BlackListed

[dyre]

I haven't been around for awhile, but why does everyone hate Kotaku? They're not really Pulitzer quality journalists, but I find their articles to be pretty good by the standards of "games journalism." Even their click-baity stuff usually actually delivers whatever the headlines imply.

In terms of gaming-related news from sites that I frequent/have frequented in the past, I'd say:

Ars Technica > Kotaku > Destructoid > Escapist > IGN > Gamespot

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Snip

It should be noted that what Kotaku leaked regarding Fallout 4 were the very revealing documents pertaining to the entire intro sequence of the game.
https://archive.is/7Nk2o
http://kotaku.com/leaked-documents-reveal-that-fallout-4-is-real-set-in-1481322956
If you've played the game, then you can see that it was very accurate.

Yes, the Intro sequence. The part that, in my youth, would've been spoiled months in advance by the demo. If it were the ending, or the twist, or literally almost anything else, I would expect Bethesda to care.

But it's the intro. The bit of the game that goes on the disc that comes with the magazine. The hook upon which you snag the player for the rest of the game. The ideal part of the game to start the hype machine.

Honestly, if not for Bethesda blacking out Kotaku, I'd have thought the leak was intentional considering it was in the aftermath of that hoax.

 

[ShakerSilver]

Yes, the Intro sequence. The part that, in my youth, would've been spoiled months in advance by the demo. If it were the ending, or the twist, or literally almost anything else, I would expect Bethesda to care.

But it's the intro. The bit of the game that goes on the disc that comes with the magazine. The hook upon which you snag the player for the rest of the game. The ideal part of the game to start the hype machine.

Honestly, if not for Bethesda blacking out Kotaku, I'd have thought the leak was intentional considering it was in the aftermath of that hoax.

True, the leaked info may have been rather innocuous despite being leaked over a year before Bethesda would introduce the game proper, but the fact that Bethesda was willing to break ties with Kotaku over this shows how much the industry wishes to control information for their releases and how they expect the press to follow along with this.

 

[FEichinger]

~oh no~, Assassin's Creed is getting another game and it'll have a grappling hook, stop the fucking presses.

This short passage is precisely why there was no reason whatsoever for Kotaku to publish the leaks. It's trivial information that we would've received on the terms of the source eventually. Kotaku chose not to respect that and instead publish it on their own terms. The result is a broken working relationship - with the appropriate consequences.

It's highly ironic that you used the phrase "stop the presses" here: a phrase that refers specifically to urgently publishing special information, rather than continuing with the existing print run.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

What Bethesda and Ubisoft did was somewhat petty and couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch of people. I'll care when it happens to someone other than Kotaku.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

True, the leaked info may have been rather innocuous despite being leaked over a year before Bethesda would introduce the game proper, but the fact that Bethesda was willing to break ties with Kotaku over this shows how much the industry wishes to control information for their releases and how they expect the press to follow along with this.

That's exactly what I don't like about it, to be honest. Given the timing, I cannot see the reason Bethesda would object to this sort of thing besides sending a message.

There's no way in hell we're going to get ethical journalism if we don't try and prevent publishers from stopping any journalism.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Ethics in gaming journalism is gaming's unicorn.
You can discuss it at any length, but if you search for it you only find horses.

Case in point: There is no breach in ethics, nor does this have anything to do with gaming journalism, because Kotaku (by their own words and actions) AREN'T JOURNALISTS.

But even if they pretended to be journalists, it'd still be a farcical claim.

What really happened: Three for-profit private companies had a falling out (get it? hurr) over control of proprietary information. Information whose sole purpose is to lead consumer cattle around by the nose with hype and "juicy bits" of info leaks.

Bloggers regurgitate and spin what they're given because they're far more about "entertainment" than "facts". They're far more concerned with opinions, audience retention and audience shaping (politics).
This mode describes Kotaku, and virtually all mainstream press. (not just gaming, but news at large these days)

Entertainment is fun, but ultimately a fabrication made to amuse. (not about ethics)

Journalists investigate; they dig for information to find the truth, regardless of whether their quarry wants them to or not. Journalism is concerned more with ethics, because only in pursuit of the truth can ethics be found.

(there's more to it than being nosy obviously; the Paparazzi are extremely nosy, but for the purposes of entertainment [celebrity worship and rumor-mongering] than anything of factual or ethical merit.)

 

[Gorrath]

I haven't been around for awhile, but why does everyone hate Kotaku? They're not really Pulitzer quality journalists, but I find their articles to be pretty good by the standards of "games journalism." Even their click-baity stuff usually actually delivers whatever the headlines imply.

In terms of gaming-related news from sites that I frequent/have frequented in the past, I'd say:

Ars Technica > Kotaku > Destructoid > Escapist > IGN > Gamespot

Somewhat maybe partially tongue-in-cheek my list goes:

Ars>Escapist (though Escapist is my favorite)>Destructoid>IGN>Gamespot>Gamefaqs>/v/>my grandmother>a piece of toast>Kotaku

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

~oh no~, Assassin's Creed is getting another game and it'll have a grappling hook, stop the fucking presses.

This short passage is precisely why there was no reason whatsoever for Kotaku to publish the leaks. It's trivial information that we would've received on the terms of the source eventually. Kotaku chose not to respect that and instead publish it on their own terms. The result is a broken working relationship - with the appropriate consequences.

It's highly ironic that you used the phrase "stop the presses" here: a phrase that refers specifically to urgently publishing special information, rather than continuing with the existing print run.

I feel it works on a couple levels, yeah.

That's the trick though, isn't it? Why publish something you know first, when you could publish the PR team's regurgitated press release at the same time as everyone else?

Why not just be the unofficial PR shills for the publishers? That's all we readers really want.

 

[eberhart]

snip

Personally i would not consider what kotaku did or what bethesda or Activision did as something ethically wrong. Kotaku can publish information if they think it's important to the public and Bethesda and Activision don't have any obligation to supply anyone with free copies of their game or promotional material. No matter if they call themselves Journalists or bloggers.
But considering to outstanding ethical questions you mention in your post, there allready is a guide for ethical journalistic behaviour.

http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

Doing a quick scan of that kotaku may be in the wrong here:
Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information unless traditional, open methods will not yield information vital to the public.

I think we can all agree that the leaked information was not vital to the public?

I think that's debatable. Is the revelation of a specific game being developed vital info for the gaming community? Because when official revelations are made, the gaming community goes crazy (of joy and/or anger).

The question here is, what can be defined as vital for the gaming community?

I don't think "gaming community" and "public" are interchangeable here. This particular line of defense would exonerate every shit pulled by the worst paparazzo-driven rags. Because their publications can be defined as "vital for community of people obsessed with private lives of others". Or, you know, a section of the public they're catering to.

I read that part as pretty specific. Certain methods are acceptable when those methods alone can yield information vital to *the public*. Not "people who enjoy certain stuff". So no, "undercover and surreptidious methods" are not acceptable when goals can be defined as click-baity self-interest and, perhaps, delivering some low-quality entertainment to their readers. Bethesda abusing their workforce? Ubisoft cheating on their taxes? EA investing even more money in testing acid on puppies? This is something that could be defined as "vital to the public". Too bad Kotaku has something 9,000% more effective than a dozen of blacklists in terms of preventing them from reporting on something like that. Being Kotaku.

 

[ShakerSilver]

Snip

One also has to wonder how complicit the gaming press has been in regards to the information control of corporate gaming. The relationship is rather profitable for both parties - make hype pieces and give out info at the companies discretion and continue to be invited to exclusive press events, get more info, generate more clicks and ad revenue. The way Kotaku talked about their "blacklisting" to me seemed more like whinging that they were punished for acting poorly in the business relationship, rather than standing by their actions.

 

[CaitSeith]

snip

I think that's debatable. Is the revelation of a specific game being developed vital info for the gaming community? Because when official revelations are made, the gaming community goes crazy (of joy and/or anger).

The question here is, what can be defined as vital for the gaming community?

I don't think "gaming community" and "public" are interchangeable here. This particular line of defense would exonerate every shit pulled by the worst paparazzo-driven rags. Because their publications can be defined as "vital for community of people obsessed with private lives of others". Or, you know, a section of the public they're catering to.

I read that part as pretty specific. Certain methods are acceptable when those methods alone can yield information vital to *the public*. Not "people who enjoy certain stuff". So no, "undercover and surreptidious methods" are not acceptable when goals can be defined as click-baity self-interest and, perhaps, delivering some low-quality entertainment to their readers. Bethesda abusing their workforce? Ubisoft cheating on their taxes? EA investing even more money in testing acid on puppies? This is something that could be defined as "vital to the public". Too bad Kotaku has something 9,000% more effective than a dozen of blacklists in terms of preventing them from reporting on something like that. Being Kotaku.

First define who you mean as *the public* then. Because, who else but the gaming community reads news from gaming sites (or Kotaku)?

 

[Beffudled Sheep_v1legacy]

I think the posts in this thread have given me cancer.

 

[Revolutionary]

While I somewhat agree that what Bethesda is doing here is shitty (But you know still illegal, so I can see Bethesda's point). It's entirely unreasonable to expect people who care about ethics in games journalism to rush to the defence of Polygon and Kotaku AKA literally the worst publications in terms of ethical journalism.
In principle this is something they *might* be mad about, but these outlets that are the main source of all the things those people complain about. Well grey, I guess you're just like everyone else, and only care about ethics when it bothers you personally.

 

[Mangod]

Here's the thing though: the only reason that the companies have the power to blacklist Kotaku so easily is because of how Kotaku and other press outlets have so gleefully acting as the PR-branch of the AAA industry. [a href=http://i.imgur.com/ZkzjJVm.jpg]They've all been so complicit in the bullshit the AAA industry tries to peddle[/a], never willing to criticize unless they think it will earn them more controversy clicks (like leaking some game documents).

Sooo... basically what happened with "new media" and Apple when iOS 9 was announced? (skip to 25:00)

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

One also has to wonder how complicit the gaming press has been in regards to the information control of corporate gaming. The relationship is rather profitable for both parties - make hype pieces and give out info at the companies discretion and continue to be invited to exclusive press events, get more info, generate more clicks and ad revenue. The way Kotaku talked about their "blacklisting" to me seemed more like whinging that they were punished for acting poorly in the business relationship, rather than standing by their actions.

Well sure, being bought and paid for is always more profitable than being the press. Is the game press actually "press", or are we content with third-party PR firms?

I don't like the latter option, myself. Might as well just stamp "9.5" on the box of every AAA release.

 

[ShakerSilver]

While I agree that what Bethesda is doing here is super shitty. It's entirely unreasonable to expect people who care about ethics in games journalism to rush to the defence of Polygon and Kotaku AKA literally the worst publications in terms of ethical journalism.
In principle this is something they should be mad about, but these are main outlets that are the main source of all the things those people complain about. Well grey, I guess you're just like everyone else, and only care about ethics when it bothers you personally.

I think it has less to do with the outlet itself and more to do with the fact that the issue itself doesn't pertain to journalistic ethics per se - the party acting "unethical" is still Kotaku, but not because of their journalism, rather due to their business dealings with AAA companies like Bethesda and Ubisoft; what they did is rather dickish but they are within their rights as businesses to cut ties with business partners that act poorly in their dealings. Now, whether or not these dealings impedes on the outlet's ability to practice ethical journalism is another matter, but I can't say it's a discussion that should be ignored.

Well sure, being bought and paid for is always more profitable than being the press. Is the game press actually "press", or are we content with third-party PR firms?

I don't like the latter option, myself. Might as well just stamp "9.5" on the box of every AAA release.

I certainly don't think any person who would consider themselves part of the gaming community is content with that option, but is there much that those aware of this problem can do? If the body that acts as mediators between the gaming community and the industry - the gaming press - is an accomplice to their information control, what could the gaming community possibly do besides spread more awareness among themselves?

 

[TehRiddles]

Kotaku didn't get blacklisted for doing journalism, they did shitty click fishing pieces. They are complaining that because the shitty things they did weren't technically illegal that they were doing good things. Apparently we needed to know that Annual Creed was getting a new game or Information on Fallout before the reveal. If Kotaku can't respect when the developers want to reveal information then why should the developers hand it over to them when they want it? Look at it this way, Kotaku not getting an early review copy so they can get a review out as soon as possible and reap the harvest of clicks they want? That's kind of like Kotaku taking the wind out of the sails of the developers by making their reveals less of a surprise, something I'm sure the devs enjoy doing.

And that empty room at the end? That's the strawman room, you want the second door on the right that requires you to take a few steps of effort. KotakuInAction is full of talk on this subject right now.

 

[Karadalis]

The real idiocy of this all is:

Kotaku isnt even really blacklisted...

They are just being ignored by two publishers. Not by the entire industry.

Said two publishers havent even colaborated in their decision to ignore Kotaku for all we know...

Kotaku is simply using the word "blacklisted" because it sounds so much more evil and generates more clicks then simply saying "Bethesda and ubisoft dont call back anymore!"

Blacklisted is a term used when a publisher or developer denies contact and review copies to a reviewer. It's been used like that before, and it doesn't require to involve the whole industry to use the term; because each company has their own blacklist.

Synonyms Examples Word Origin
noun
1.
a list of persons under suspicion, disfavor, censure, etc.:
His record as an anarchist put him on the government's blacklist.
2.
a list privately exchanged among employers, containing the names of persons to be barred from employment because of untrustworthiness or for holding opinions considered undesirable.
3.
a list drawn up by a labor union, containing the names of employers to be boycotted for unfair labor practices.

Going by the dictionary bethesda and ubisoft did none of these things. Again, they are simply ignoring kotaku and they have every right to do so.

I think people like using the word "blacklisted" because it sounds so much more edgy then simply stating that a company does no longer want to deal with them and decided to simply ignore them.

 

[Amaror]

True, the leaked info may have been rather innocuous despite being leaked over a year before Bethesda would introduce the game proper, but the fact that Bethesda was willing to break ties with Kotaku over this shows how much the industry wishes to control information for their releases and how they expect the press to follow along with this.

That's exactly what I don't like about it, to be honest. Given the timing, I cannot see the reason Bethesda would object to this sort of thing besides sending a message.

There's no way in hell we're going to get ethical journalism if we don't try and prevent publishers from stopping any journalism.

Really you can't see why Bethesda would do this? We are talking about a game here were Bethesda made a completely seperate game in order to advertise Fallout 4. You can't see any possible reason why they might be upset their marketing campaign which they most likely spent millions on was spoiled?