BlackListed

ShakerSilver

Professional Procrastinator
Nov 13, 2009
885
0
0
Revolutionary said:
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.
altnameJag said:
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

New member
Sep 17, 2014
1
0
0
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

New member
Apr 26, 2011
1,065
0
0
CaitSeith said:
Karadalis said:
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

New member
Apr 15, 2011
1,509
0
0
altnameJag said:
ShakerSilver said:
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?
 

CaitSeith

Formely Gone Gonzo
Legacy
Apr 14, 2020
5,203
200
68
Karadalis said:
CaitSeith said:
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.
*facepalm*

They did the first one. Bethesda and Ubisoft put Kotaku in their lists of disfavor. I'm not going to argue if they have the right or not (that's another question).
 

eberhart

New member
Dec 20, 2012
94
0
0
CaitSeith said:
eberhart said:
CaitSeith said:
Amaror said:
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)?
Given what we're discussing here, I'd go with "people of a country/state in general". This is the only thing suitable for a code of ethics that deals with journalism in toto. It doesn't need to address specific situation of "gaming press" - it's "gaming press" that should adjust their standards when, as rarely as it happens, dealing with something serious. Like, you know, a question whether certain underhanded methods are acceptable.

As for "but who reads it anyway?" - you can bet that news regarding something serious (as in: not "hey, gais, they are making another game! click me!") would gather interest of wider audiences. They wouldn't even have to read Kotaku as you can also bet MSM outlets would be picking up the story.

And what if "serious" issues gaming journalists [footnote](or bloggers, lost track which mask is currently being used)[/footnote] deliver can only be an equivalent of "Watch out, shitty textures in F4!"?[footnote]I recall what happened when Internet lost its head over M3 endings being dangerously close to "false advertising" - something that should concern the public regardless of a product. Oh, wait, I already remember what kind of concern a sizeable part of "gaming journalism" had.[/footnote] Perhaps this means using certain methods by that specific bunch should simply be unacceptable, period. Unless you'd like to excuse paparazzo rags as well - surely only a very specific fraction of the public reads them. Does that mean they deliver something "vital to the public" as well?
 

littlebunnyfuufuu

New member
Oct 21, 2015
20
0
0
Dornedas said:
What has Kotaku to do with Games Journalism?

I thought they were bloggers not journalists.
Well, to be considered is the fact that seemingly EVERY nerdy/gaming news here on escapist, kotaku reports Hours before it gets on here I have noticed.
 

Ukomba

New member
Oct 14, 2010
1,528
0
0
Ok, lets have a discussion.

Seems like two articles published to drive site clicks, not some brave stand against a publisher. No law was broken and so there isn't any ethical issue to talk about there. On Bethesda and Ubisoft's end, neither are required to give anyone review copies. It also isn't that they pulled their review copies for a bad review, but for leaked information and so there is no ethical issue there either. So not really sure what to discuss. I can't even think of any reason to give them a thumbs up for epitomizing good ethics in this case, seems like they just wanted the traffic and it bit them, it wasn't some brave stand against censorship or something.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 12, 2020
4,858
2,730
118
Country
United States
Amaror said:
altnameJag said:
ShakerSilver said:
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?
"Developer of Successful Franchise Producing Sequel", shocking. Considering the aftermath of a hugely successful hoax, yeah, I'm not seeing the problem.
 

Karadalis

New member
Apr 26, 2011
1,065
0
0
altnameJag said:
ShakerSilver said:
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.
Okay this... this is complete and utter nonsense.

Bethesda and Ubisoft are not preventing kotaku from doing journalism.

They simply refuse to give interviews and FREE STUFF to kotaku anymore. Thats it.

They did not drop a bunch of lawsuits onto kotaku and its employees, they did not try to sabotage the website, they did not went onto a slanderous campaign to defame kotaku (kotaku does it to itselfe pretty well without any outside help anyways) No threats, no powerplay... simply silence.

Infact they did not hinder kotaku in any way or form. You see the thing is that kotaku has no right to demand to be heard by these publishers or demand free review copies of their products just because they want that stuff and claim they are important. Thats a courtesy that publishers and game devs give to games journalism because usually it benefits them as much as it benefits those game outlets... however in kotakus case:

Seeing how kotaku has repeatedly lashed out against publishers and developers with ridiculus claims of mysoginy, actively spread false accusations that where very damaging (fake rape accusations anyone?) and takes shits on the customers of ubisoft and bethesda(gamers are over/dead) i will say its a wonder that anyone in the industry still sends them review copies of their games. It is clear that kotakus interest in the gaming hobby simply consists of stirring shit up for clicks.

Actually what is hilarious about all this is that kotaku who now suddenly call themselves game journalists are so DEPENDANT on the devs and publishers that they cry foul the minute the people they have constantly shat on turn their back on them.

Poor poor kotaku no longer getting free review copies and interviews... i wonder how all non gaming journalists ever survive out there without those that they report about feeding them free stuff?
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 12, 2020
4,858
2,730
118
Country
United States
Ukomba said:
Ok, lets have a discussion.

Seems like two articles published to drive site clicks, not some brave stand against a publisher. No law was broken and so there isn't any ethical issue to talk about there. On Bethesda and Ubisoft's end, neither are required to give anyone review copies. It also isn't that they pulled their review copies for a bad review, but for leaked information and so there is no ethical issue there either. So not really sure what to discuss. I can't even think of any reason to give them a thumbs up for epitomizing good ethics in this case, seems like they just wanted the traffic and it bit them, it wasn't some brave stand against censorship or something.
Interestingly, "Ethical" and "Lawful" are not actually synonyms. Most ethics guidelines talk about things that, yeah, are technically legal, but still things you probably shouldn't do.

I mean, there's no law that says I can't find out someone's personal information and broadcast it via public forums in places where people who don't like them tend to congregate, or advocate that a company fire someone because they like/don't like a video game I don't like/like, but it's decidedly unethical to do so.
 

ShakerSilver

Professional Procrastinator
Nov 13, 2009
885
0
0
MarsAtlas said:
Regardless of how we personally feel about Kotaku can we all agree that two major publishers blacklisting (and yes that term is appropriate here) one of the largest gaming media sites on the web not just from press releases and convention access but also from review copies of major titles is not good for consumers? Its not good for Kotaku and they lose money but cutting off a large gaming media outlet for not playing ball with their hype machine, aside from setting a bad precedent, deprives many gamers of a review at launch for major AAA titles that sell for $60. The more reviews we, consumers, have the better for us it is and and the earliest we get these reviews the better it is for us, consumers.
Normally I would say this is true, cutting out any voice for criticism of the game industry is detrimental to consumers looking for information, regardless of that outlet's views or the validity of their statements. However, considering how the gaming press churns out the highly controlled information from big publishers and rarely acts critical towards them (unless they think they can earn some controversy clicks), I can't say that my trust in a particular outlet would be all that high, nor would I think cutting off an outlet from the corporate hype-machine is really all that harmful. If anything, one could expect more honest pieces from them now concerning the publishers that cut ties with them, as they have no business dealings that require them to act in a certain way.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 12, 2020
4,858
2,730
118
Country
United States
Karadalis said:
Infact they did not hinder kotaku in any way or form. You see the thing is that kotaku has no right to demand to be heard by these publishers or demand free review copies of their products. Thats a courtesy that publishers and game devs do because it benefits them usually as much as it benefits those game outletts... however in kotakus case:
Never said they had a right to free stuff, just lamenting at the apparent response of "well of course that wa gonna happen. Suckle up to that dev teat and play nice, that's the only way to be ethical." But you can't tell it it doesn't "hinder" Kotaku, not getting advance copies of games so a review can be out on launch day.
Karadalis said:
Seeing how kotaku has repeatedly lashed out against publishers and developers, actively spread false accusations that where very damaging and takes shits on the customers of ubisoft and bethesda i will say its a wonder that anyone in the industry still sends them review copies of their games. It is clear that kotakus interest in the gaming hobby simply consists of stirring shit up for clicks.
Actively false things like that 100% factual article based on Fallout 4's intro? Wha? I get the feeling this isn't about the leaks that were actually linked.
Karadalis said:
Actually what is hilarious about all this is that kotaku who now suddenly call themselves game journalists are so DEPENDANT on the devs and publishers that they cry foul the minute the people they have constantly shat on turn their back on them.

Poor poor kotaku no longer getting free review copies and interviews... i wonder how all non gaming journalists ever survive out there without those that they report about feeding them free stuff?
Besides advance books, free music, and preview movie screenings? Those are all things you know. In the entertainment journalism industry.
 

Karadalis

New member
Apr 26, 2011
1,065
0
0
altnameJag said:
Ukomba said:
Ok, lets have a discussion.

Seems like two articles published to drive site clicks, not some brave stand against a publisher. No law was broken and so there isn't any ethical issue to talk about there. On Bethesda and Ubisoft's end, neither are required to give anyone review copies. It also isn't that they pulled their review copies for a bad review, but for leaked information and so there is no ethical issue there either. So not really sure what to discuss. I can't even think of any reason to give them a thumbs up for epitomizing good ethics in this case, seems like they just wanted the traffic and it bit them, it wasn't some brave stand against censorship or something.
Interestingly, "Ethical" and "Lawful" are not actually synonyms. Most ethics guidelines talk about things that, yeah, are technically legal, but still things you probably shouldn't do.

I mean, there's no law that says I can't find out someone's personal information and broadcast it via public forums in places where people who don't like them tend to congregate, or advocate that a company fire someone because they like/don't like a video game I don't like/like, but it's decidedly unethical to do so.
So who actually decided its an ethical standard that a publisher HAS to send out review copies to everyone who claims to be a games journalist?

Getting review copies is a privilige, not a right or an ethical standard on part of the publisher. Companies have no ethical obligation to support enthusiast press with their products for review and outside the gaming industry this level of dependancy is allmost never the case for good reason.

Furthermore Bethesda and Ubisoft have not refused to send out review copies to other outlets who are critical of their games in the past or currently. They picked kotaku out for a reason. Perhaps they have decided that associating with kotaku or supporting them is no longer in their interest because it harms them?

Maybe because kotaku wrote one to many slanderous hitpiece about them to often? Its one thing to uncover and condemn shady practices, its another to accuse a publisher/developer of having mysoginistic tendencies or of being sexist like it happened to ubisoft.

There are alot of valid reason why these two publishers would refuse to work with kotaku anymore. Kotaku merely claims it was because of these two leaks. But perhaps what we see is merely the start of big publishers turning their back on Gawker and Kotaku alltogether.. one can only hope.

altnameJag said:
Never said they had a right to free stuff, just lamenting at the apparent response of "well of course that wa gonna happen. Suckle up to that dev teat and play nice, that's the only way to be ethical." But you can't tell it it doesn't "hinder" Kotaku, not getting advance copies of games so a review can be out on launch day.
So what youre argument boils down to as far as i understand is:

"WONT ANYONE THINK ABOUT POOR KOTAKU?"

To wich my answer is: Has kotaku ever given any two fucks about anyone they wrote a slanderous hitpiece against?

Look they claim to be full fledged journalists, they should act like full fledged journalists and accept the consequences of their actions.

You cannot actively work to harm companies and then hold open your hands for free review copies, this isnt how the world works. Either you go full independand or you stop accusing people of horrible things without any proof or evidence. Something that kotaku does every day.


Actively false things like that 100% factual article based on Fallout 4's intro? Wha? I get the feeling this isn't about the leaks that were actually linked.
Remember that its only kotaku that claims thats the reason why they are being ignored? Kotaku whos also called the "fox news of gaming journalism"?

But while we are at it how about an example:

How about accusing Ubisoft of being sexist for not having female playable assasins in assasins creed unity? Its one thing to report about shady DLC or microtransactions, but accusing someone of mysoginy simply because they didnt put something in the game that you want to be in the game? Thats slander. And you would find that in any other industry the publisher would have cut ties with such a reviewer asap.

Besides advance books, free music, and preview movie screenings? Those are all things you know. In the entertainment journalism industry.
Yeah and these are given out not because the creators are ethically obligated to hand these out by any means, but its in the interest of THE AUTHOR to get word of his new work out, he directly benefits from it and the reviewer benefits from it.

But once the reviewer starts talking shit and raises baseless accusations that have nothing to do with reviews you can bet that said reviewer will no longer receive advance books, free music or be invited to preview movie screenings.

Bethesda and Ubisoft have simply decided its not in their interest anymore to supply kotaku with their products for free anymore or give interviews to an outlett that is openly hostile to them.

They cut ties with kotaku cause kotaku is harming them more then its worth it to them. And if kotaku was really a journalistic outlet they would be okay with it instead of whining and trying to incite a shitstorm against these two companies to blackmail them into supporting them again.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 12, 2020
4,858
2,730
118
Country
United States
Karadalis said:
So who actually decided its the ethical that a publisher HAS to send out review copies to everyone who claims to be a games journalist?
Literally nobody, far as I can tell.
Karadalis said:
Getting review copies is a privilige, not a right or an ethical standard on part of the publisher. Companies have no ethical obligation to support enthusiast press with their products for review and outside the gaming industry this is allmost never the case.
Agreed on the first part, you're factually wrong on the second. Advanced screenings are a thing. How else do you think they get those blurbs for the dust-jackets of new books?
Karadalis said:
Bethesda and Ubisoft have not refused to send out review copies to other outlets who are critical of their games in the past or currently. They picked kotaku out for a reason. Perhaps they have decided that associating with kotaku or supporting them is no longer in their interest because it harms them?
Well, a far as we know, anyway. I mean, Kotaku's been on Bethesda's list for two years, Ubisoft's for one. It's news because Kotaku finally revealed it, not because it just happened.
Karadalis said:
Maybe because kotaku wrote one to many slanderous hitpiece about them to often? Its one thing to uncover and condemn shady practices, its another to accuse a publisher/developer of having mysoginistic tendencies or of being sexist like it happened to ubisoft.
I doubt that's a thing. I especially doubt that's a thing that happened before they got blacked out.
Karadalis said:
There are alot of valid reason why these two publishers would refuse to work with kotaku anymore. Kotaku merely claims it was because of these two leaks. But perhaps what we see is merely the start of big publishers turning their back on Gawker and Kotaku alltogether.. one can only hope.
Lot's of valid reasons sure, lot's of invalid ones too. I don't trust AAA's. And I don't like when they restrict information as a means of getting publications to toe the line and be good little shills.

I mostly disappointed by the number of people who don't seem to mind. I've spent 14 months listening to people who want "ethics in games journalism" and now they're telling me they don't actually want the "journalism" part. "Adhere to the spj code, except suck up to the AAA's unless you want to be cut off". "Stay bought off and don't make waves".

I don't even care about Kotaku, not really. In any reasonable industry, those leaks would be nothing. "Successful Franchise making sequel, here's the script for the intro that's going to be plastered all over youtube at launch. Annualized Franchise that takes place in different cities makes sequel taking place in different city and has new gameplay gimmick!"

I mean, shit, if it weren't for the specific details, I could guess that. In both cases, people were guessing that, Kotaku's leaks were just confirmation.
 

ShakerSilver

Professional Procrastinator
Nov 13, 2009
885
0
0
Karadalis said:
Bethesda and Ubisoft have not refused to send out review copies to other outlets who are critical of their games in the past or currently. They picked kotaku out for a reason. Perhaps they have decided that associating with kotaku or supporting them is no longer in their interest because it harms them?

Maybe because kotaku wrote one to many slanderous hitpiece about them to often? Its one thing to uncover and condemn shady practices, its another to accuse a publisher/developer of having mysoginistic tendencies or of being sexist like it happened to ubisoft.

There are alot of valid reason why these two publishers would refuse to work with kotaku anymore. Kotaku merely claims it was because of these two leaks. But perhaps what we see is merely the start of big publishers turning their back on Gawker and Kotaku alltogether.. one can only hope.
I doubt it was about any slanderous pieces. Big publishers don't give two shits if some people hate them, they'll just keep keepin' on. What they do care about is information control - publishers expect news outlets to follow along and churn out pieces based on controlled info dumps like press releases and private press events to make sure they know exactly what info is being given to consumers and when it is given. Kotaku's leaks, especially the leaked Fallout 4 intro, are prime examples of what publishers don't want - information being released that they did not plan for. Regardless of Kotaku's intentions, it ruined the business relation with the companies and had ties cut off.

No party in this dealing acting unethically (maybe Kotaku from a business standpoint), but the only reason this situation occured is because of how controlling game publishers are with information and how complicit the press has been in this control (which is an issue of press ethics).
 

Defective_Detective

New member
Jul 26, 2010
159
0
0
Karadalis said:
altnameJag said:
ShakerSilver said:
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.
Okay this... this is complete and utter nonsense.

Bethesda and Ubisoft are not preventing kotaku from doing journalism.

They simply refuse to give interviews and FREE STUFF to kotaku anymore. Thats it.

They did not drop a bunch of lawsuits onto kotaku and its employees, they did not try to sabotage the website, they did not went onto a slanderous campaign to defame kotaku (kotaku does it to itselfe pretty well without any outside help anyways)

Infact they did not hinder kotaku in any way or form. You see the thing is that kotaku has no right to demand to be heard by these publishers or demand free review copies of their products. Thats a courtesy that publishers and game devs do because it benefits them usually as much as it benefits those game outletts... however in kotakus case:

Seeing how kotaku has repeatedly lashed out against publishers and developers, actively spread false accusations that where very damaging and takes shits on the customers of ubisoft and bethesda i will say its a wonder that anyone in the industry still sends them review copies of their games. It is clear that kotakus interest in the gaming hobby simply consists of stirring shit up for clicks.

Actually what is hilarious about all this is that kotaku who now suddenly call themselves game journalists are so DEPENDANT on the devs and publishers that they cry foul the minute the people they have constantly shat on turn their back on them.

Poor poor kotaku no longer getting free review copies and interviews... i wonder how all non gaming journalists ever survive out there without those that they report about feeding them free stuff?
I'm sorry, what? Free stuff?

Do you realise that absolutely no *non-gaming press* reviewer, whether we are talking books, films etc are typically expected to pay for their review copies or advance screenings either?

And guess what? If a studio doesn't give you press access, which means no interviews with staff, or access to press events, it's pretty damned difficult to actually report on anything concerning their titles. So yes, they are absolutely interfering with Kotaku's ability to report on their games or business.

Yes, it's not illegal for them to blacklist (and that's exactly what this is). It is interfering and political maneuvering in order to pressure Kotaku into being unethical by playing along like a nice good simpering press outlet, and not standing up for consumers. Bethesda and Ubisoft aren't doing this because they're "calling out" bad behaviour. For one thing that is definitely *NOT* their job. They are trying to muzzle gaming press that won't fall in line with their PR ****shit.

They can blacklist. The point is in this case they definitely should not.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Karadalis said:
Poor poor kotaku no longer getting free review copies and interviews... i wonder how all non gaming journalists ever survive out there without those that they report about feeding them free stuff?
Except you're trying to play this up as being somehow exclusive to gaming, where it's standard for music, books and movies. The review copy is in no way new or unique.

In fact, back when the whole Napster thing was going on and piracy was the excuse for everything, music critics kind of made a fuss when record labels tried to crack down. Why? Because it actually is kind of a big deal when you're expected to write for what reviewers make and pay for your own materials. It also means reviews aren't timely, which readers demand.

I doubt that such a move would be met with such apologetics outside of gaming. In fact, I doubt it would be met with such apologetics here had it not been a publication that's become an effigy for all things evil in games journalism.
 

Karadalis

New member
Apr 26, 2011
1,065
0
0
ShakerSilver said:
Karadalis said:
altnameJag said:
Bethesda and Ubisoft have not refused to send out review copies to other outlets who are critical of their games in the past or currently. They picked kotaku out for a reason. Perhaps they have decided that associating with kotaku or supporting them is no longer in their interest because it harms them?

Maybe because kotaku wrote one to many slanderous hitpiece about them to often? Its one thing to uncover and condemn shady practices, its another to accuse a publisher/developer of having mysoginistic tendencies or of being sexist like it happened to ubisoft.

There are alot of valid reason why these two publishers would refuse to work with kotaku anymore. Kotaku merely claims it was because of these two leaks. But perhaps what we see is merely the start of big publishers turning their back on Gawker and Kotaku alltogether.. one can only hope.
I doubt it was about any slanderous pieces. Big publishers don't give two shits if some people hate them, they'll just keep keepin' on. What they do care about is information control - publishers expect news outlets to follow along and churn out pieces based on controlled info dumps like press releases and private press events to make sure they know exactly what info is being given to consumers and when it is given. Kotaku's leaks, especially the leaked Fallout 4 intro, are prime examples of what publishers don't want - information being released that they did not plan for. Regardless of Kotaku's intentions, it ruined the business relation with the companies and had ties cut off.

No party in this dealing acting unethically (maybe Kotaku from a business standpoint), but the only reason this situation occured is because of how controlling game publishers are with information and how complicit the press has been in this control (which is an issue of press ethics).
Sooooo you dont believe that someone would "blacklist" kotaku for slander and harmfull accusations and actively rallying against their target audience...

But you believe that they would "blacklist" kotaku for these specific leaks that admittedly did very little harm kept for spoiling the surprise in bethesdas case?

If... and its a big IF... thats the case...

These publishers would have egos the size of mount everest.

Now dont get me wrong, theres alot of idiocy at work with big publishers.. i mean look at EA for crying out loud... its a clusterfuck each time their CEO of the week opens his mouth.

But deciding to no longer support a "journalistic" outlet is a bigger decision that has alot of heads involved then simply some CEO taking his ball and going home.

I doubt that it was one certain incidence that lead to ubisoft and bethesda to finaly turn their back on kotaku and has more to do with kotakus overall toxic behaviour these last 3 or 4 years.