BlackListed

IndicateCheckTurn

New member
Mar 8, 2015
2
0
0
Meanwhile, on Youtube, George Weidman (aka: Super Bunnyhop) did investigative journalism on Konami of a quality level that should have Kotaku openly weeping and lamenting "We're not worthy!" all while being completely frozen out of official channels.

That's why I don't buy Rydell & Carter's assertion that it's important that Kotaku still have open access to Bethesda and Ubisoft just in case sometime down the line, they recapture their interest in doing consumer-focused investigative journalism.

Of course, George Weidman has actual qualifications in journalism, something there's a serious lack of at Kotaku.
 

nagi

New member
Mar 20, 2009
84
0
0
Well, fuck Kotaku, but also fuck Bethesda, and doubly fuck Ubisoft. Now I'm out of fucks to give for the moment. :(

Anyway, I do agree, shady and nasty business practice. Unfortunately, it is also in the ballpark of what we came to expect from Ubisoft, and (somewhat less so with) Bethesda.
 

LordLundar

New member
Apr 6, 2004
962
0
0
Keavy said:
For the last year and a half I've seen Kotaku criticized for apparently jumping into bed with publishers and not doing enough investigative journalism. Fair enough. Now they're getting criticized for actually doing some investigative journalism and telling gamers something that the publisher didn't want them to know.
Oh please. Kotaku didn't investigate anything. A voice actor went to them with information they received in confidentiality that the publisher didn't want released YET because it was spoilers and Kotaku staff in pursuit of greed ran it. Calling this crap "investigative journalism" is an insult to the term.

Get the facts straight. These weren't some dark secrets that Bethesda and Ubisoft wanted to keep hidden that Kotaku staff dug for. This was script information that the devs wanted to surprise their customers with that was handed to them and the Kotaku staff salivated over releasing it. To add, as it stands the only "blacklist" that they have is that they don't get review copies anymore.

Kotaku is stretching the terms "investigative journalism" and "blacklist" to stupid levels to try to garner support for their stupid choices. The sad part is you're falling for it.

Then again, if this is what passes for "investigative journalism" in gaming media it's no wonder that Lizzy's Star Citizen article was labled "bad journalism" by these same people.
 

Josh123914

They'll fix it by "Monday"
Nov 17, 2009
2,048
0
0
Keavy said:
For the last year and a half I've seen Kotaku criticized for apparently jumping into bed with publishers and not doing enough investigative journalism. Fair enough. Now they're getting criticized for actually doing some investigative journalism and telling gamers something that the publisher didn't want them to know.

This seems to be one of those 'It's unethical as hell, but we don't like *person/website affected*, so screw it, it's totally okay!' issues.

'Blacklisting' being a listed unethical offense in DeepFreeze is the icing on the cake.
You do realise that there's a difference between exposing employer abuse and amplifying leaked information while under NDA, right? Only one of these things is actually investigative journalism.

And its been explained already in this very thread how and why there is a difference from a company blacklisting kotaku (which is to say, revoking privileges) and kotaku writers colluding to blacklist a person.
These are two entirely different industries that you are talking about, and conflating the the different types of blacklisting both use will only lead to confusion.
 

Mikeybb

Nunc est Durandum
Aug 19, 2014
862
0
0
Well, I don't like Kotaku as a site.

I really don't like blacklisting or boycotts against journalists.
for arguments sake, I'm gonna call them journalists for now despite the whole quantum blogger/journalist thing.

I can't think of a way to force a company to engage with a site that I wouldn't dislike seeing put into practice too.

I do like the comic though.
So there's that.

One thing I've found myself wondering about is how many people who complained about target refusing to stock gta and how many people who defended the right of target to choose who they do business with will now be on the opposite sides of the same argument...
Of course, there will be semantic arguments as to why the situation is different, but it still seems to boil down to the same thing.
One group is ceasing to do business with another.
 

-Dragmire-

King over my mind
Mar 29, 2011
2,821
0
0
Josh123914 said:
Keavy said:
For the last year and a half I've seen Kotaku criticized for apparently jumping into bed with publishers and not doing enough investigative journalism. Fair enough. Now they're getting criticized for actually doing some investigative journalism and telling gamers something that the publisher didn't want them to know.

This seems to be one of those 'It's unethical as hell, but we don't like *person/website affected*, so screw it, it's totally okay!' issues.

'Blacklisting' being a listed unethical offense in DeepFreeze is the icing on the cake.
You do realise that there's a difference between exposing employer abuse and amplifying leaked information while under NDA, right?
Is that new info? I thought they weren't under NDA.
 

IceForce

Is this memes?
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
2,384
16
13
dirtysteve said:
Target removed choice for consumers,
How? If someone wants to purchase GTAV on Australian soil, they still can. Nothing's been removed.
 

Pinkilicious

New member
Sep 24, 2014
74
0
0
I have to agree with that last point. We do need more of this. Specifically blacklisting the terrible publications that ACT like Loltaku. Mayhaps Polygon gets chopped next? PCGamer? Ahh, the bloody fields of possibility are endless!

Ahh, this wind, this feeling, these my friends are the winds of vindication and salvation

The undead have risen and set the bonfires anew. PRAISE THE SUN!!!

With them on their backs, we shall begin a downhill charge, like falling blossoms!

(insert more topical morale lines here)

After treating so many this past month for wounds inflicted by gunshots and mines, to see something like this fills my heart with (non-stage-musical) glee!
 

Pinkilicious

New member
Sep 24, 2014
74
0
0
IceForce said:
dirtysteve said:
Target removed choice for consumers,
How? If someone wants to purchase GTAV on Australian soil, they still can. Nothing's been removed.
You know, for everyone who does keep bringing that up, you have to look at the silver lining of this. A MAJOR 'big box' retailer disallowing a game? In the current AAA climate this is a great thing! Because these retailers and Gamestop use their positions to force small bits of content to be cut and made 'chain-exclusive' as pre-order bonuses!

The more large retailers that give a game the chop, the more we as gamers should promote it, as that means it now has less exclusive content! Showing studios they will attain the same sales without catering to the pre-order crowd is a good first step in reclaiming these bits for ourselves.
IndicateCheckTurn said:
Meanwhile, on Youtube, George Weidman (aka: Super Bunnyhop) did investigative journalism on Konami of a quality level that should have Kotaku openly weeping and lamenting "We're not worthy!" all while being completely frozen out of official channels.

That's why I don't buy Rydell & Carter's assertion that it's important that Kotaku still have open access to Bethesda and Ubisoft just in case sometime down the line, they recapture their interest in doing consumer-focused investigative journalism.

Of course, George Weidman has actual qualifications in journalism, something there's a serious lack of at Kotaku.
And don't forget they steal credit of others' when they do find such a thing!

Remember TB breaking the whole thing about paid YT reviewers? Then they didn't give credit to anyone involved in that!
They should thank their lucky stars they have a parent company invested enough in their agenda push to fool investors with shameless botting, or they'd have been dead long ago.
 

Redryhno

New member
Jul 25, 2011
3,077
0
0
dirtysteve said:
IceForce said:
dirtysteve said:
Target removed choice for consumers,
How? If someone wants to purchase GTAV on Australian soil, they still can. Nothing's been removed.
True, but they limit choice, and if you live in a town with only a target selling games, you have to look elsewhere, it doesn't stop you, but it is anti-consumer.

Blacklisting Kotaku doesn't actually remove their coverage it just means no inside scoops or games for free.
Hell, even in the example being used, it wasn't exactly because Target stopped selling, so much as the WAY it happened and the fact that people CELEBRATED the fucking thing happening.
 

Tsun Tzu

Feuer! Sperrfeuer! Los!
Legacy
May 3, 2020
1,620
80
33
Country
Free-Dom
Fuck Kotaku.

I'm sorry, maybe a more nuanced post is in order-

Folks here have already summed things up rather nicely:

Kotaku made the decision to publish information about games in development that was damaging to Bethesda and Ubisoft. Said information was not something one would deem to be "Important" or something the public "Needed to know," nor was it something that could affect consumers in a negative way, as usually is befitting of journalism that seeks "truth." It is instead meant to generate clicks at cost to the developers and their marketing departments.

Kotaku is perfectly within their "rights" to do this.

As a result of this behavior, Bethesda and Ubisoft decide to remove both their hands and the feed upon them.

Bethesda and Ubisoft are perfectly within their rights to do this.

Kotaku then throws a ***** fit about being punished for going after clicks...by going after more clicks.

In short,

Fuck. Kotaku.