Good. Ideally, every single site will get blacklisted by every single dev. Then maybe we could finally get actual journalism and criticism instead of press releases, hype and tentative symbiotic relationships.
But that would mean gaming might get some actual STANDARDS in its publications for the first time in...well practically ever, and we all know that we can't have that.
Ethical Journalism is gaming's unicorn; but soon as one is shown to exist, it'll be open season!
Think of the metaphorical unicorns!
One other thing I wanted to add: People are forgetting that this isn't one-off behavior from Kotaku. This is consistent with a pattern of abuse of their 'journalism' label that has been going on for years.
Kotaku has never given developers a fair share. They've never even tried to do anything except create clickbait.
The last article written about Ubisoft before this incident was when Kotaku trapped one of Ubisoft's producers in a room and started bombarding him with loaded questions meant to destroy his reputation [http://i.imgur.com/8L8x0N7.png]. Then they wrote that article which boils down to "Pfft, they didn't want to answer my loaded questions? I guess that means they have something to hide."
This isn't how journalists act. Certainly not how any journalist acts that wants to remain a credible source of news. If I were Ubisoft; I would have cut ties with Kotaku after that article came out slandering one of my employees for not wanting to answer a series of humiliating questions to someone that they knew would immediately try to turn them into clickbait.
So this idea that Kotaku has not had this coming for a while is nonsense.
dude you as a person get to decide who you will and wont interact with, same goes for companies and that's fine.
there is a huge difference between an individual making a personal decision and saying: "this person is a dick i shall not talk to him again" and that same individual (or company) saying: "i do not like this individual, not only will i cut contacts with him, i will use my connections to make sure he's blocked out of the entire industry and tell anyone that ever think about hiring or talking to him that he should stop."
it's the difference between not talking to someone and throwing someone in solitary, it's a big substantive fucking difference.
dude you as a person get to decide who you will and wont interact with, same goes for companies and that's fine.
there is a huge difference between an individual making a personal decision and saying: "this person is a dick i shall not talk to him again" and that same individual (or company) saying: "i do not like this individual, not only will i cut contacts with him, i will use my connections to make sure he's blocked out of the entire industry and tell anyone that ever think about hiring or talking to him that he should stop."
it's the difference between not talking to someone and throwing someone in solitary, it's a big substantive fucking difference.
We're talking about a group of people-- who do not comprise "the entire industry", or anywhere near it-- suggesting to one another that they should not engage. Not forcing anybody, but exercising their own powers, which go no further than their own engagement.
You can call it shady, sure; I'm not arguing with that. I'd tend to agree. But the fundamentals there are very much similar. You're just describing one with much more verbosity than you are the other, to give the impression there's a gulf between them.
I really don't get this sort of idea. So, unless it's something customers "need to know" or is something deemed important by people who have nothing but utter contempt for Kotaku, a website should make sure to march in lock step with what publishers and their marketing departments want. Apparently, what customers wanted, going by the generated clicks Kotaku received, is irrelevant, because Kotaku should be a loyal servant of the publisher unless something "important" comes along.
If they want to maintain a good working relationship with the publisher then yes. Of course. Are you expecting any other answer? Frankly I'm not sure if you're sincerely making your points or are being a complete parody here; because you're being dishonest and misleading.
Look...this whole situation is completely normal with respect to basic real-world journalism. You maintain your sources of information and ONLY burn your bridges with them if the story is important enough or powerful enough that you know you're morally in the right (and thus will come out of it ahead at the end of the day).
See also: The example I gave a few pages back with respect to Alex Ferguson and the BBC. The BBC realised that story was important enough that it was worth risking their relationship with Alex Ferguson over it and thus released the story. There was a backlash from the manager himself, but ultimately it resulted in the whole suspicious relationship they'd reported on being broken up.
If Kotaku had been reporting on Bethesda forcing its employees to work a hundred hours a week whilst being whipped then they might have had a point. Reporting on something as frivolous as a game in development and in such a way as to harm the publisher's own plans means they don't.
Not really, they're just listening to their customers opinions. Apparently they decided that GTA didn't match the image they wanted for their store, a decision that is consistent with their past actions concerning music and film. Is it really a surprise that Target decided to cater to the soccer mom demographic instead of the hardcore gamer demographic? Heaven forbid a single chain decides not to carry a single game in a single country. If they decided to bring the game back due to outrage, I doubt you'd be complaining about Target "caving into pressure." You'd probably call it a victory for free speech, or something. You're just upset that your demographic wasn't catered to in this specific circumstance.
Besides, I see no difference. Either way the game is unavailable for purchase. They aren't limiting your options. If you want the game, go somewhere else. It's not banned, it's not illegal, there's no censorship going on. They just decided not to stock an item at their store. I don't understand how people are surprised by this.
One other thing I wanted to add: People are forgetting that this isn't one-off behavior from Kotaku. This is consistent with a pattern of abuse of their 'journalism' label that has been going on for years.
Kotaku has never given developers a fair share. They've never even tried to do anything except create clickbait.
The last article written about Ubisoft before this incident was when Kotaku trapped one of Ubisoft's producers in a room and started bombarding him with loaded questions meant to destroy his reputation [http://i.imgur.com/8L8x0N7.png]. Then they wrote that article which boils down to "Pfft, they didn't want to answer my loaded questions? I guess that means they have something to hide."
This isn't how journalists act. Certainly not how any journalist acts that wants to remain a credible source of news. If I were Ubisoft; I would have cut ties with Kotaku after that article came out slandering one of my employees for not wanting to answer a series of humiliating questions to someone that they knew would immediately try to turn them into clickbait.
So this idea that Kotaku has not had this coming for a while is nonsense.
Don't know why Ben Kuchera put this up but it made Totilo look like he enables bad journalism. Which is why no one feels bad for Kotaku in this situation. They have a right to do what they did, but Bethesda and Ubisoft have a right to refrain from giving them anything to report on. And we as the reader have a right to critique both sides. too bad for Kotaku that they pretty much go full MovieBob and insult people who don't like their opinions.
I'm curious. Six months later, when everyone has forgotten this happened, lets replace Bethesda with EA and Kotaku with a games journalist people don't hate on principle and see if the reactions are any different.
I'd have pretty much the same reactions if the journalist had gotten bitten for a cheap buck like Kotaku did. "The outlet was silly but within their right to publish this, and EA had the right to stop talking to them though it is going to bite them in the arse PR wise for it".
I think the main thing to take from this is, if you make your target audience hate you on principle you lose the protection of your readers backing you up when something like this happens. Remember what happened with this website and RSI a little while ago? The Escapist doesn't have an audience that hates it on principle (aside from one or two unnamed loons) and so people were willing to back up the outlet against the dev/publisher.
Ah yes, Call of Duty 4 hates puppies. Clickbait headline, taken completely seriously and never actually checked up on.
The whole article, from Kotaku.com.au:
By far the best part of Chance Glasco?s demo of Infinity Ward?s Call of Duty 4 at Activate Asia this year was when he killed a dog.
Yeah, a dog.
Sneaking through Pripyat, Russia, all decked out in his sexy-looking Ghillie suit, Chance tried to snipe an enemy soldier in a nearby church bell tower. He fired about five shots. They all missed. The soldier was ? expectedly ? upset.
Seconds later, Chance was beset by troops and trained killer puppies. One of the animals jumped Chance, knocking his player to the ground. After a few chomps, Chance, with deadly precision, reached his hands up and snapped the creature?s neck. Objectively, it was an awesome bit of gameplay.
We found out later that the neck-snapping was completely unintentional, and, in fact, it was the one thing Activision had informed Chance he shouldn?t do.
We didn?t mind that he did, though.
Now, just in case, the relevant bit: "After a few chomps, Chance, with deadly precision, reached his hands up and snapped the creature?s neck. Objectively, it was an awesome bit of gameplay.
We found out later that the neck-snapping was completely unintentional, and, in fact, it was the one thing Activision had informed Chance he shouldn?t do.
We didn?t mind that he did, though."
I'm underwhelmed. You'd think trying to ruin a dev's reputation would involve something meaner than "Objectively, it was an awesome bit of gameplay".
But sure, Kotaku never give devs a fair shake. Oi.
Sticky said:
The last article written about Ubisoft before this incident was when Kotaku trapped one of Ubisoft's producers in a room and started bombarding him with loaded questions meant to destroy his reputation [http://i.imgur.com/8L8x0N7.png]. Then they wrote that article which boils down to "Pfft, they didn't want to answer my loaded questions? I guess that means they have something to hide."
And again, I'm wondering if my computer loaded up the wrong article. Is everybody else seeing the same thing as I am?
Probably not. I mean, you see "trapped one of Ubisoft's producers in a room and started bombarding him with loaded questions meant to destroy his reputation" while I see "talked to one of Ubisoft's producers in the Ubisoft booth interview room with a PR person present."
""What I can say is... no, no, I shouldn't," Thompson finally blurted before laughing to lighten the mood.
It wasn't the first time this sort of thing had happened that day, and I definitely didn't blame Thompson or the PR guy. They'd both been extremely enthusiastic and helpful otherwise, but it was clear that their hands were tied. Mandate from on high and all that."
God, just going for the professional throat there. Brutal stuff.
Quite a few of your observations seem to fall under opinion. That and you don't really deconstruct any of the points they make. You just kinda point and mock then.
In a way you prove my point.
Also is there any reason you keep spamming the thread with comics that just scream "Strawman"? Again. You REALLY prove my point.
I'm curious. Six months later, when everyone has forgotten this happened, lets replace Bethesda with EA and Kotaku with a games journalist people don't hate on principle and see if the reactions are any different.
I'd have pretty much the same reactions if the journalist had gotten bitten for a cheap buck like Kotaku did. "The outlet was silly but within their right to publish this, and EA had the right to stop talking to them though it is going to bite them in the arse PR wise for it".
I think the main thing to take from this is, if you make your target audience hate you on principle you lose the protection of your readers backing you up when something like this happens. Remember what happened with this website and RSI a little while ago? The Escapist doesn't have an audience that hates it on principle (aside from one or two unnamed loons) and so people were willing to back up the outlet against the dev/publisher.
Fair enough. Although from experience I know it's easy to say you'll stay consistent but very hard to follow through.
What do you mean "target audience"? Because I know Kotaku is an acceptable target around here, but clearly ALL gamers don't hate the website considering it gets enough traffic to stay afloat.
I love that it falls to the press to be blameless while the poor innocent corporations are raking in the dough being deceptive shitstains as a matter of course. They must love all these free internet defenders, it's got to be an utter delight!
You know when it comes down to it, we are talking about enthusiast press. I think ethics factors into it when companies collude to convince consumers to buy products they might not otherwise buy based on advertising masquerading as journalism. Not giving companies special privileges for specifically burning you is not a breach of ethics, it's just reality. Was it journalism to report the leaks? Sure, but Kotaku made Bethesda and Ubisoft's job harder by screwing with what ever plans they had to announce what they wanted to on their terms. Like it or not getting early copies of a game even if it is to do your job, is a privilege the same way getting free meals at a restaurant as a reviewer is a privilege. Sometimes that reviewer can be really good for business and it makes sense not to charge them, but Kotaku spoiled the marketing plans for a game that they then did not receive a review copy for, is not a breech in ethics, its simply whining privileged babies whining that they screwed up relationships they should have been protecting. Is it wrong to report leaks? I donno, case by case? Was it wrong to report on the Sony hacks? I wonder what Kotaku thought about that issue.
I'm curious. Six months later, when everyone has forgotten this happened, lets replace Bethesda with EA and Kotaku with a games journalist people don't hate on principle and see if the reactions are any different.
Well Niche Gamer was blacklisted by XSEED earlier this year for equally mysterious reasons and I can't remember anyone really caring, It certainly wasn't on the front page of every gaming site on the internet.
As for this whole Kotaku blacklisting thing if all Beth and Ubi are doing is refusing to give them review copies and interviews that just puts Kotaku in the same boat as the hundreds of smaller sites/youtube reviews that also don't get free shit.
Not sure why so many people care.
again, they are not, you as a company are allowed to choose who to talk too.
you are not however, allowed to then enforce who others talk too, or influence their decision making.
blacklisting is when you isolate someone completely from the entire industry, nobody has done that to kotku, individuals simply decided not to talk to them.
now if you showed me some kind of proof of ubisoft talking to other big companies like konami or activision or whatever and telling them to shut out kotaku because of what they did to them, then you'd have a point.
I have no sympathy for anyone with a meaningful affiliation with Gawker. Kotaku's getting what they deserve, and I hope to hell Hulk Hogan sinks all of Gawker with his lawsuit.
This does come from someone who follows sites like TechRaptor, One Angry Gamer(run by the guy that blew open the whole "GameJournoPros" thing to begin with), APGNation and DualShockers for my gaming news; so I'm pretty sure you can all tell where my loyalties lie.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
