• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Kotaku: "Microtransactions Coming To Garden Warfare This Week. Thank Goodness."

Status
Not open for further replies.

AppleMIX

Member
I just tend to get angry at that level of stupidity, now.

Microtransactions are never a net positive thing for consumers.

I don't think that's true.

Guild Wars 2 and Mass Effect 3 are examples of Microtransactions done well.

In return of having the options to pay money, you get something in return (IE no monthly sub, free DLC).

It all depends on how it is implemented and balanced (IE not like Forza).
 
I understand your point, but I'm not sure if playing and enjoying the game should be seen as grinding. It is not like in MMO's where you go and fight the same NPC's over and over again to get certain items to craft what you want. If you think getting those Items is a real grind, you are simply not enjoying the game and a skin will not change that (maybe 1-2 games at best). If that is the case, you are playing the game for the wrong reasons and only you as a player are the issue then.

Hope you understand what I mean. Mostly comes down to; people bitch to much nowadays.

People want their free games and a fair way for companies to make money off their free games.
 

Shanlei91

Sonic handles my blue balls
3MyVyMK.png

Holy crap.
 

soultron

Banned
That can literally be said about anything. Don't like the grind in Final Fantasy? Pay us 1,99 for the double XP Pack! Don't like this part of the game? You can skip it, for just 99 Cents! Out of ammo? Don't worry, with our super special 1,50 offer, you'll never run out again. It's the best deal!

How about instead of thanking publishers for that and begging them to implement it, you fucking critize the grind, the shortage of munition or the shitty part of the level and ask them to change it? You know, for free? That's my problem here, not the MTAs itself. To me this is less about EA implementing them and more about thanking them for it.

Would it be fine if Konami offered a "skip the stealth sections" pack for Castlevania 2? Yo can do them, they are just boring and awefull! But totally doable, if you just spend enough time! No, because they created the fucking broken stealth sections. If I already bought the game I shouldn't pay the publisher again to have fun with it.

I've never seen or heard of examples you're citing in your first paragraph. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but in my experience, the "fairest" and most common microtransactions we see are cosmetic items and/or time/grind reductions. For a lot of players who have families, incredibly busy jobs, and/or a lack of time to play, the latter can be a great option for them to experience a game. If that option's existence doesn't harm your experience (someone who may be younger, with less responsibilities, or more free time) in playing the game, that's the best thing both parties can hope for. If it does, sure, pick up your pitchforks and express your discontent to the publisher. Abandon the game. Publishers and developers listen to games via big data, so if the community reacts and retention goes down, they will be forced to take action if the impact is big enough.

I think you're taking Fahey's article way out of context and projecting your own values onto his opinion. Secondly, Fahey's focus with this article seemed to be posting the news that microtransactions would be in GW (instead of just reposting the press release he links to at the bottom of his article), while, again, applying his opinion on why it's good for him and why it doesn't harm the balance of the game. He does this in the last paragraph:

Buying coins won't give anyone an unfair advantage in the game — dedicated players can earn the same equipment through playing, and since the sticker packs are for the most part random, it's not like there's any cherry-picking involved. The game also features special modes where no unlocked characters or upgrades are allowed, for those looking for an experience unsullied by wealthy players who haven't worked for their Dolphin Gun.
 
I understand your point, but I'm not sure if playing and enjoying the game should be seen as grinding. It is not like in MMO's where you go and fight the same NPC's over and over again to get certain items to craft what you want. If you think getting those Items is a real grind, you are simply not enjoying the game and a skin will not change that (maybe 1-2 games at best). If that is the case, you are playing the game for the wrong reasons and only you as a player are the issue then.

Hope you understand what I mean. Mostly comes down to; people bitch to much nowadays.

Well said.
 
Someone run me through ME3 micro transactions because some people here keep saying they're good. Weren't they just pay money to get random consumable game play changing stuff in multiplayer? That sounds terrible to me, but I'm of the mind that the only acceptable micro transactions are purely cosmetic optional ones.
 

Marcel

Member
I don't think that's true.

Guild Wars 2 and Mass Effect 3 are examples of Microtransactions done well.

In return of having the options to pay money, you get something in return (IE no monthly sub, free DLC).

It all depends on how it is implemented (IE not like Forza).

Mass Effect 3 gave you random new guns, characters, armor and power-ups etc. in ascending tiers of rarity depending on how much cash you spent, right? I'm not sure how it's commendable (if I'm recalling the system correctly).
 

The Cowboy

Member
I don't think that's true.

Guild Wars 2 and Mass Effect 3 are examples of Microtransactions done well.

In return of having the options to pay money, you get something in return (IE no monthly sub, free DLC).

It all depends on how it is implemented (IE not like Forza).
Agreed, badly done micro transactions can be very bad for a game (more so if you still have to pay for all extra game content when it comes out), but when done well (as in your 2 examples) it can be a great benefit to a game (as it funds a stream of extra free content) - and its great that GW is using one of the good examples.

Its funny, if this was a story about paid map packs coming out for GW it would be a non story and not a controversy at all, and yet despite this actually being a BETTER option than paid map packs/season passes its generating a lot more controversy.

I am much happier that PvZ:GW is using this type of system than having to buy a season pass/separate maps packs like other modern shooters, I can buy the PC version knowing that what i pay at release will get me every bit of content when it comes out, and i won't have to buy paid map packs/season passes to get the rest of the content when it come outs.
 
MdjiOvc.png


Good ole apologist Kotaku. Countdown to Jason linking me to something where they are 'tough' on game companies.

Mike Fahey:

"Hey Global South, how is that lack of food and ravaged ecology doing for you? Has your child died of a preventable disease yet?"
 
A little help, huh? This isn't "a little help". EA is "solving" a problem that they PURPOSEFULLY created and are now charging money to "help you". Would you be thankfull if I sold you a crutch after I broke your leg? Yeah, probably not.


To be fair the coins were already ridiculously easy to earn at launch and they have increased the earn rate since then. I really feel in pvz the micro transactions are an option and not remotely close to being a necessity. I don't even get under what circumstance people would feel the need to pay to progress in this game, but if others want to fund all this free dlc for me I'm totally cool with it.


Question, have you even played pvz?
 

TheHall

Junior Member
Mass Effect 3 gave you random new guns, characters, armor and power-ups etc. in ascending tiers of rarity depending on how much cash you spent, right? I'm not sure how it's commendable (if I'm recalling the system correctly).

The more expensive packs (in boith ingame points or cash) had a guaranteed "rare" and chance of a "legendary" items.

The lower tier packs didn't contain gold/black weapons
 

Zomba13

Member
Isn't Kotaku a gaming "blog"? What could you possibly have been through outside of advertizing deals that warrants sympathy?

Well this one time a publisher wouldn't give them a game for free so they had to go out and buy it and another time a company held a press event and didn't give them free gifts. You might think it's all sunshine and happiness at Kotaku but then things like that happen and you realise they might have it the worst out of any gaming media outlet :(
 

AppleMIX

Member
Mass Effect 3 just gave you new guns, characters, armor and power-ups etc. in ascending tiers of rarity depending on how much cash you spent, right? I'm not sure how it's commendable (if I'm recalling the system correctly).

Yes, the thing is though that it was very easy to get credits without money. Even so, everything was random so their was no guarantee you would get anything good.

As a direct result of this, the game got a ton of new characters and maps absolutely free.

Without this system, the game's multiplayer would of died off a few months after release.
 

MarionCB

Member
Well, that's a very disappointing article. Thanking EA for charging to bypass their grind is simply an appalling display. For shame. You could thank them if they released free cheat codes, for instance, but not for this. I also have to agree about the deliberately provoking click bait title.
 

VaizardNL

Banned
People want their free games and a fair way for companies to make money off their free games.

People should also stay realistic. Nobody is being forced to purchase these items, nor is it impossible for them to gather them or does it help others win in any way. I don't see any issues with purely cosmetic items being bought for money, since you don't know if someone purchased it or played the game a long time. If there are items that you cannot get in the game without paying money, then it is a terrible thing if it is not a Free To Play game. Otherwise I see no issues at all, if the ability to purchase it with money is not intrusive. Good example was Xbox Live, where you could change between microsoft points and 'real currency' with the press of a button.

The same thing for World or Warcraft. That people are so stupid (no other way to say it) to pay money to get to a certain level is completely beyond me. You buy a game to play it and enjoy it and progress yourself. Buying stuff like that, totally invalidates any reason you had of buying a game, in my opinion (no idea if I say that right, but I hope you understand what I mean).

Well said.

Ty
 

BreakyBoy

o_O @_@ O_o
It really boils down to two things.

1. Is the core game fun?

The game needs to be fun enough on its own to encourage a player to continue playing long enough to unlock whatever features are offered.

2. How much is your time worth?

If you really want something unlocked, and the effort required to unlock it normally feels more like work than fun to you, then you need to figure that balance out. Someone early in the thread mentioned that they could reasonably get 40k coins in about a half hour of play. If it costs $3 instead to get a 40k coin pack, that works out to about $6/hour. If I'm being honest, I feel my time is worth significantly more than $6/hour. Others may feel differently.


And yet, if you read between the lines there, the real issue is how easily this sort of thing can be abused. Make the unlock tantalizing enough, and set that goalpost far enough away to make the task go from "fun" to "grinding", and you will probably increase the pool of people that buy coin packs instead.

The only way something like this works in any fair way, is in an ideal situation, with an ideal development team, that structures a game exactly the same way that they would if there were no microtransactions offered. A steady pace of unlockable content to encourage the majority of players to continue playing the game.

The trick is that no matter how perfectly engineered that unlock:time ratio is, you can only really try to hit the biggest part of the bell curve. You'll never make everyone happy. So, for those that are more impatient, or have less time, microtransactions.

All that being said, this isn't an ideal world, and that sort of balance is at best, a bit of fuzzy emotional math. I can't blame anyone for feeling this sort of thing is foul. It's a system that's far too easy to abuse.
 
Someone run me through ME3 micro transactions because some people here keep saying they're good. Weren't they just pay money to get random consumable game play changing stuff in multiplayer? That sounds terrible to me, but I'm of the mind that the only acceptable micro transactions are purely cosmetic optional ones.

You'd pay for in-game credits to buy varying degrees of boxes that would give you items, weapons, and characters. Overall it was a pretty good system for the game, but the cash to credit conversion was terrible, the most expensive pack was like ten bucks or something (it's been a while so that number is probably off) and you could easily run through the highest difficulty in like twenty minutes to get enough to buy that same pack. Of course, Bioware did say at one point that only like <10% of Platinum difficulty runs were ever finished, and if that was the case then getting enough credits to buy the expensive packs from lower difficulties could be a big chore; my friends and I did them no problem, so were were constantly rolling in credits.
 

Goon Boon

Banned
Yes, the thing is though that it was very easy to get credits without money. Even so, everything was random so their was no guarantee you would get anything good.

As a direct result of this, the game got a ton of new characters and maps absolutely free.

Without this system, the game's multiplayer would of died off a few months after release.

See, an article about how this sort of acceptable microtransaction system actual leads to a game's multiplayer support being more ambitious would be a good article. Can't have that at Kotaku until they hit their garbage article quota.
 

Bizazedo

Member
To be fair the coins were already ridiculously easy to earn at launch and they have increased the earn rate since then. I really feel in pvz the micro transactions are an option and not remotely close to being a necessity. I don't even get under what circumstance people would feel the need to pay to progress in this game, but if others want to fund all this free dlc for me I'm totally cool with it.


Question, have you even played pvz?

If that's true, there's a truly disturbing amount of people not reading / haven't played PvZ who are responding to this thread.

It sounds like unlocks are easy to come by and the only people who'll use this are the people with like no time....which is fine?
 

jschreier

Member
Interesting. Can you tell us a bit about what you guys have been through? You don't have to name names (if you don't want to!), but give I'd love to know more about what games journalists have to put up with.
Video game publishers tend to prefer outlets that go along with their PR/marketing cycles. We prefer to do our own thing, which means we wind up telling you about Alien: Isolation, Assassin's Creed Unity and Comet, Fallout 4, Prey 2, Doom 4, early XB1/PS4 details, and many more interesting games and stories that publishers either aren't ready to talk about yet or don't want you to know at all. We believe in transparency and openness, while video game corporations believe in protecting their message. That, of course, leads to some conflict. I can't really get more detailed than that, but not a lot of video game outlets do what we do.

I have no interest in arguing about the specifics of this particular post, but it really does piss me off when supposedly smart people call us things like "apologist" because one of our writers dared to voice an opinion in favor of microtransactions. Reality isn't so black and white.
 

Dragon

Banned
Video game publishers tend to prefer outlets that go along with their PR/marketing cycles. We prefer to do our own thing, which means we wind up telling you about Alien: Isolation, Assassin's Creed Unity and Comet, Fallout 4, Prey 2, Doom 4, early XB1/PS4 details, and many more interesting games and stories that publishers either aren't ready to talk about yet or don't want you to know at all. We believe in transparency and openness, while video game corporations believe in protecting their message. That, of course, leads to some conflict. I can't really get more detailed than that, but not a lot of video game outlets do what we do.

I have no interest in arguing about the specifics of this particular post, but it really does piss me off when supposedly smart people call us things like "apologist" because one of our writers dared to voice an opinion in favor of microtransactions. Reality isn't so black and white.

It's not fair to paint all of Kotaku as a singular entity in terms of journalism and opinion for sure. I know what it's like to work for a company that makes you write certain articles that are click-bait and it's unfortunate. But being beholden to advertising revenue, those click-bait articles do generate page views.

As far as this particular issue, paying to advance in a game is a no no for me. One of the main points of gaming is achievement (hell Microsoft gained a lot of good press for making this an actual thing last gen along with Valve). Paying to advance in a game is taking away one of the things that makes gaming, well gaming. Otherwise you might as well just watch the game on YouTube.
 
This is Fahey's opinion. He qualifies his position right in the opening statement of the article.



Posters have stated that it's very easy to gain credits in GW, which is fantastic. Maybe Fahey has less time than anyone here. If EA has implemented a microtransaction route that serves those without time and doesn't harm the habits of those who do have time, then I think that's fine, personally. I've not played the game myself, but this could be one of those rare situations where the proposed "choice" balances out as fair to all parties. Unless you're contrarian simply because the option exists to give "evil publishers" more money.

It's odd to assert microtransactions are ok when they are solving a problem. Are there no other solutions to the problem? In the dark days before microtransactions there were other ways to offer gamers shortcuts, odd that things like cheat codes have dried up in EA games at precisely the same time that Microtransactions became a thing.

It's not about "evil publishers" it's the fact that to add an economy to a game means that you need to fundamentally degrade it's design. You have to incentivise people to pay. So now you are intentionally hamstringing your game to entice someone to buy their way into more fun. In Garden Warfare, where they are propositioning that you trade money for time, the implication is that spending less time playing the game is more enjoyable.

Rami Ismail does a great job discussing how microtransactions affect game design in this Giant Bomb GDC video.

Fahey is allowed to voice whatever opinions he'd like. And if you only knew half of what we've been through with video game publishers over the past few months, you'd know why I'm laughing out loud at the idea that someone would ever call us "apologist."

I don't think the prevailing opinion of this thread is that Fahey is not allowed to voice his opinion. Instead, people are discussing the validity of that opinion. We can only (fairly) judge Kotaku by the work that it publishes. We can't be expected to know or judge Kotaku by how it comports itself behind closed doors. I am sure we would all like to hear more about Kotaku's relationships with publishers.
 

BibiMaghoo

Member
"There is loads to unlock and it takes ages, thank god I can just buy it instead"

That is the most insane thing I have seen on the internet all week. Don't make them easier to unlock, don't even have less to unlock, no, let me pay for it instead with my hard earned.
 

jschreier

Member
It's not fair to paint all of Kotaku as a singular entity in terms of journalism and opinion for sure. I know what it's like to work for a company that makes you write certain articles that are click-bait and it's unfortunate. But being beholden to advertising revenue, those click-bait articles do generate page views.
Our company doesn't make us write any specific type of articles, and "click-bait" is a meaningless term used by people who want to be critical without actually saying anything.
 

Marcel

Member
Video game publishers tend to prefer outlets that go along with their PR/marketing cycles. We prefer to do our own thing, which means we wind up telling you about Alien: Isolation, Assassin's Creed Unity and Comet, Fallout 4, Prey 2, Doom 4, early XB1/PS4 details, and many more interesting games and stories that publishers either aren't ready to talk about yet or don't want you to know at all. We believe in transparency and openness, while video game corporations believe in protecting their message. That, of course, leads to some conflict. I can't really get more detailed than that, but not a lot of video game outlets do what we do.

I have no interest in arguing about the specifics of this particular post, but it really does piss me off when supposedly smart people call us things like "apologist" because one of our writers dared to voice an opinion in favor of microtransactions. Reality isn't so black and white.

You break stories and rumors to drive unique hits to your site. Okay. That's like a thing any online news organization does as you don't want to get scooped by someone else. That's not really something to toot your horn about. You do your job as you are supposed to. Big fucking deal.

Mike Fahey basically gave a big pat on the back for the unfortunate trend of microtransactions and then he followed it up with a rock-stupid comment about capitalism. You call people ignorant despite the captain of your ship downplaying criticisms about cozy relationships journalists have with game companies. Sidestepping core issues with your whole ecosystem is still more ignorant than anything going on in here. And again, you're loose on details because reasons.

Tell me again why Kotaku's image problem is unfounded or unjustified?
 

DocSeuss

Member
Holy crap.

It was actually an interesting story, if I remember right.

The Far Cry 3 gay joke one was just straight-up bad and completely ignorant of the context of the narrative, like the gay man who wrote the entire game. It was just looking for controversy where there was none, but... I dunno, I've seen writers like that throughout the industry. I think it's bad practice, but it's one writer of many on the site.

Our company doesn't make us write any specific type of articles, and "click-bait" is a meaningless term used by people who want to be critical without actually saying anything.

I dunno, man. Gawker's running an article right now called "black people are cowards." That seems pretty click-baity to me.
 

Dragon

Banned
Our company doesn't make us write any specific type of articles, and "click-bait" is a meaningless term used by people who want to be critical without actually saying anything.

To be clear, I was actually sympathizing with you, but if you want to get abrasive, okay.

Actually no, click-bait is not meaningless. It's writing headlines that are attention grabbers that not only are interesting to users but bots as well. It's linked to SEO with things like Google News and Facebook trends. That's why headlines are most likely linked in with actual URLs, the way they are on Kotaku.com for example.

The image posted previously about the person's marriage ending is a very good example of this.
 

Goon Boon

Banned
The Sticker Shop is a fun idea, but earning coins is soooooo slow you guys. Seriously, I've been playing for some 15 hours now, and I've only unlocked one class variant, and it's a Cactus, which I hardly ever play. It's almost a shame EA decided not to allow players to purchase coins for real cash in the game, because I've have dropped some cash in a heartbeat.

From Foley's review of PvZ:GW.

I've been playing on and off since launch, and I've unlocked four variant characters. As of the recent Zomboss Down free expansion, there are 48. So yeah, I could use a little help.

From the article in this thread.

Then from the PvZ:GW thread around launch before all the coin gain increases :

Oh look lost connection to the server after 20 minutes of hard work, lost about 7k coins there :/

If we assume that Diablohead here was top of the scoreboard earning double the coins of anyone else, thats about 10k coins an hour, or 40k coins in 4 hours. The guaranteed character pack is 40k coins, but you still get 2 random character stickers (you need 5 for a specific character to unlock a new character) with the game doing some level of rigging the scales to help towards finishing characters you have stickers for already. How'd Foley get only 1 character in 15+ hours of play in his review?
 

Shanlei91

Sonic handles my blue balls
If that's true, there's a truly disturbing amount of people not reading / haven't played PvZ who are responding to this thread.

It sounds like unlocks are easy to come by and the only people who'll use this are the people with like no time....which is fine?

Pretty much. These "microtransactions" are for those who are lacking in time or are impatient and find playing game to be a burden. But coins are so easy to be had that it's ridiculous for someone to be "relieved" that you can now buy them with real people money.

And the statement of "ea gives a solution to a problem they created" is also ridiculous because again, coins are so easy to be had that there was never a "problem". The "problem" is self-imposed by the player who wants to skip the very easy game.
 

Com_Raven

Member
What I wonder about in this thread- do those who decry the microtransactions realize that they are financing free content (maps, modes) for all players?

Would you prefer if the customization was not monetized, and the players would have to buy map packs, splitting the user base among thsoe who paid and those who did not?

Cause out of those two scenarios, I know which one sounds far more enticing to me as a gamer...
 

Gestault

Member
To be clear, I was actually sympathizing with you, but if you want to get abrasive, okay.

Actually no, click-bait is not meaningless. It's writing headlines that are attention grabbers that not only are interesting to users but bots as well. It's linked to SEO with things like Google News and Facebook trends. That's why headlines are most likely linked in with actual URLs, the way they are on Kotaku.com for example.

The image posted previously about the person's marriage ending is a very good example of this.

Writing headlines that grab viewer attention (assuming they're not inaccurate) is one of the fundamental tenets of news writing. People react because it's a topic they're interested in. Your "sympathy" came off as insulting and made strong assumptions about the writing environment at Kotaku. The headlines are upsetting to people who don't take the time to assess the content of the article. Using reader expectations as part of the "conversation" of editorial is laudable. Criticism should have more granularity than a catch-all buzzword used to malign an entire segment of an industry. And no, "their articles comply with indexing standards" isn't a damning point.
 

QaaQer

Member
For a lot of players who have families, incredibly busy jobs, and/or a lack of time to play, the latter can be a great option for them to experience a game.


There are more than a few PR firms happy with you parroting their corporate messaging, assuming you are a genuine poster and not part of that industry. You are, however, wrong.

The point of IAP microtransactions that use gambling mechanics, of which random drops are one, is to hook susceptible individuals and have them dump shit loads on the game, not to save Mr. Rich Guy time. I won't go into the brain chemistry but here is a link if you want a starting point: http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/RaminShokrizade/20130626/194933/

EA needs to be careful here because this game's aesthetics are attracting children, and the use of exploitative f2p mechanics could bite them in the ass.
 

Bessy67

Member
If that's true, there's a truly disturbing amount of people not reading / haven't played PvZ who are responding to this thread.

It sounds like unlocks are easy to come by and the only people who'll use this are the people with like no time....which is fine?

Unlocks are very easy to come by. Like I said earlier, you get a 2000 coin bonus just for completing a TDM game and that takes about 5 minutes. So you can get 24,000 coins every hour without ever getting a single kill, assist, revive, or heal and you can easily double that amount if you are getting kills, assists, revives or heals.
 
Nobody questioned that.



That can literally be said about anything. Don't like the grind in Final Fantasy? Pay us 1,99 for the double XP Pack! Don't like this part of the game? You can skip it, for just 99 Cents! Out of ammo? Don't worry, with our super special 1,50 offer, you'll never run out again. It's the best deal!

How about instead of thanking publishers for that and begging them to implement it, you fucking critize the grind, the shortage of munition or the shitty part of the level and ask them to change it? You know, for free? That's my problem here, not the MTAs itself. To me this is less about EA implementing them and more about thanking them for it.

Would it be fine if Konami offered a "skip the stealth sections" pack for Castlevania 2? Yo can do them, they are just boring and awefull! But totally doable, if you just spend enough time! No, because they created the fucking broken stealth sections. If I already bought the game I shouldn't pay the publisher again to have fun with it.

What's worse is, this type of shit used to be covered by cheat codes. We are paying for cheat codes. You people have been conditioned to accept paying for cheat codes!
 

Mman235

Member
What I wonder about in this thread- do those who decry the microtransactions realize that they are financing free content (maps, modes) for all players?

Would you prefer if the customization was not monetized, and the players would have to buy map packs, splitting the user base among thsoe who paid and those who did not?

Cause out of those two scenarios, I know which one sounds far more enticing to me as a gamer...

Good thing those aren't the only two possible options here.
 

Bessy67

Member
What's worse is, this type of shit used to be covered by cheat codes. We are paying for cheat codes. You people have been conditioned to accept paying for cheat codes!

No, you have the option to pay to speed up an already speedy progression system. I don't really see how that qualifies as "paying for cheat codes".
 
What's worse is, this type of shit used to be covered by cheat codes. We are paying for cheat codes. You people have been conditioned to accept paying for cheat codes!

And? Don't pay for cheat codes if you don't want too. If enough people want too, that's their prerogative in a free market when it comes to purchases of a non-essential luxury good.
 

Tuck

Member
Fahey is allowed to voice whatever opinions he'd like. And if you only knew half of what we've been through with video game publishers over the past few months, you'd know why I'm laughing out loud at the idea that someone would ever call us "apologist."
And people are allowed to think he's an idiot for those opinions.
 
It was actually an interesting story, if I remember right.

The Far Cry 3 gay joke one was just straight-up bad and completely ignorant of the context of the narrative, like the gay man who wrote the entire game. It was just looking for controversy where there was none, but... I dunno, I've seen writers like that throughout the industry. I think it's bad practice, but it's one writer of many on the site.



I dunno, man. Gawker's running an article right now called "black people are cowards." That seems pretty click-baity to me.

Wat is this real ? !
 

QaaQer

Member
Video game publishers tend to prefer outlets that go along with their PR/marketing cycles. We prefer to do our own thing, which means we wind up telling you about Alien: Isolation, Assassin's Creed Unity and Comet, Fallout 4, Prey 2, Doom 4, early XB1/PS4 details, and many more interesting games and stories that publishers either aren't ready to talk about yet or don't want you to know at all. We believe in transparency and openness, while video game corporations believe in protecting their message. That, of course, leads to some conflict. I can't really get more detailed than that, but not a lot of video game outlets do what we do.

I have no interest in arguing about the specifics of this particular post, but it really does piss me off when supposedly smart people call us things like "apologist" because one of our writers dared to voice an opinion in favor of microtransactions. Reality isn't so black and white.

It's a hold-over pre-Totilo, which is too bad because there is some good work on that site and the fact that there are no numerical scores should tell people here that you guys are the real deal.

I wish the site had a redesign though, it is terrible to navigate. Where is the review section? News? etc. I really don't like the feed format.
 

jschreier

Member
Writing headlines that grab viewer attention (assuming they're not inaccurate) is one of the fundamental tenets of news writing. People react because it's a topic they're interested in. Your "sympathy" came off as insulting and made strong assumptions about the writing environment at Kotaku. The headlines are upsetting to people who don't take the time to assess the content of the article. Using reader expectations as part of the "conversation" of editorial is laudable. Criticism should have more granularity than a catch-all buzzword used to malign an entire segment of an industry. And no, "their articles comply with indexing standards" isn't a damning point.
Well said. Further reading: http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/shut-up-about-clickbait-1551902024
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom