Jim Sterling sheds light on The Escapist's previous parent company

[The Rogue Wolf]

But yeah I have a soft spot in my heart for the old days and the old content makers on this site. There was even a convention this one year.

Two years, actually. I was at both of 'em. Still have the badges.

All this is complicated enough to remind me why I don't really get involved with communities. Really the escapist is the only one I've ever been involved with and I've been here through good at bad.

I keep everyone here, and everywhere else on the Internet, at arm's length. If I want drama in my life (which I don't), it's very easy to find it; I don't need help.

Still: Disappointing to hear that people I interacted with and had respect for were like this.

 

[Dreiko]

Two years, actually. I was at both of 'em. Still have the badges.


I keep everyone here, and everywhere else on the Internet, at arm's length. If I want drama in my life (which I don't), it's very easy to find it; I don't need help.

Still: Disappointing to hear that people I interacted with and had respect for were like this.

I dunno, I want to think that the climate turned people into this rather than that they were like this even back then.

And wow man I didn't know there was a second one. I was only at the first one. I dunno how some people are so willing to burn stuff that was this cool down. Ah well, we can rebuild him, make him stronger, faster.

 

[Drathnoxis]

Snip.

Try not to let it go to your head, but I'd also like to say that I also think you're probably the best community manager we've had. You seem to handle yourself with a degree of professionalism and I've never seen you get snippy or sarcastic with forum users, unlike the previous CMs we've had. I understand it can be tempting, but it's not a great way of maintaining the communities respect.

Also, I think you've been doing a pretty good job at moderation. It feels pretty relaxed around here, not like everybody is slowly dying the death of a thousand cuts for making one too many petty offenses. I'd still like it if there was more of an indication of what users have been banned, I know Yoshi and Saelune were, which is unfortunate but it was pretty much inevitable, but it's hard to tell if there have been any others.

Another thing I've noticed is that we actually have a couple new users posting here and there, which is something we haven't seen in years. I hope someday we get better site/forum integration, but any fresh blood at all is an achievement.

OT: I haven't watched a Jim episode in years and don't intend to sit through his entire repetitive rambling spiel, can someone give me a timestamp of where he talks about the Escapist?

 

[Houseman]

OT: I haven't watched a Jim episode in years and don't intend to sit through his entire repetitive rambling spiel, can someone give me a timestamp of where he talks about the Escapist?

The very beginning, so 0:14

 

[BrawlMan]

Game companies have repeatedly tried to lean on sites to try to get them to provide favourable coverage, and use whatever dirty tricks they can to get smaller reviewers and commentators to play along with them. The joke was always that the big publishers were paying IGN and co off, but really what they actually did (and do) is threaten to kick the site off their PR circuit, which will decrease traffic and kill the site if it happened enough. No editors want to gamble with their and their subordinates jobs, hence the mainstream gaming press's reputation for being ridiculously soft on AAA games. There were obviously carrots dangled to help keep them pliant (Exclusive "review events" for example) but by and large what really keeps the press in line is the massive stick the AAA publishers will ram up their arse if they step out of line. They mostly don't even then take that money and use it to finance interesting journalism because their audience are so high on the corporate/party line that they can't handle anything that might constitute criticism of the games industry. This is hardly limited to games journalism; many kinds of consumer journalism suffer the same fate. It's just more noticeable in the always online 24/7 adventure that is the games industry.

I always knew something was up with the Gamespot Kane and Lynch fiasco. I used to trust Gamespot to an extent, but every year before that event, the distrust grew. The case with Jeff was just the final nail in the coffin.

Yes, a Games Writer was Fired Over Review Scores

What was once just heavily rumored has now been confirmed by those involved

kotaku.com

Fired GameSpot Editor Defends Kane & Lynch Review

Jeff Gerstmann, recently fired from his position as editorial director at GameSpot, stands behind the his review of Kane & Lynch, rumored to be the the impetus behind his termination. Gerstmann told Joystiq, "I stand behind my work, regardless of where I do it," and attempted to put to rest...

www.wired.com

 

[Drathnoxis]

The very beginning, so 0:14

Oh, that was it? I thought there was more coming. Boring.

 

[Nick Calandra]

Try not to let it go to your head, but I'd also like to say that I also think you're probably the best community manager we've had. You seem to handle yourself with a degree of professionalism and I've never seen you get snippy or sarcastic with forum users, unlike the previous CMs we've had. I understand it can be tempting, but it's not a great way of maintaining the communities respect.

Also, I think you've been doing a pretty good job at moderation. It feels pretty relaxed around here, not like everybody is slowly dying the death of a thousand cuts for making one too many petty offenses. I'd still like it if there was more of an indication of what users have been banned, I know Yoshi and Saelune were, which is unfortunate but it was pretty much inevitable, but it's hard to tell if there have been any others.

Another thing I've noticed is that we actually have a couple new users posting here and there, which is something we haven't seen in years. I hope someday we get better site/forum integration, but any fresh blood at all is an achievement.

OT: I haven't watched a Jim episode in years and don't intend to sit through his entire repetitive rambling spiel, can someone give me a timestamp of where he talks about the Escapist?

Haha I've ran my own websites and communities for 10 years and it's always served me well to treat people respectfully and not as lesser than me. I hate being treated that way (see previous posts) and so I try my best not to act like that towards folks in my community cause I want them to actively support us and not come to visit our site just to hate us.

I don't think anyone else has been banned besides those two, and not exaggerating, the moment we did I think I've seen WAY less reports from people. Mods can clarify if they want, but they haven't brought anything up to me which tells me things are running smoothly.

And yes, that integration is coming. They're testing it over on Daily Esports right now with forums being tied to comments like it was on old Escapist, the main thing is we're a bit afraid of jumping off Disqus too quickly and confusing people. But yea, we'll be doing giveaways and stuff soon to get more new fresh faces in here. I think there's more than we realize, they just haven't used the introduction thread.

 

[Dalisclock]

This. As much as I have no respect and dislike her, all those people chose to act like assholes. She did not force them.

Most of us have forgotten she existed, except for the people who keep dredging her up just to hate on her. That's literally the only time I hear her name anymore is people who for some reason keep wanting to drag her into any given conversation because "But Anita!".

 

[Bob_McMillan]

I've been on the escapist since 2014, I think? Not as long as many others here, but man it's hard to think it's been more than half a decade already. Anyway, my point is, despite the time I've spent in these forums, I have no idea at all who any of the people are being talked about here lol. I did jump ship for a few years when I started college though, so I think I skipped a fair bit of escapist v1's slow death.

I like what I've seen from the new Escapist, so keep up the good work.

 

[Dalisclock]

I remember Susan Ardent from the "Good Old Days". I didn't realize she was so.....yeah.

I mean, I never talked to her personally or anything, just remembered the original escapist show/podcast and her doing some of the video reviews. I think she wrote some columns too. She seemed alright but I guess behind the scenes she didn't particularly like us.

 

[Exley97]

Game companies have repeatedly tried to lean on sites to try to get them to provide favourable coverage, and use whatever dirty tricks they can to get smaller reviewers and commentators to play along with them. The joke was always that the big publishers were paying IGN and co off, but really what they actually did (and do) is threaten to kick the site off their PR circuit, which will decrease traffic and kill the site if it happened enough. No editors want to gamble with their and their subordinates jobs, hence the mainstream gaming press's reputation for being ridiculously soft on AAA games. There were obviously carrots dangled to help keep them pliant (Exclusive "review events" for example) but by and large what really keeps the press in line is the massive stick the AAA publishers will ram up their arse if they step out of line. They mostly don't even then take that money and use it to finance interesting journalism because their audience are so high on the corporate/party line that they can't handle anything that might constitute criticism of the games industry. This is hardly limited to games journalism; many kinds of consumer journalism suffer the same fate. It's just more noticeable in the always online 24/7 adventure that is the games industry.

THIS.

I think a lot of people in the gaming community have this idea that reviewers and games journalists are on the take, and that they're getting paid directly by the developers are publishers. The primary way game companies influence reviews and coverage is through access and advertising (mostly for large sites). And even big sites that could conceivably weather a "blacklist" from a major publisher or the loss of a single ad campaign (hello, Defy Media) choose to bend the knee (it always puzzled me that the gaming news site that seemed to get the most blacklists, freeze outs and cold shoulders from publishers was the one that recieved the most hatred online, but I suppose that's a different subject for another time). And when the publishers make their power play, the reviewer or journalist is in a tough position -- you follow ownership's decision to attend the "review event" and have Activision brass breathing down your neck, or remove a reviewer from an assignment, or deleted references to microtransactions, etc. or.... resign. That's a tough call to make, especially for aspiring games journalist who finally is getting paid to review games and doesn't want to lose their dream job.

All of this has a corrosive effect on the *entire* games industry, not just games journalism and criticism. Many games get higher scores than they probably deserve. Game companies flout those high scores and glowing reviews in their marketing. Publishers begin to put more stock in the idea that higher MC scores lead to higher sales (and not without some data to back that belief up), and ultimately they decided to 1) start tying developer compensation/bonuses to MC scores, and 2) rooting out any *average* or even sorta *good* reviews in the quest to 85 or above, and if they have to throw their weight around to pressure outlets to give them the most positive reviews and coverage possible, then they do it. I mean, why does Metacritic have an exclusive scoring system for games that's different from movies, TV and everything else? Why do games score tend to skew so much higher on average?

And while this is going on, some of the streamers and YouTubers who were being held up as paragons of virtue for games media WERE in fact taking money directly from publishers for positive coverage (hello, WB and Shadows of Mordor) and those episodes passed like farts in the wind (note: this is not an indictment of all streamers, there's obviously a lot of great ones with integrity like Sterling). It's really fucking amazing.

P.S. And 09Philj is correct, this problem is definitely NOT exclusive to the games industry, though I'd argue that in addition to being the most visible, it's also the most corrosive. I moved on from games journalism long ago, but I still run into similar situations in tech media. I recently had a company we were covering tell me straight up that if we decided to move forward with a story about them (that wasn't really negative, but whatever) then they would drop a major project with the business side of my company, and they CC'd some of my company's executives on the threat. We ran the story, and I'm still there, so yay for me, I won...but I'm pretty sure, given the brazenness of the threats made, that 1) the company had done this kind of thing before to other reporters/outlets, and 2) it had worked. So they were conditioned to try again, and that's basically the world we live in as journalists. There's always someone out there who's going to pressure and threaten you over your work, and if your employer doesn't back you, then you're left with two choices: swallow the shit, or walk.

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[Nick Calandra]

THIS.

I think a lot of people in the gaming community have this idea that reviewers and games journalists are on the take, and that they're getting paid directly by the developers are publishers. The primary way game companies influence reviews and coverage is through access and advertising (mostly for large sites). And even big sites that could conceivably weather a "blacklist" from a major publisher or the loss of a single ad campaign (hello, Defy Media) choose to bend the knee (it always puzzled me that the gaming news site that seemed to get the most blacklists, freeze outs and cold shoulders from publishers was the one that recieved the most hatred online, but I suppose that's a different subject for another time). And when the publishers make their power play, the reviewer or journalist is in a tough position -- you follow ownership's decision to attend the "review event" and have Activision brass breathing down your neck, or remove a reviewer from an assignment, or deleted references to microtransactions, etc. or.... resign. That's a tough call to make, especially for aspiring games journalist who finally is getting paid to review games and doesn't want to lose their dream job.

All of this has a corrosive effect on the *entire* games industry, not just games journalism and criticism. Many games get higher scores than they probably deserve. Game companies flout those high scores and glowing reviews in their marketing. Publishers begin to put more stock in the idea that higher MC scores lead to higher sales (and not without some data to back that belief up), and ultimately they decided to 1) start tying developer compensation/bonuses to MC scores, and 2) rooting out any *average* or even sorta *good* reviews in the quest to 85 or above, and if they have to throw their weight around to pressure outlets to give them the most positive reviews and coverage possible, then they do it. I mean, why does Metacritic have an exclusive scoring system for games that's different from movies, TV and everything else? Why do games score tend to skew so much higher on average?

And while this is going on, some of the streamers and YouTubers who were being held up as paragons of virtue for games media WERE in fact taking money directly from publishers for positive coverage (hello, WB and Shadows of Mordor) and those episodes passed like farts in the wind (note: this is not an indictment of all streamers, there's obviously a lot of great ones with integrity like Sterling). It's really fucking amazing.

P.S. And 09Philj is correct, this problem is definitely NOT exclusive to the games industry, though I'd argue that in addition to being the most visible, it's also the most corrosive. I moved on from games journalism long ago, but I still run into similar situations in tech media. I recently had a company we were covering tell me straight up that if we decided to move forward with a story about them (that wasn't really negative, but whatever) then they would drop a major project with the business side of my company, and they CC'd some of my company's executives on the threat. We ran the story, and I'm still there, so yay for me, I won...but I'm pretty sure, given the brazenness of the threats made, that 1) the company had done this kind of thing before to other reporters/outlets, and 2) it had worked. So they were conditioned to try again, and that's basically the world we live in as journalists. There's always someone out there who's going to pressure and threaten you over your work, and if your employer doesn't back you, then you're left with two choices: swallow the shit, or walk.

To whittle this down to a key point, as someone that works in this business and has for a long time now.

As long as we are tied to advertising and traffic numbers, stuff like that will always happen. The sooner or later websites / networks start moving to subscription models, the better.

It will help with the amount of clickbait, it will help with the amount of outrage bait, good content creators will thrive. We have to make funding the content you like the norm.

In my, maybe controversial view, the only content that should be free are news, previews and reviews. All other original content shouldn't be released for free. Not saying that's going to happen here or anything, but content is so undervalued because people expect it for free, and that leads to the shoddy freelance rates because you have to base everything around traffic, or constantly take a loss on anything that's creatively risky. Or, you get lucky and it goes viral on social media, hence why there's so much outrage bait nowadays.

The second you take worrying about a YouTube video hitting 100,000 views just so you can make a $100 out of the equation, things will get better.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

I didn’t realise it was her fault other people acted like complete tools.

Seemed pretty clear to me. The repetitive and toxic discussions were born out of that. You can argue about who was right or wrong but it's disingenuous to try to say that the reason for the chaos wasn't based around that "event".

This. As much as I have no respect and dislike her, all those people chose to act like assholes. She did not force them.

Unless she’s Charles Xavier or Jean Grey, she’s not responsible for anything other than her own actions. Same as me. Same as you.

Christ I’m so glad something more important happened to me on the day of the sundering.

This also feels disingenuous. It's like arguing Jigsaw isn't setting up murder in the Saw movies. When you say that hundreds of games people played from their youth were sexist, you are insulting something people like, to go further and then say that by playing those games, every single person that has played them could potentially be sexist themselves further insult those people. To then also have other people buy into that blanket accusation when it was based on shoddy evidence and conjecture made it not just words but a real movement that could effect people.

Most of us have forgotten she existed, except for the people who keep dredging her up just to hate on her. That's literally the only time I hear her name anymore is people who for some reason keep wanting to drag her into any given conversation because "But Anita!".

It's perfectly reasonable for people to bring up an event that had major effects on them and others.

I won't go further down this but I wanted to say my peace (My notifications missed this for some reason). I'll leave the topic of Sarkeesian there.

 

[Neuromancer]

It's perfectly reasonable for people to bring up an event that had major effects on them and others.

I shudder to think how empty of any significance or hardship one's life has to be for Sarkeesian to constitute as a "major event".

 

[meiam]

Looking back the escapist has had quite a bizarre life. Strangely enough it seems like it all come down to Yahtzee, I think he single handedly kept the site alive on more than one occasion.

I remember Susan Ardent from the "Good Old Days". I didn't realize she was so.....yeah.

I mean, I never talked to her personally or anything, just remembered the original escapist show/podcast and her doing some of the video reviews. I think she wrote some columns too. She seemed alright but I guess behind the scenes she didn't particularly like us.

I remember those day, crazy to think internet gaming journalist was at some point big enough that they could afford to have an entire con just for the website. I liked Susan on the podcast, she was outspoken but I liked her takes on games.

If there wasn't so much bad blood flying around it'd be cool to have perspective article from all the people who worked at the escapist over the years.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I liked Susan on the podcast, she was outspoken but I liked her takes on games.

Eh, she liked Uncharted 3 somehow claiming the story was so good she felt the gameplay "interrupted" it. Also, she said in a podcast the controls sucked.

 

[happyninja42]

Eh, she liked Uncharted 3 somehow claiming the story was so good she felt the gameplay "interrupted" it. Also, she said in a podcast the controls sucked.

I had the same opinion about the first Last of Us. Enjoyed the story, enjoyed the interplay between the characters, hated the gameplay itself. I don't remember the Uncharted games at all frankly. They were so mindless action adventure that they just went in one ear, out the other. Popcorn video games.

 

[Exley97]

To bring this back to Sterling (somewhat)...

The bombshell exposé about rampant sexist behavior, harassment and flat-out criminal assaults at one of the biggest video game companies in the world, which includes but is not limited to the creative heads imposing their sexist views *on the games themselves*, will hopefully be a turning point for the games industry and maybe even a change in attitudes in the overall community. But after reading some of the comments here about how "politics" and feminist critics somehow ruined the former Escapist and poisoned the collective discourse around games, well....I'm thinking that's not very fucking likely.

In any event...Defy Media and Achron ruined this place. No one else. Not some critic on YouTube or some indie game developer. Defy ran the place into the ground, and they own the collapse. Good people left or were pushed out because of them, either because of crap like pandering to publishers or because their bullshit "no politics!" pledge was just a head fake for them to instill their own politics ("Milo Inc." LOL...). Good riddance to them.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I had the same opinion about the first Last of Us. Enjoyed the story, enjoyed the interplay between the characters, hated the gameplay itself. I don't remember the Uncharted games at all frankly. They were so mindless action adventure that they just went in one ear, out the other. Popcorn video games.

I recall both really well, UC2 (because it was really good) and UC3 (because it was really shit). The story of UC3 is completely nonsensical and some of the characters are very inconsistent from the last game. For example, Sully bows out of most of the adventure in UC2 because he's old. Then, in UC3, he'll go with Drake anywhere. All the boat chapters where the main setpieces are make absolutely no sense.