Support NeoGAF

[obonicus]

I don't want to cite Watergate right now but... I can't think of a way to finish this sentence.

But Kotaku isn't The Washington Post. That's the point. In Jaffe's view Kotaku doesn't get the benefit of the doubt. They don't get to originate a story with anonymous sources.

Maybe it's from his personal experience; I know that once in a while I'll see an article in a publication that related directly to my area of expertise and will be 100% bullshit. Though anecdotal, that sort of revelation makes me question the veracity of articles in which I am not an expert in.

To be clear, my experience with Kotaku isn't quite so negative so I don't necessarily agree with him. I do think that quotes from AGDs are mostly useless; there are dev houses out there that GAF has never heard of, and that GAF wouldn't give the time of day to based on output. The context of whose voice I'm reading is necessary if I'm to differentiate between sour grapes and valid complaints. So in that sense I agree with this being termed as tabloid journalism. Just enough information for know-nothings to get outraged (or have their world-view confirmed), but not enough that any meaningful information can be extracted.

 

[benny_a]

Or in the case of a studio, you take on whatever work-for-hire assignments you can grab while doing your best to improve your skills and build up a portfolio so you can get the assignments you want (or make your own stuff).

That's why earlier in the thread I gave some examples.

Positive recent examples in the sense that they now are able to work on their own games instead of existing franchises created by others: (I know not if they are happy with their allocated budget, but now they are being paid to work on their own stuff, which they seemed thrilled about.)

- Tarsier
- Ready At Dawn

They both worked on Sony properties and made well received games. Now they are both working on new IP. (RAD job listings, Tarsier said that at GDC.)

SuperBot Entertainment had the same chance as the other studios above and their game wasn't well received. They didn't get another contract with Sony (and presumably with no other publisher either) and were downsized.

Now the reasons for why an individual studio might succeed or fail is not 100% within the control of the studio, but publishers do give chances.

 

[Clear]

What kind of a shoulder shrugging response is that? There are big problems facing the industry's continued health, this article suggests that publishers can do a lot more to help, and your reply is that it's a large organization, there's nothing we can do. Jaffe's reply is that it's how business works, there's nothing we can do. Or maybe publishers can stop thinking just because a person helped run a bank in the past, he's qualified to handle their game titles. Maybe being an exec who doesn't want to play/understand games should be looked down on.

Its called keeping it real.

No number of whinging articles is going to create a gaming utopia where everyone is super-competent and gets on with everybody else.

People can "fail upwards" because (1) despite their incompetence their projects make money, (2) are exceptionally good at shifting blame away from themselves, (3) are very good buddies with the guys with the power to fire them.

How exactly do you propose to fix that?

 

[jschreier]

True, but that's why I asked Jason earlier if they were going to present other sides earlier in the thread.

And after checking the pages following your question, he got all excited by the nerd cred he got and the bickering he had with Jaffe and never answered your question which brings me back to my assumption that it's a sloppy sensationalist piece.

Since yesterday, before I even saw this thread, I've been talking to someone about presenting a publisher's perspective. Stay tuned. And of course, if anyone reading this thread wants to talk about doing something interesting on Kotaku, they are more than welcome to PM or e-mail me (jason@kotaku.com).

 

[jschreier]

But Kotaku isn't The Washington Post. That's the point. In Jaffe's view Kotaku doesn't get the benefit of the doubt. They don't get to originate a story with anonymous sources.

This is not a story with anonymous sources. This is a guest editorial from an anonymous source. Apples and oranges.

These are stories with anonymous sources, and we certainly intend to write more like them:
http://kotaku.com/5986694/from-dream-to-disaster-the-story-of-aliens-colonial-marines
http://kotaku.com/five-years-and-nothing-to-show-how-doom-4-got-off-trac-468097062

That's reporting, and it presents multiple angles. This is one person's perspective. If David wants to believe that we made it up, that's his prerogative. I can promise you that we did not, and that no matter what you believe about our love of grabby headlines, we do not lie to our readers. As hard as it might be to believe that a developer wanted to anonymously vent to a large audience.

 

[evangd007]

I think there is something missing in David's - THIS IS BUSINESS - responses. It's not merely a matter of who has leverage in the contract, which it seems like 90% of the discussion is centering on. Maybe a publisher SHOULD have more oversight on certain projects, but, in practice, HOW they exercise that oversight can be out-of-touch and damaging. Things the OP cites such as the decision makers never touching a controller, making every game into a movie, etc. This is the sort of change that should be rallied behind.

Exactly. If they know nothing about games, then they shouldn't be making any decisions about game content. But that doesn't mean the developers have free reign. Producers and publishers still have to hold the developer accountable: "Are you on budget? Are you on schedule? If not, why not?" You know, non-game-related things. BUSINESS things.

 

[codecow]

I think the statement loses a lot of weight by not having the author sign their name to it presumably because they're interested in continuing to work with the same publishers that are being criticized in the article.

For those who asked, the publisher often pays the people who work on the game either directly or indirectly. Depending on the contract they're really the customer of the developer because they're the one who pays the developer in the absence of any royalties, etc... As such, it's important for them to get a product that they'd like to be able to sell otherwise why would they pay for it to be developed?

Of course, if you make something that people really like because it's amazing and it sells a lot then everyone is happy!

 

[MYeager]

Since yesterday, before I even saw this thread, I've been talking to someone about presenting a publisher's perspective. Stay tuned. And of course, if anyone reading this thread wants to talk about doing something interesting on Kotaku, they are more than welcome to PM or e-mail me (jason@kotaku.com).

Cool, like I said the stories involved between content creators and content publishers is an interesting one so I'm glad you guys are already working on it. It's probably harder to get a publisher to talk about any internal workings than it is a disgruntled developer.

 

[RedSwirl]

Although, this does sound a lot like what that guy from Warhorse Studios said.

 

[NoirVisage]

Although, this does sound a lot like what that guy from Warhorse Studios said.

that's interesting..linkage please?

 

[CoffeeGames]

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.

Well, Kotaku (some staff) isn't exactly known for answering questions on certain issues. There was an issue around here before where the source was known, but the recording wouldn't be released proving certain claims made against them.

If you don't think sites make up stories, report half the facts (not giving the WHOLE story) and don't report trash on a repeat basis to make people like David Jaffe question what they do, I wonder how long you have been a journalist (do you have a journalism degree, or just write in general?)?

That's the problem with posting anything "anonymous", if the source doesn't have some facts in the post to at least back up their claims somewhat. Then again, Kotaku ignores enough tips on a regular basis, it's not surprising to me that people think they would make stories up for hits/controversy.

What is needed more than "Better Video Game Publishers", are "Better Video Game Sites", IMO.

 

[OldAsUrSock]

"the worst idiots in game publishing could make catastrophic fuck-ups"

They write like that and expect someone to take them seriously? I do not understand this at all, are they writing to highschoolers?

Calling people idiots and dropping F-bombs is a well written article to some people on here? This is nothing more than an immature author trying to make him self sound legit to immature teenagers.

It is even worse because that is not the only place in the writing he does that.

 

[jschreier]

Last week I said we'd be providing a publisher's perspective. It's here: http://kotaku.com/we-dont-just-need-better-game-publishers-we-need-bett-476922292

 

[Deitus]

Last week I said we'd be providing a publisher's perspective. It's here: http://kotaku.com/we-dont-just-need-better-game-publishers-we-need-bett-476922292

Thanks Jason. It's good to see it from the publisher's perspective as well.

 

[LorDjidane]

Last week I said we'd be providing a publisher's perspective. It's here: http://kotaku.com/we-dont-just-need-better-game-publishers-we-need-bett-476922292

Thank you. That paper is much better than the first one (imho).