a relationship. And we need that relationship to do our job well. Except we're doing great work without that relationship." stuff he's writing (and you're buying) is all over the place. They don't need the Publisher's PR line to pick up or early review copies to do objective reporting. But they want that stuff back. They want back in that relationship that other game sites have with said Publisher.

"Relationship" in the write up is referencing a "boyfriend/girlfriend" relationship where everyone is nominally on the same team and not a professional relationship between a journalist and the things the cover. Those are different things.

 

[MidBoss]

I don't understand the assumption that this isn't already the case at every major publisher or studio, or that stricter controls aren't implemented after a major leak happens, or that tightening internal security is mutually exclusive with blacklisting the offending publication.

Every major publisher/studio already has controls in place to minimize leaks.
Every major publisher/studio tightens security and imposes new access restrictions after a major leak.

I work for a mid-sized studio and I'm not even allowed to bring my own laptop to work. Everything we use has to be company-issued and regularly scanned/monitored. Don't know if that's common though.

If we're going to paint both sides of their cute parable as representative of all developers and all journalists, it really reduces developers and press to the following two things:
1) developers who unthinkingly break their NDAs
2) press who basically exist only to ask developers into breaking their NDAs

I bet it was the damn QA department!

Spoiler

/s

I love that a GAF user takes issue with a question that was completely relevant to the discussion at hand.

The question was completey appropriate and he clearly had no qualms in answering it. If two entities have a working relationship with each other and one of the entities acts in bad faith or in an unethical manner, then blacklisting is obviously an appropriate course of action. It's completely valid to inquire into whether or not there was any unethical behavior.

For what it's worth, blacklisting most certainly can be justified. Whether or not it was in this particular case is sort of the entire point of this discussion. Frankly, the notion that blacklisting can't be justified is a bit ridiculous.

This.

 

[soultron]

I'm also a very, very small name in the industry, but I have had this happen to me (more than once). The most notable time, our team was doing a press junket for a new release (the members of this team are fairly big names in the industry now - having worked at a very high level at places like Amazon and Blizzard) and both G4 and Machinima continually, and aggressively, tried to pump me for more information they knew they weren't supposed to get. That's their job. I don't fault them for it. But I'm also not going to act like it doesn't happen.

But maybe that's a difference between in-person interaction where they have a dev in front of them versus online interaction where they would be basically blind-questioning you on Twitter.

Yeah, good point. My experiences definitely aren't everyone's but I also don't want PA's strip to paint it like every developer has the same kind of interaction with the press.

I'm also not really cool that PA is saying this when a lot of their business directly supports publishers and their marketing initiatives. Same as Roster Teeth chastising Gerstmann's review of FO4 while they celebrate how cool the PipBoy toy is, as they're wearing it.

 

[v0yce]

You see the difference between the "relationship" metaphor in my tweet and a professional business relationship, right? We wanted to resolve things privately and work with these companies again -- notsomuch to get free copies of their games but so we could more properly do our jobs as reporters. That doesn't mean we're on the same team, despite what many in this industry believe.

What does "more properly" mean?

Do you feel Kotaku is unable to adequately cover Ubisoft and Bethesda? Do you think other sites that have that professional relationship with these companies are better sources for news concerning them?

Do you not accept review copies of games that your are in a "professional relationship" with?

 

[SeanR1221]

You see the difference between the "relationship" metaphor in my tweet and a professional business relationship, right? We wanted to resolve things privately and work with these companies again -- notsomuch to get free copies of their games but so we could more properly do our jobs as reporters. That doesn't mean we're on the same team, despite what many in this industry believe.

I honestly feel like you're splitting hairs when it comes to your wording. Obviously there's a relationship there, but it's not on the terms you'd like. Instead of a boyfriend girlfriend I'd say it's more coworkers who are friendly acquaintances. But you can still push those people away and you can't have it both ways.

Honestly, I'd say just carve out your own niche and go all in like with the destiny activision piece.

 

[Suzushiiro]

Blacklisting is pretty much the only weapon a company has against journalists. It shouldn't come as a shock when they use it in a situation where it would benefit them. As a journalist you should either do whatever the fuck you want and accept the fact that some developers are going to get pissed and cut off your press access/early review copies/etc. or play by the devs' rules and sometimes keep your mouth shut when some juicy info comes your way.

I'm not condemning or condoning one or the other here- if anything the people who are interested in this stuff are probably best served when there are a variety of outlets that cover the whole spectrum from "glorified PR mouthpiece" to "press sneak fuck." But don't expect anyone on the latter end of the spectrum to get the same treatment from developers that the people on the former end do.

 

[jschreier]

What does "more properly" mean?

Do you feel Kotaku is unable to adequately cover Ubisoft and Bethesda? Do you think other sites that have that professional relationship with these companies are better sources for news concerning them?

Depends what you're looking for. Let's get into specifics. There are a few different types of stories we're talking about here, right? First of all there's the basic news -- "Bethesda announces Fallout 4!" -- and you can get that anywhere. We'll continue covering the important/interesting news with or without publisher access. There are reviews, which you'll presumably read based on which critics/outlets you trust to give you interesting perspectives. Kotaku's reviews of Ubi and Beth games will probably run later than other sites', but that's not a big deal. As I think we've proven over the past two years, we're not going to treat those companies or their games any less fairly.

Then there's the stuff I'm actually sad to miss out on, like the publisher-provided interviews with devs like Todd Howard and Harvey Smith, who are seriously smart, fascinating guys that I'd love to chat with again. It's a bummer that I'll never be able to have official interviews with Bethesda or Ubisoft developers, but it's not like I'm ever going to let that affect how I report the news. And if you want those interviews, you'll probably have to go elsewhere.

And then, perhaps most crucially, there's the fact that Bethesda and Ubisoft will always ignore our requests for comment on anything, whether it's a simple news story ("hey is this game broken on PC?") or a large investigation ("hey are you guys mistreating your workers?). Given that we're one of the few websites that actually does that sort of investigative work, you'll likely still have to read it on Kotaku, but neither of those companies will ever add their perspectives, which is detrimental both to us (it leads to less thorough stories) and to them (they won't give their side of things).

That answer your question?

 

[Felix Lighter]

Blacklisting is pretty much the only weapon a company has against journalists. It shouldn't come as a shock when they use it in a situation where it would benefit them. As a journalist you should either do whatever the fuck you want and accept the fact that some developers are going to get pissed and cut off your press access/early review copies/etc. or play by the devs' rules and sometimes keep your mouth shut when some juicy info comes your way.

I'm not condemning or condoning one or the other here- if anything the people who are interested in this stuff are probably best served when there are a variety of outlets that cover the whole spectrum from "glorified PR mouthpiece" to "press sneak fuck." But don't expect anyone on the latter end of the spectrum to get the same treatment from developers that the people on the former end do.

It comes as shock to me how ready so many consumers are to accept the tactic. No one should be surprised that publishers consider these tactics but that should be weighed against the potential backlash of using access to control the message and "punish" journalists that they consider out of line. Publishers reading this thread should be ecstatic. The news goes out that publications are being blacklisted for not playing ball and there are a legend of fans that either applaud the move or are completely indifferent to it as if it should be expected.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Where you see a villain, I see a troubled man who receives nice things from companies. We've all got our own problems man.

I never labeled him a villain. Do not put words into my mouth (er post). I said he is not as innocent/victim as he portrays himself to be.

 

[Shifty1897]

EDIT: I don't know exactly why, but the article makes me cranky towards Bethesda and Ubi. They are multi million dollar companies, they should stop being so petty.

 

[Jacksinthe]

Nope.



You do understand that Kotaku wants this relationship back right?

Jason himself has said as much



This weird "We're not in a relationship. Except we are in a relationship. And we need that relationship to do our job well. Except we're doing great work without that relationship." stuff he's writing (and you're buying) is all over the place. They don't need the Publisher's PR line to pick up or early review copies to do objective reporting. But they want that stuff back. They want back in that relationship that other game sites have with said Publisher.

"Relationship" can mean a lot of things. To you, it seems that word represents some back alley deals for positive PR where to someone else, it can simply mean an open line of communication to allow for fair time for reviews, coverage, etc. I do think Jason is referring to the latter, not the former.

 

[Kamina777]

EDIT: I don't know exactly why, but the article makes me cranky towards Bethesda and Ubi. They are multi million dollar companies, they should stop being so petty.

Of course it does, its a propaganda piece through and through, one sided stories tend to have that someone is the bad guy and its not me kinda vibe. Even though neither party is the villain. I am the last person to be a fan of big business, but people act like Kotaku isn't a business as well.

 

[silvermember]

Where you see a villain, I see a troubled man who receives nice things from companies. We've all got our own problems man.

That is perfectly fine, as long as he doesn't pretend to be objective. This puts his reviews with the companies that he receives stuff from suspect.

 

[stuminus3]

Why is everyone in the video game industry so childish? *flips over a magazine rack*

 

[nrvalleytime]

I love that a GAF user takes issue with a question that was completely relevant to the discussion at hand.

The question was completey appropriate and he clearly had no qualms in answering it. If two entities have a working relationship with each other and one of the entities acts in bad faith or in an unethical manner, then blacklisting is obviously an appropriate course of action. It's completely valid to inquire into whether or not there was any unethical behavior.

For what it's worth, blacklisting most certainly can be justified. Whether or not it was in this particular case is sort of the entire point of this discussion. Frankly, the notion that blacklisting can't be justified is a bit ridiculous.

You skipped the part where I said "your particular outlet." Nearly all of your statement comes from not carefully reading my thoughts.

Kotaku is rather transparent with the public about its business and review methodology. For us to entertain the idea that two large companies are justified in blacklisting them is, well, a stretch.

 

[RMI]

good on Kotaku for bringing this stuff to light. I know that site has been shit in the past but actually seems like they've been doing some great work for the past couple of years.

The penny arcade comic and Tycho's post on the matter is as ridiculous as expected. It's all fine and dandy to say that it is good to cut these ties between publishers and the news outlet, but it stops being fine when PR starts looking indistinguishable from real news and not everyone is playing by the same rules. Any shred of respect that I might have had for Gabe and Tycho is pretty much gone after reading that. Those guys are clowns.

 

[v0yce]

Depends what you're looking for. Let's get into specifics. There are a few different types of stories we're talking about here, right? First of all there's the basic news -- "Bethesda announces Fallout 4!" -- and you can get that anywhere. We'll continue covering the important/interesting news with or without publisher access. There are reviews, which you'll presumably read based on which critics/outlets you trust to give you interesting perspectives. Kotaku's reviews of Ubi and Beth games will probably run later than other sites', but that's not a big deal. As I think we've proven over the past two years, we're not going to treat those companies or their games any less fairly.

Then there's the stuff I'm actually sad to miss out on, like the publisher-provided interviews with devs like Todd Howard and Harvey Smith, who are seriously smart, fascinating guys that I'd love to chat with again. It's a bummer that I'll never be able to have official interviews with Bethesda or Ubisoft developers, but it's not like I'm ever going to let that affect how I report the news. And if you want those interviews, you'll probably have to go elsewhere.

And then, perhaps most crucially, there's the fact that Bethesda and Ubisoft will always ignore our requests for comment on anything, whether it's a simple news story ("hey is this game broken on PC?") or a large investigation ("hey are you guys mistreating your workers?). Given that we're one of the few websites that actually does that sort of investigative work, you'll likely still have to read it on Kotaku, but neither of those companies will ever add their perspectives, which is detrimental both to us (it leads to less thorough stories) and to them (they won't give their side of things).

That answer your question?

It helps. Thank you.

But I still see inconsistency with what's coming out of Kotaku. And I realize that you didn't write the original piece so some of it my confusion may be coming from the two points of view.

On the one hand, you guys understandably want back in on the easy access to the companies. You want that relationship, but then you seem to make it a point to pat yourselves on the back about how Bethesda's/Ubisoft's actions haven't worked. You're still getting info "on the sly." You say review copies aren't that big of a deal and have even alluded that it may have benefited the quality of the review but you felt the need to mention how you were able to get access to an early review copy of Fallout 4 anyway in spite of them and I'm sure you still take advantage of review copies from other companies.

You say you're just doing you're job as a news site by reporting what you feel is actual news (agreed), but then you complain it's poor form when that company, who's job it is to control that news/information/message, decides it's best to not speak with an outlet they feel has handled their news inappropriately.

And the idea that it's impossible to keep things a secret in the gaming industry in 2015 is stupid. It's certainly difficult but happens and is not impossible. So again, crying foul at people who's job it is to try and make these things happen is bunk.

The biggest issue I see though is claiming that this piece was written because it was newsworthy or because the Kotaku audience deserves the truth or whatever, yet you only came to that conclusion after years of trying to get back in Ubi/Bethesda's good graces.

Of course it does, its a propaganda piece through and through, one sided stories tend to have that someone is the bad guy and its not me kinda vibe. Even though neither party is the villain. I am the last person to be a fan of big business, but people act like Kotaku isn't a business as well.

This.

 

[antitrop]

Well to be fair I don't like his videos, but he seems like such a sweet man. It just pains me to think that people would actively do him harm.

I liked Boogie, until he got a GAF account and made a huge ass of himself.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I liked Boogie, until he got a GAF account and made a huge ass of himself.

Same.

 

[ezekial45]

I liked Boogie, until he got a GAF account and made a huge ass of himself.

What did he do?

 

[James Scott]

The blacklist is from the leaks, right? Might of missed it elsewhere, but if it was I'm not sure why the publishers can be seen as the bad guys.
Being on the PR list is a privilege, I'm not on it and things like press material and sending review copies cost money. Not sure why one would have to keep doing this after they use their power to leak major releases a few weeks/months ahead of time.
Not sure how the public benefits from Kotaku spoiling the setting of the new AC or anything.
If it's leaking harsh work environments or shady deals then yeah, that helps the consumer.
Just seems like Kotaku trying to punish Bethesda and Ubisoft for something they did while getting ad revenue and brownie points from gamers.
I don't even like Ubisoft and Bethesda (I like kotaku considerably more than Bethesda), but that's what it looks like to me.

 

[antitrop]

What did he do?

He's one of those guys who supports GamerGate and really believes "it's about ethics in games journalism".

He's permbanned. You can still look up his post history.

 

[Teeth]

And then, perhaps most crucially, there's the fact that Bethesda and Ubisoft will always ignore our requests for comment on anything, whether it's a simple news story ("hey is this game broken on PC?") or a large investigation ("hey are you guys mistreating your workers?). Given that we're one of the few websites that actually does that sort of investigative work, you'll likely still have to read it on Kotaku, but neither of those companies will ever add their perspectives, which is detrimental both to us (it leads to less thorough stories) and to them (they won't give their side of things).

Since this is the "most crucial" component - I'll ask:

Do you think the response you would get from these companies would be more valuable than a "no comment" when it exposes their wrongdoing or mishandling or just makes them look bad?

 

[Pathfinder]

Not sure how the public benefits from Kotaku spoiling the setting of the new AC or anything.
If it's leaking harsh work environments or shady deals then yeah, that helps the consumer.
Just seems like Kotaku trying to punish Bethesda and Ubisoft for something they did while getting ad revenue and brownie points from gamers.
I don't even like Ubisoft and Bethesda (I like kotaku considerably more than Bethesda), but that's what it looks like to me.

Yeah, I just hate it when release dates and info about video games are spoiled for me. It really grinds my gears when I hear about things like that before everyone else does.

That's not beneficial to me at all.

 

[brau]

This has probably been posted here already. But i just noticed it. Some interesting opposing opinions to Kotakus article.

Kotaku is throwing a self-pity party today. Following the publishing of their Fallout 4 review -- which was about a week later than most other outlets -- Kotaku released an article today: “A Price of Games Journalism.” Written by Stephen Totilo, the premise of the piece is justification for what the website writes (or leaks, rather) in an attempt to make the big, bad publisher look evil. The two that have scorned Kotaku the most: Bethesda, makers of Fallout 4, and Ubisoft, publisher of the Assassin’s Creed and Far Cry series.

The article begins with claims that Kotaku has been blacklisted by both of these publishers. “They’ve cut off our access to their games and creators, omitted us from their widespread mailings of early review copies, and, most galling, ignored all of our requests for comment on any news stories,” Totilo writes.

Based on the late release of Kotaku’s Fallout 4 review, I fully believe they’ve been blacklisted by at least Bethesda.

Here’s the thing, though, their attempted defense stands on shaky grounds. Both Bethesda and Ubisoft have one thing in common when it comes to Kotaku, both are victims of Kotaku’s reporting.

In 2013, Kotaku published a detailed report on Fallout 4, not just confirming its existence, but leaking a crap ton of information, including the Boston setting, the character Preston Garvey, and even direct lines from the game.

In 2014, they did something similar with Ubisoft, leaking the existence of Assassin’s Creed Victory (renamed Syndicate). This came after the outlet reported on both Unity and Rogue before they were announced as well. And let’s not forget they also published early images of the then-unannounced Assassin’s Creed Unity, which had been leaked to them by an independent source.

Kotaku claims this is “games journalism.” They believe, with their leaks, they told “the truth” about these publishers’ games. While the leaks may have been true, there’s a difference between publishing truth that needs to be known and truth that you simply write for pageviews. In these cases, neither needed to be known at the time.

Totilo even says, “I prefer to marshal our reporting to tell readers things they’ll otherwise never know or that they need to know sooner—the underpowered nature of upcoming hardware, the plight of fired game developers, the reason a high-profile game was released in rough shape.”

In the cases of Fallout and Assassin’s Creed, neither of these leaks contained information gamers wouldn’t have known eventually, and it certainly wasn’t information they needed to know sooner.

Sure, Gamers wanted to know if Fallout 4 were in development. And at the proper time, presumably E3 (when Fallout 4 actually was revealed), they would have. The truth would have been made public with or without Kotaku’s leak because that was part of Bethesda’s marketing plan.

There’s nothing “journalistic” about leaking documents fed to you. It serves the public no purpose other than ruining the surprise of a yet-to-be-announced game.

Totilo’s post reads as if Kotaku is acting as some sort of whistleblower, only nothing the outlet leaked is deemed illegal or dishonest. Is Bethesda’s attempt to keep Fallout 4 a secret illegal? No. Is Ubisoft waiting to announce a new Assassin’s Creed dishonest? No. Besides, we all know a new one is coming every year anyway.

So tell me, Stephen, what exactly is the value in leaking these games early? What benefit does seeing a leaked image of Assassin’s Creed Unity have on the overall gaming public? Allow everyone to pre-judge something before it’s ready to be shown?

In the comments of the article, Totilo defends, “My focus is telling the truth about games for readers, whether that’s the external truth that reporters discover or that more internal subjective truth about how a critic feels about a game.”

By all means, tell us the truth. Tell us how you really feel about Fallout 4 or the latest Assassin’s Creed. That is the sort of truth gamers want. They want honest, truthful critique to know if ther hard-earned $60 is worth spending on a new release. Kotaku’s report on Fallout 4 may have been true, that’s not the sort of truth Totilo is using to justify his defense against being blacklisted.

You want to write about layoffs, bad business work environments, canceled games, go for it. But stop trying to claim to be something you’re not. Kotaku is a tabloid, and this argument that they post about leaked games for “truth” instead of pageviews is a blatant lie.

I’m not saying it’s wrong to write about leaks, but don’t justify them as “truth”. There is a big difference between being truthful in your reporting of a game and simply leaking information just for the hell of it. For example, I was truthful in my review of Fallout 4, and guess what, it didn't involve me spoiling the setting months in advance.

Don’t play the game, Kotaku, and then complain when you get burned. You published significant Fallout 4 leaks years before the reveal. Imagine the backlash Bethesda would have suffered had the game, for some reason, been canceled before its full announcement. Marketing plans exist not to screw over the press or the average consumer (that's what DLC is for); they exist as a carefully constructed (usually) plan to unveil specific things when they are ready to be fully announced. Don’t attempt to use “reporting truth” as a defense for spoiling these companies’ plans early.

 

[v0yce]

Yeah, I just hate it when release dates and info about video games are spoiled for me. It really grinds my gears when I hear about things like that before everyone else does.

That's not beneficial to me at all.

I actually like reveals of stuff like Cloud in Smash when it's an event and not Kotaku or whoever leaking the SF5 roster a few days before a Capcom event.

But I think that's kind of irrelevant to the conversation.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Yeah, I just hate it when release dates and info about video games are spoiled for me. It really grinds my gears when I hear about things like that before everyone else does.

That's not beneficial to me at all.

Don't you just hate that!

 

[Pathfinder]

This has probably been posted here already. But i just noticed it. Some interesting opposing opinions to Kotakus article.

Hold up. Does that article really refer to Bethesda and Ubisoft as victims?

I had to re-read that twice to make sure my eyes weren't deceiving me.

 

[stufte]

He's one of those guys who supports GamerGate and really believes "it's about ethics in games journalism".

He's permbanned. You can still look up his post history.

I thought he was neutral on it? I also thought the mods said he was banned because he was suicidal?

Boogie isn't a bad person... :\

 

[Orayn]

I thought he was neutral on it? I also thought the mods said he was banned because he was suicidal?

Boogie isn't a bad person... :

He started threatening self harm and lashing out at people in the thread that got him banned, it was pretty messed up.

 

[ultron87]

Knowing that Syndicate (then Victory) was coming in a year and had a setting that could interest people absolutely was to the public good. People that wanted more European Assassin's Creed then knew that if they didn't buy the current busted ass game they'd have another coming in short order.

 

[brau]

Hold up. Does that article really refer to Bethesda and Ubisoft as victims?

I had to re-read that twice to make sure my eyes weren't deceiving me.

I think its just stating that both companies have had their marketing foiled by leaks on Kotaku. Making them "Victims" on both Fallout 4 and AC Syndicate and other matters. He explains it a bit more thoroughly and he doesn't defend the studios or their practices. He is just trying to get that these kind of reports. The one with leaks benefit no one except Kotaku and their pageviews.

I think its interesting.

 

[Laevateinn]

Hold up. Does that article really refer to Bethesda and Ubisoft as victims?

I had to re-read that twice to make sure my eyes weren't deceiving me.

Won't someone think of the PR departments?

 

[James Scott]

Yeah, I just hate it when release dates and info about video games are spoiled for me. It really grinds my gears when I hear about things like that before everyone else does.

That's not beneficial to me at all.

Mostly referring to Syndicate. They showed the setting, some screenshots, and a codename. Part of the excitement in participating in the game community is good reveals. Having screenshots, knowing the setting and any other details lessens that. I'd probably be upset as a fan. There was a lot less buzz overall for the latest game who knows if the details being leaked was the cause of that?

 

[Makonero]

Hold up. Does that article really refer to Bethesda and Ubisoft as victims?

I had to re-read that twice to make sure my eyes weren't deceiving me.

That article, plus Penny Arcade, and a whole lot of people in this thread all paint poor, poor Ubisoft and Bethesda as unfortunate victims of the mean-spirited and callous Kotaku for their cruel articles about their justified and righteous blacklisting and spiteful pursuit of truth.

 

[v0yce]

Don't you just hate that!

Don't you just loved blurry off screen images of an early build of an unannounced game?

So much truth!

 

[Cruxist]

Hold up. Does that article really refer to Bethesda and Ubisoft as victims?

I had to re-read that twice to make sure my eyes weren't deceiving me.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that multimillion dollar companies that are largely loved/appreciated for their products aren't actually victims. Everybody feels like they have skin in the game here because we get so defensive about brands and products and things we enjoy.

Just remember that, "Corporations are people my friend."

 

[kavanf1]

Hold up. Does that article really refer to Bethesda and Ubisoft as victims?

I had to re-read that twice to make sure my eyes weren't deceiving me.

They were victims of their asshole employee(s) who leaked the stuff in the first place.

 

[brau]

That article, plus Penny Arcade, and a whole lot of people in this thread all paint poor, poor Ubisoft and Bethesda as unfortunate victims of the mean-spirited and callous Kotaku for their cruel articles about their justified and righteous blacklisting and spiteful pursuit of truth.

I don't think thats what they are saying in the article.

When you work on a game there is a strategy to get a good presentation and first impression of the game at reveal. Having someone leak documents, scripts, even screens that are not for the media might hinder that. Thats all.... Why won't journalists respect that and work with studios to make the reveals more epic perhaps? Geoff and Kojima come to mind on good reveals and surprises to people.

I guess they are just pointing that these habits will come at a price, even when Bethesda or Ubisoft have their own skeletons in the closet that doesn't justify other media to leak information that is not ready for the public.

They were victims of their asshole employee(s) who leaked the stuff in the first place.

This is true... it sucks.. and if you don't earn the respect and have disgruntled employees this will inevitably happen. Its a sad affair.

 

[Pathfinder]

Mostly referring to Syndicate. They showed the setting, some screenshots, and a codename. Part of the excitement in participating in the game community is good reveals. Having screenshots, knowing the setting and any other details lessens that. I'd probably be upset as a fan. There was a lot less buzz overall for the latest game who knows if the details being leaked was the cause of that?

I can see where you're coming from, but the last part is a bit of a stretch.

Personally, I'd say the decrease in buzz is caused by Ubi milking the franchise for all its worth and rushing out yearly titles full of bugs. After the shitstorm that was Unity, could Ubi really think there would be more buzz for Syndicate?

 

[Acerac]

This has probably been posted here already. But i just noticed it. Some interesting opposing opinions to Kotakus article.

Such a ridiculous article.

"Kotaku is horrible, they make decisions to get visitors to their website! Unlike other video game news their news is unnecessary!"

People in this thread make the same idiotic points. They don't make any sense. -_-

 

[jschreier]

Why won't journalists respect that and work with studios to make the reveals more epic perhaps? Geoff and Kojima come to mind on good reveals and surprises to people.

This legit depresses me.

 

[Razakin]

That article, plus Penny Arcade, and a whole lot of people in this thread all paint poor, poor Ubisoft and Bethesda as unfortunate victims of the mean-spirited and callous Kotaku for their cruel articles about their justified and righteous blacklisting and spiteful pursuit of truth.

Yeah, especially Bethesda is such unfortunate victim with the sales of Fallout 4.

Really stupid of Bethesda and Ubi to put Kotaku into a blacklist, especially when Kotaku just made news what their own employees leaked.

And it's not like leaking that Bethesda is doing Fallout 4 is a surprise to anyone, but stuff like the Prey 2 situation are good to read. Guess I really need to start reading Kotaku again, haven't done that for 6-8 years I guess.