John Caboose
Member
Wow. If this malformed analogy is them weighing in, then they should probably weigh back out.
Hahaha, damn son.
Oh lord. "They didn't pay me they just did this and this and oh, well I guess they did..."
Wow. If this malformed analogy is them weighing in, then they should probably weigh back out.
I don't think he entirely gets why Fox News is criticized if that's the point of reference he's trying to use with Kotaku. Fox News is a bald-faced mouthpiece for a political party that shifts and spins every single story to fit a narrative. Kotaku, at worst, is a gossip tabloid.
But not Kotaku, which is the point. And you have no reason to believe that Kotaku approached anyone and convinced them to find and leak information, so you're basing your entire argument that it's black-and-white unethical off of baseless speculation. Which is itself unethical.If we assume that information regarding the development of a particular game is protected under NDAs (which is a very safe assumption to make,) then it's safe to say that someone broke an NDA in order to leak the information.
I'd argue every news outlet (national outlet, anyways) does exactly this. CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, etc. They all spin everything to fit their narrative or agenda based on the party they represent most even as they deny they represent any party at all.
But I can get along with your point here - regardless of what we think of national news chains, comparing Kotaku to them isn't really fair to Kotaku because then were acting like their actual news reporting has some sort of agenda. I read their video game news at times, there isn't much there to draw on that conclusion.
They are closer to being like TMZ than Fox news. Though, under their current EiC, they have gotten a lot better.
If we assume that information regarding the development of a particular game is protected under NDAs (which is a very safe assumption to make,) then it's safe to say that someone broke an NDA in order to leak the information.
IP law is ugly and complicated, and I know this first hand. I worked for a company that was developing a new product. Information about this product was published and it cost us a competitive advantage. There were less than 200 people on the project and they were all under NDAs. Someone in our company obviously broke an NDA, and the journalist who printed the story had to have known that someone broke an NDA. (It's unreasonable to think otherwise.) We couldn't prove who broke the NDA, however. If we could, legal action could have been taken against both the employee who broke the NDA and the journalist who knowingly solicited the information that was protected by NDAs. Legal action wasn't possible, but it was clear to us that the journalist acted in bad faith so we cut her off. We were under no obligation to deal with people who we viewed as unethical. Make no mistake about it: It's not "good journalism" to reveal information that was obtained by unethical means.
Perhaps my personal experience are skewing my opinion on this issue. I'll take a step back here to give Kotaku the benefit of the doubt. Maybe they didn't break any NDAs and maybe they weren't aware that anyone else was breaking any NDAs by providing them with information. It's possible, right? It seems unlikely to me, but I'll admit that it's at least within the realm of possibility.
It actually isn't the best. It restricts access to interviews from developers, key players, previews, etc. If nobody was ever allowed a preview build, to talk to devs, etc - we would have a few paragraphs at best on some official website to inform us about the games. No real "meat and potatoes" coverage.
I agree that not being buddy-buddy with swag and exclusivity deals is ideal - but there is more to game journalism than product reviews which is MOST affected by partnerships. A lot more.
nor has Kotaku called law enforcement to let them know that the law is being broken since Todd Howard is legally obligated to return the phone calls of anyone who claims to be from the press.
Is that a real thing? I have never heard of this before.
Yes.
People should never leak anything that they are legally obligated not to leak. If you work for a company and you break an NDA, you shouldn't do it. Simple.
If you have a blog and you receive information from someone who knowingly broke an NDA, then you should not leak it. Simple.
I agree that it would make things "boring" but if there's no ethical basis for leaking information that companies have taken appropriate measure to keep secret.
Exactly this.
LOL mainstream media (which is owned now by 6-8 large corporations [over 700 private organizations in the 60's], who fund their candidate of interest campaign):
That is not Kotaku... at all. They have no "horse in the race". It was a dumb comparison. ]
If we assume that information regarding the development of a particular game is protected under NDAs (which is a very safe assumption to make,) then it's safe to say that someone broke an NDA in order to leak the information.
IP law is ugly and complicated, and I know this first hand. I worked for a company that was developing a new product. Information about this product was published and it cost us a competitive advantage. There were less than 200 people on the project and they were all under NDAs. Someone in our company obviously broke an NDA, and the journalist who printed the story had to have known that someone broke an NDA. (It's unreasonable to think otherwise.) We couldn't prove who broke the NDA, however. If we could, legal action could have been taken against both the employee who broke the NDA and the journalist who knowingly solicited the information that was protected by NDAs. Legal action wasn't possible, but it was clear to us that the journalist acted in bad faith so we cut her off. We were under no obligation to deal with people who we viewed as unethical. Make no mistake about it: It's not "good journalism" to reveal information that was obtained by unethical means.
Perhaps my personal experience are skewing my opinion on this issue. I'll take a step back here to give Kotaku the benefit of the doubt. Maybe they didn't break any NDAs and maybe they weren't aware that anyone else was breaking any NDAs by providing them with information. It's possible, right? It seems unlikely to me, but I'll admit that it's at least within the realm of possibility.
I've never been convinced that this issue was entirely about leaks in the first place. As many people have pointed out, leaks happen all the time. Gaming journalism is more-or-less built off of leaks, after all. Kotaku certainly isn't the only source to post leaked information over the years, so my initial point of contention still stands: There could be any number of reasons why Kotaku was blacklisted.
Yes, it's a trade secret.The existence of a game is not a trade secret, because there is no inherent economic value to its secrecy.
Now, if Kotaku was leaking the source code to a game or something, you might have an argument.
Again, since you only read what you want, I'll repeat myself.
Leaking information about a game we know is in the works, which doesn't change formula from previous iterations, is a regurgitation of old ideas, etc - I would hardly call a "trade secret".
It can simply be classified under: "no shit, Sherlock". The leaks only served to reinforce what we were already speculating because its the same shit, different year.
A new IP would be thinner ice but this shit is old hat.
Me and @jasonschreier may have a personal disagreement but I shouldn't have taken it so public. For me, please, leave the guy alone.
From your perspective.
Obviously, not from the perspective of Ubisoft or Bethesda.
Yes, it's a trade secret.
A public company has a game scheduled to be announced later in the road. This IP use to sell very well, so it's likely they agreed with a 1st party to announce in a 1st party conference (E3 or similar), a marketing deal, a console bundle and/or exclusive DLC.
The game is leaked once the previous chapter in the series was suffering a lot of criticism due to its unpolished state and being milked too frequently. Both the IP and the company get extra criticism for being working in another game instead of fixing the previous one, and because the new one doesn't look as hot as it should.
But both the game info and the assets weren't ready to be revealed and weren't shown in the most impactful, positive way, so the powerful marketing weapon that is the game announcement and hype campaign is lost.
Company and brand image get extra damaged and the company loses the marketing deal with the 1st party. So the company has to pay all the marketing, doesn't reach powerful 1st party marketing channels and the game sells way less because of the leak. This IP is the main one from the company, so the company stocks go down. Companies have secrets, NDA and communicate their stuff through PR and marketing to make sure it's communicated properly and in the proper moment.
When Kotaku leaks AC, Fallout, etc. stuff is damaging these companies. And people who leaked the stuff were likely fired. It's laughable considere it "journalism" as if they were discovering the Watergate to the people. Players could have waited some months to get the same stuff, Kotaku just did it to get clicks.
Kotaku steals all it's news from gaf, maybe we are to blaime lol.
Yes, it's a trade secret.
A public company has a game scheduled to be announced later in the road. This IP use to sell very well, so it's likely they agreed with a 1st party to announce in a 1st party conference (E3 or similar), a marketing deal, a console bundle and/or exclusive DLC.
The game is leaked once the previous chapter in the series was suffering a lot of criticism due to its unpolished state and being milked too frequently. Both the IP and the company get extra criticism for being working in another game instead of fixing the previous one, and because the new one doesn't look as hot as it should.
But both the game info and the assets weren't ready to be revealed and weren't shown in the most impactful, positive way, so the powerful marketing weapon that is the game announcement and hype campaign is lost.
Company and brand image get extra damaged and the company loses the marketing deal with the 1st party. So the company has to pay all the marketing, doesn't reach powerful 1st party marketing channels and the game sells way less because of the leak. This IP is the main one from the company, so the company stocks go down. Companies have secrets, NDA and communicate their stuff through PR and marketing to make sure it's communicated properly and in the proper moment.
When Kotaku leaks AC, Fallout, etc. stuff is damaging these companies. And people who leaked the stuff were likely fired. It's laughable considere it "journalism" as if they were discovering the Watergate to the people. Players could have waited some months to get the same stuff, Kotaku just did it to get clicks.
Kotaku reported on information that was leaked to them. If they didn't report on it, some other outlet would have.
By the time a shitty employee decides that they want to leak information, consider it leaked. Whether to Kotaku, or Polygon, or Gamespot or otherwise.
At that point, Kotaku has to decide "Will we report on the information someone else leaked, or will some other outlet?"
Jim Sterling on the Kotaku Blacklisting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeL34nbEo8s&feature=youtu.be
Agreed.Exactly right. And the only reason people are attempting the argument that Kotaku did something 'wrong' is due to the death grip the major publishers have on games media. It would be preposterous to control the news in other industries, yet people are giving Kotaku crap for reporting a leak and supporting the blacklisting.
At this point, being blacklisted and frowned upon by publishers should be a badge of honor, given how uncomfortably close some are.
Right, except for the fact that Boogie was never blacklisted by Kotaku. He and I talked privately and he has since apologized: https://twitter.com/Boogie2988/status/668550831201906688Boogie also posted a video about the Kotaku blacklist stuff
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-Ll7h85-78
tl;dr: Boogie himself was blacklisted by Kotaku for not speaking against the gamergate stuff so he finds it ironic that they are complaining about being blacklisted. He also mentions neogaf and how he conducted himself poorly here.
The whole "I don't even like Kotaku, but..." thing is kind of annoying. Does it even add much to the conversation that you agree with something you don't like normally? His points are stellar otherwise.Jim Sterling on the Kotaku Blacklisting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeL34nbEo8s&feature=youtu.be
Yep, then he posted this: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sntig8Boogie also posted a video about the Kotaku blacklist stuff
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-Ll7h85-78
tl;dr: Boogie himself was blacklisted by Kotaku for not speaking against the gamergate stuff so he finds it ironic that they are complaining about being blacklisted. He also mentions neogaf and how he conducted himself poorly here.
Dude's the biggest drama queen ever, holy shit. Why anyone pays attention to his sad, deluded rantings is beyond me.Yep, then he posted this: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sntig8
It would do him well to hold off on these rants and consider if this is actually good for... well anyone.
Aren't they satirical?Dude's the biggest drama queen ever, holy shit. Why anyone pays attention to his sad, deluded rantings is beyond me.
Sounds like the harm here was caused by the developers making a bad game and not dealing with it properly, not anything due to Kotaku.
Aren't they satirical?
Gotcha.The Francis ones are, but at this point he's probably nearly as famous for his normal persona too.
From your perspective.
Obviously, not from the perspective of Ubisoft or Bethesda.
Aren't they satirical?
Yep, then he posted this: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sntig8
It would do him well to hold off on these rants and consider if this is actually good for... well anyone.
I think this Comment is trashBecause of Schrier; I read Kotaku a good deal more now than I have in 10 years. They are not the toilet they used to be. Bethesda and Ubisoft are trash.
Exactly right. And the only reason people are attempting the argument that Kotaku did something 'wrong' is due to the death grip the major publishers have on games media. It would be preposterous to control the news in other industries, yet people are giving Kotaku crap for reporting a leak and supporting the blacklisting.
At this point, being blacklisted and frowned upon by publishers should be a badge of honor, given how uncomfortably close some are.
People give Kotaku crap because theyre only making a story about this because theyre getting cut out of the loop. Kotaku isn't doing anything on principle here, they just salty. MAYBE if they were acting in such a manner that made it obvious they were against the embargos and courting of games writers instead of just being pouty that theyre not in the club anymore people would have a different opinion about them at the moment.
You. I like you.I keep seeing people repeat this meme and hearing people regurgigate it on podcasts, but when I originally read the article I didn't get this impression that Kotaku is "salty" at all. Totilo's post is very level-headed and clearly explains that he's divulging this information because his readers are asking him why their coverage for certain games is late or nonexistent.
Sure he dives into a lot more detail beyond that, but none of it is "salty".
It's almost as if....people who haven't read the article are sharing opinions about what they think it says???
Edit:misread your question, ignore this reply.How can a game journo site even "blacklist" a person? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!
I keep seeing people repeat this meme and hearing people regurgigate it on podcasts, but when I originally read the article I didn't get this impression that Kotaku is "salty" at all. Totilo's post is very level-headed and clearly explains that he's divulging this information because his readers are asking him why their coverage for certain games is late or nonexistent.
Sure he dives into a lot more detail beyond that, but none of it is "salty".
It's almost as if....people who haven't read the article are sharing opinions about what they think it says???
Every single person I've seen that has said this is Kotaku "complaining" also appears to have some personal vendetta against them; formed from opinions made like 5 years ago.
Yes. Or, you know, about one year ago. Like, when one infamous internet movement started and occupied a reddit site with "Kotaku" in the name.
It's not even a "personal vendetta" but more like following the choir without even having an actual own opinion.
Because of Schrier; I read Kotaku a good deal more now than I have in 10 years. They are not the toilet they used to be. Bethesda and Ubisoft are trash.