-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Kotaku: "We Need Better Video Game Publishers" [Update: David Jaffe Responds]
- Thread starter Deitus
- Start date
You haven't called anyone out though and I hope you don't use this article in the future to try and say you do.
Good article and good response. (Except the accusation in the first asterisk part. Sucks that a lot of this thread will now be about that part. Bad decision by Jaffe.)
The developer publisher relationship is very interesting. Reading about how developers had to fight for to get the cover they wanted (And then getting it: The Last of Us, Beyond or getting it as reversible: BioShock Infinite). Then you read about how market research by the publisher has shown that nobody wants a Modern Warfare game and World War 2 is as big as you can get.
In the Modern Warfare scenario Infinity Ward was big enough that they negotiated that this is the game they were going to do and they were worth it. (The later fallout notwithstanding.)
On the other hand you look to Kickstarter and then you read that developer can come up with anti-consumer things completely on their own. (Banner Saga f2p with the money for the SP game, Shadowrun adding DRM and DLC which is not in the spirit of the Kickstarter.)
The developer publisher relationship is very interesting. Reading about how developers had to fight for to get the cover they wanted (And then getting it: The Last of Us, Beyond or getting it as reversible: BioShock Infinite). Then you read about how market research by the publisher has shown that nobody wants a Modern Warfare game and World War 2 is as big as you can get.
In the Modern Warfare scenario Infinity Ward was big enough that they negotiated that this is the game they were going to do and they were worth it. (The later fallout notwithstanding.)
On the other hand you look to Kickstarter and then you read that developer can come up with anti-consumer things completely on their own. (Banner Saga f2p with the money for the SP game, Shadowrun adding DRM and DLC which is not in the spirit of the Kickstarter.)
Yes again the two parties .. The publisher and the developer agrees on what they want and what the dev promises to make for the publisher with how long and how much it will cost. The article makes it seem like the dev has to do anything the publisher asks for and that is simply not true. But those change orders are where the developer can really make some money. The whole article paints a picture of poor developer slaves being beaten down when sometimes the devs are just making as much money as they can.
Tummi Gummi
Member
I don't know if this has been mentioned already, but David Jaffe has a personal beef with Kotaku based off at least a couple of incidents off the top of my head (google David Jaffe + totilo, there's a funny recording). So I doubt he cares too much about the standard of evidence. He hates them and doesn't give a shit what he accuses them of.
It's bullshit fox news type tactics "I'm not saying prez obama is a muslim terrorist, but blahblahblah." It is borderline defamatory.
Too be fair they absolutely deserve any animosity he harbors for those incidents.
Yeah, okay. I won't argue for Jaffe.
Still, I get the skepticism people have in this thread over Kotaku. While it's not unheard of for journalists to have unnamed sources (source protection is one of the tenants of journalism) - Kotaku has lost their goodwill when it comes to these kind of things. If Fox news started segments again that were pro war (for a new war), but their sources were unnamed, I would not trust them one bit (because of their history). Similarly, I have a hard time trusting Kotaku when it comes to these kind of articles, and my skepticism is up. So I could understand if Jaffe also had those reservations.
That said, where I agree with you is that Jaffe is a public figure and is making his posts public. So he also has a responsibility to watch what he says (and in this case insinuates or accuses someone else without proof).
Omegasquash
Member
Passive accusation. By putting the thought out publicly, there's an unspoken call to either reveal sources or not, and if you don't you've totally proved me right. And I didn't even come off as a dick because I didn't accuse you of anything.
That said, it's a small part of his blog. He did it, but he also had lots more to say that makes a fair (if blunt/harsh, in my opinion), point.
ShockingAlberto
Member
Sure, he might have reasons.
That doesn't make it okay.
I don't give a shit if he feels like Kotaku has tread on him or that people don't like their sources or if they post stories about bread they want to fuck (okay I don't like the last one), accusing a publication of making up a story when they state they haven't is offensive. It's offensive to me as a journalist, it's offensive to me as a consumer of news, it's offensive just because it's the lowest, unverifiable shit you can sling. He knows they can't prove it without compromising their source so he can sit there as smug as a pig in shit that he can't be proven entirely wrong and all he had to do was be an asshole to accomplish that basic thing.
Woo, go David Jaffe. You sure are a hero.
You sure have something against Jaffe. lol
bigdaddygamebot
Member
David Jaffe said:
So basically...the industry needs better game publishers.
plantedunicorn
Member
What happened between them? Any where I can read it?
jim-jam bongs
Member
If that's all you took away from that post then your username is wonderfully appropriate.
It's seems a bit one-sided no? I mean yeah we all know some publishers are just absolute dicks but that doesn't mean it's always their fault when a game turns out to be crap. The guys/girls making the game are probably equally at fault.
I suppose it also matters on the publisher. Atlus can never do wrong in my eyes <3.
I suppose it also matters on the publisher. Atlus can never do wrong in my eyes <3.
metalslimer
Member
Any journalist would after the bullshit asterisk and i dont particularly even like kotaku
Wow that deal they were offered is TERRIBLE. I feel bad for whoever gets stuck making that game.
No of course not, I've read his other posts, and agree with his points. But he also seems to really have a distaste for the guy.
Didn't know Jaffe was that hated around here lol. I'll admit my ignorance when it comes to Jaffe's past history. Clearly he's done a lot to get that kind of sarcasm from Alberto.
jim-jam bongs
Member
I honestly don't think that he is hated here in general. I've never enjoyed a single game he's made but I've definitely found myself on his side a number of times. What SA said is just pure truthiness though, and it's a pretty low move on Jaffe's part to invoke that as a reason to dismiss the story.
So do you think it's bad for GAF members to dismiss this story, because they think Kotaku lacks credibility, or that their shady past with Gawker Media (and their practices) makes these kind of stories questionable?
Or are you guys saying that a past history should not affect single stories/articles. And that each story/article (even by FOX let's say), should be treated fairly unless said story/article is questionable in its presentation?
I mean, my issue with what Jaffe did was because he's a public figure, and knew his post would be seen by many in response to this. So I think a public figure has a responsibility to keep his/her mouth shut when accusing or insinuating things of another person without proof. Yet, I can understand Jaffe's skepticism over this article (but think he should have kept it to himself).
Or do you guys think that kind of skepticism is bad, even if one keeps it to themselves? That an article like this should not be dismissed, regardless of an individuals views on the site/company (specifically their history/record)?
Not trying to argue. Just kind of curious. Because I'll admit, I read the article. Found some of it interesting, but had a hard time taking it seriously, given my views on the site's history and their use of an unnamed source as a writer.
This. Jaffe's response of "Well be better at negotiating, devs" is facetious given that publishers won't give a studio the time of day unless they just finished developing a mega-hit. Pretty much any studio nowadays that has the hits under their belt is already owned by a publisher and then has their terms dictated to them.
So when the core gameplay of a title is bad, it's because the publishers said, "you know what, gameplay is too good, too tight, the masses won't like it, shit it up a little, our market research shows people want shit gameplay"?
What I can see is something along the lines of EA telling DICE to make sure there's a SP campaign, and to make it ridiculously over the top with zero resemblance to real war, instead of just pure focus on MP.
What I can see is something along the lines of EA telling DICE to make sure there's a SP campaign, and to make it ridiculously over the top with zero resemblance to real war, instead of just pure focus on MP.
It's not facetiousness at all, it's him running off his mouth emotionally without thinking first like usual.
dragonbane
Member
Not true. He doesn't want video games to be movies, he actually thinks games are superior to films and he doesn't like cutscenes at all. Hence why he tries to push the interactivity part of his games forward with each new instalment.
You may argue his games are simply one big cutscene, but I disagree. The context sensitive approach is a valid one, since it was invented by adventures and can therefore be used.
The only thing he wants to adapt is cinematography, since it is a established tool for storytelling. He is just as much inspired by films as photography was inspired by painting.
So no, even when it appears that way, he is actually not in the same camp as the modern cinematic developer.
Click on Latest Posts.
bigboss370
Member
the difference is he didn't flat out accuse them though, he didn't say that they made it up or whatever by themselves. all he said was that he wouldn't be surprised if that was the case.
I don't have any insider knowledge, but I wouldn't be surprised if everyone on NeoGAF was a lizard.
Jaffe's viewpoint is interesting, but it's also coming from someone who's benefited handsomely from this establishment (which is what the publishers are). He's definitely an outlier in the positive category. I'm still not convinced most developers wouldn't benefit from a crumbling of this antiquated architecture.
jim-jam bongs
Member
In my opinion it's important to make a distinction between dismissing the tone and the content. In your FOX news example, if they report a story about President Obama with a total GOP slant then you can safely dismiss any editorialising as an auto-fire response; in other words, it would be news if they didn't do that. On the other hand if they report something which is factually accurate then it's not fair to immediately assume they're lying because they won't produce a source.
In this example, the things Jaffe says in response to the facts as they've been reported are interesting and useful rebuttals, and I don't think that it's fair to say that they're not genuine counterpoints to the claims in the article. His dismissal of the entire article because of the anonymity of the source, however, is unfair and unnecessary. In Australia we have a saying about fair-play which stems from rugby; you play the ball, not the man. I think that's a better approach myself.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
Sorry but one, anonymous, person's perspective doesn't exactly add up to a whole lot of insight.
Its just more page-hit grabbing negativity that grossly simplifies and generalizes.
Say what you like about Jaffe but at least he's got the balls to stand up and state his case under his own name.
Agree or disagree, at least you have a track-record and point of reference for judging the quality of his testimony.
Its just more page-hit grabbing negativity that grossly simplifies and generalizes.
Say what you like about Jaffe but at least he's got the balls to stand up and state his case under his own name.
Agree or disagree, at least you have a track-record and point of reference for judging the quality of his testimony.
bigboss370
Member
yeah, totally the same thing.
Much better. Why isn't this the default?
Also, am I petty for not wanting to scroll so much?
dragonbane
Member
People said the same of Heavy Rain and were forced to eat crow. The buzz started like 6 months before release. It got only really strong after people played the demo and the reviews came in.
Beyond releases in 6 months and the marketing campaign hasn't even started yet. Of course people are not hyped now, there is not much material to hype about.
Since the game will probably get a PS4 port, it will likely be among the highest rated games during launch. This alone will make sure that the sales are steady.
EmCeeGramr
Member
You are an incredibly trusting individual.
davidjaffe
The Fucking MAN.
Honestly guys, from my view and experience when it comes to dealing with game journalism in general (although certainly not all- there are absolutely reputable journalists and sites in games) and Kotaku specifically, this is not something they are 'above'.
While I'd like to think Totilo and I burred our hatchet and all is forgiven, it's impossible for things to be forgotten. Especially because since that time, I've seen Kotaku post stories that (and this is just my personal view of it) I feel cross the line into tabloid journalism. So for me, them making up an anonymous developer in order to give a post more credence and thus ensure more clicks seems like something they would do. As I said on my blog: I'm not accusing them of this but I am suggesting that it would not surprise me if- because of my personal views of post Crecente Kotaku- this turned out to be true.
I personally think Totilo is a good reporter and I think his EIC position at Kotaku is a bad fit because it seems- again TO ME- that he's forced to go against his instincts as a genuine journalist. BUT I don't know Steven all that well so that could all be false.
Even so, I stand by what I said: if Kotaku made up AGD I would not be surprised even thought I am not saying they did make up AGD.
David
Fair enough. I really respect you guys. So I'm always keeping an open mind how to better improve myself as a reader/thinker. I'll admit that I am still skeptical when certain sites use the unnamed source. Again, I know almost all journalistic outlets use unnamed sources. But Gawker Media has just done so much shady crap, that it's hard to shake that mistrust.
However, I think you are right that regardless of what you feel about something, you should always read what the other person is saying, and consider the content before judging it.
Although I can't help but think, even if FOX posted an article that had no slant, most on here would have a hard time reading the content in the first place, and considering the content, before allowing their biases of what they feel about the company seep into their perception of the article. So in that sense, I understand how people feel that way automatically about Kotaku. Although at the end of the day, this is a forum for discussing things. And Kotaku presents some ideas, and people should be discussing it. So I'll jut butt out of the thread, as I'm not adding to the discussion. My apologies.
mentalfloss
Banned
Media points finger at Pubs.
Pub responds.
Pub points finger at Devs:
"I can tell you that at least 50% of the time the developer just isn't good enough to make the great game they think they are capable of making, regardless of how much creative freedom they have."
Dev responds?
Pub responds.
Pub points finger at Devs:
"I can tell you that at least 50% of the time the developer just isn't good enough to make the great game they think they are capable of making, regardless of how much creative freedom they have."
Dev responds?
EmCeeGramr
Member
I'm not saying that David Jaffe is willfully impugning someone else's professionalism because they printed an article that disagrees with his views, but I would not be surprised if that was the case.
davidjaffe
The Fucking MAN.
My thinking is fine, sir.
If you are a studio and have not made a mega hit as of late, why do you think you can negotiate a deal with a publisher that is crazy in your favor?
Publishers don't owe developers anything they have not negotiated. That's just how any business works.
It's not that I don't see and sympathize with the individual developers (I am one of them). It's that I feel the Kotaku writer is suggesting that publishers are evil and the problem when in fact, the real problem is that the folks running the development studio didn't get a deal that allowed them to be treated the way they want to be treated.
DerZuhälter
Member
The article is one sided crap that caters to the growing narrowminded masses of "all publishers sux! EA is the worst company off teh 5ever" consumers, that don't consider changing markets, still believe everything was better 10 years ago and cry about the death of simulation games and point and click adventures.
The truth as always is somewhere in the middle. Yes some publishers certainly pressure developers into doing stuff they normally wouldn't, case and point Dead Space 3's DLC-/Grind-fest .
But not even two months ago we've seen what happens if publishers not keep tabs at all on devs, case & point Aliens:Colonial Marines.
There always needs to be a responsible internal and external audit of game devs otherwise delays, bloated design ideas and unnecessary costs can arise by granting "creatives" too much freedom.
On the other hand granting "publisher execs" controll over design idea speaks volumes of some game studios inability to really sell a good concept. If you can't sell your idea to (your own?) execs, how are you supposed to sell it to the customer?
You can't sell it to them because they aren't gamer? That's a shitty excuse, if it's really good it should amaze anyone.
Of course there are a lot of bad apples sitting in the management of a lot of publishers. Just looking at game release schedules or some questionable marketing campaigns (remember the shit EA pulled with Dante's Inferno?) leaves anyone remotely interested in the game industry scratching their head at times.
But I reject the notion that one side alone is the reason for everything bad in the industry, that's just bullshit.
The truth as always is somewhere in the middle. Yes some publishers certainly pressure developers into doing stuff they normally wouldn't, case and point Dead Space 3's DLC-/Grind-fest .
But not even two months ago we've seen what happens if publishers not keep tabs at all on devs, case & point Aliens:Colonial Marines.
There always needs to be a responsible internal and external audit of game devs otherwise delays, bloated design ideas and unnecessary costs can arise by granting "creatives" too much freedom.
On the other hand granting "publisher execs" controll over design idea speaks volumes of some game studios inability to really sell a good concept. If you can't sell your idea to (your own?) execs, how are you supposed to sell it to the customer?
You can't sell it to them because they aren't gamer? That's a shitty excuse, if it's really good it should amaze anyone.
Of course there are a lot of bad apples sitting in the management of a lot of publishers. Just looking at game release schedules or some questionable marketing campaigns (remember the shit EA pulled with Dante's Inferno?) leaves anyone remotely interested in the game industry scratching their head at times.
But I reject the notion that one side alone is the reason for everything bad in the industry, that's just bullshit.
davidjaffe
The Fucking MAN.
I wrote what you quoted and yet you've attributed it to PUB. I'm not PUB and have not been PUB since 2007. I've been Dev. And our new dev company is negotiating with a publisher now and you know what? There are some things in the contract I love. Some things I hate.
Some of those things we'll be able to fix/adjust/meet the publisher half way on. Some things we will not. And so then it will be up to us to say, 'Ok team, do we want to sign this or hit the road again to find a different partner'.
David
Version 3.0
Member
It's most certainly not that simple. Those contracts are most likely signed months in advance of publisher meddling. Like so:
1. Concept pitched.
2. Contracts signed, game is funded.
3. Development begins.
4. Developer shows work in progress
5. Publisher feedback.
Step 5 is where the complaints in the article come from. Back in step 2, the publisher may have expressed enthusiasm for the game as pitched, but in step 5, it may not even be the same people that originally approved the concept.
What's funny is that this:
is essentially agreeing with Kotaku that publishers are assholes, except he puts the blame on devs not being "worth enough" to negotiate semi-decent deals that prevent publishers from inflicting themselves on games. But, hey, as long as the public face of one of Sony's biggest first-party franchises can trade on his recognition for good deals, everyone else can go hang, right? Though I suspect those deals are becoming harder to negotiate as memories of GoW1's release fade...
is essentially agreeing with Kotaku that publishers are assholes, except he puts the blame on devs not being "worth enough" to negotiate semi-decent deals that prevent publishers from inflicting themselves on games. But, hey, as long as the public face of one of Sony's biggest first-party franchises can trade on his recognition for good deals, everyone else can go hang, right? Though I suspect those deals are becoming harder to negotiate as memories of GoW1's release fade...
Actually, exactly. He doesn't refute the premise of the article, just the piece itself.