BlackListed

The Kush Snickerer

New member
Nov 20, 2015
12
0
0
No punchline this week sadly; at least it opens some sort of dialogue.

Kotaku got what they deserved, if they actually had the idea from the get go to be real journalists this shit wouldn't have happened.
They bit the hand that fed them and as a result they don't get to talk in depth about the big hyped title of the year; so in retaliation they want to make Bethesda and Ubisoft look bad (and to be honest both companies do a fine job on their own).

Bethesda and Ubisoft both know there are plenty of other bloggers that will do the same thing kotaku does for less; and they know Kotaku is known for it's sensationalist pieces, not it's reviews.

Expect more companies to blacklist them, they're a fucking joke and their fight for "ethics" is a bigger joke than gamergate's fight for ethics.

No more review copies from bethseda or Ubisoft games Kotaku :'( gotta spend the money now boohoo what a tragedy for ethics in gaming journalism.
 

CaitSeith

Formely Gone Gonzo
Legacy
Apr 14, 2020
5,184
173
68
eberhart said:
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) - eberhart[/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. - eberhart[/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?
I just read the SPJ and the articles related to undercover journalism. I'm not sure the way this leaked info is obtained is even comparable to hidden cameras, undercover reporting (like working there with the lone purpose of getting news) and lying to the companies. But, I understand your point. Althrough I wouldn't categorize the news about a game being in development as click-bait (that statement still perplexes me).
 

Defective_Detective

New member
Jul 26, 2010
159
0
0
Hey, just curious. So, anyone here arguing that they neither see, hear or are currently speaking on behalf of Ubisoft and Bethesda's evil... Would you be comfortable if a state government refused journalists from seeking freedom of information requests if they were from a certain newspaper because they wouldn't be more supportive of government policies, and placed them on a government blacklist of "inappropriate media"?
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 12, 2020
4,399
2,196
118
Country
United States
Karadalis said:
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.
I must be blind, I couldn't find today's slanderous hit piece. Could you point it out?http://kotaku.com/

Karadalis said:
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.
Damn, my eyes must be going bad. Care to find that? I just can't see it: http://kotaku.com/ubisoft-cut-plans-for-female-assassins-in-unity-1589278349

Karadalis said:
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.
...speaking of baseless accusations...

Look, you don't like Kotaku, that's fine. Not a fan myself. But I'm shocked that you're okay with a publisher blacklisting reviewers who don't give their games good reviews. I mean, they don't have an obligation too, and bad reviews certainly aren't in the publisher's best interest...

See where I'm going with this?
 

CaitSeith

Formely Gone Gonzo
Legacy
Apr 14, 2020
5,184
173
68
The Kush Snickerer said:
No punchline this week sadly
I thought the room was empty because everybody was still playing Fallout 4. Joke's on me, I guess...
 

inmunitas

New member
Feb 23, 2015
273
0
0
altnameJag said:
Look, you don't like Kotaku, that's fine. Not a fan myself. But I'm shocked that you're okay with a publisher blacklisting reviewers who don't give their games good reviews. I mean, they don't have an obligation too, and bad reviews certainly aren't in the publisher's best interest...
They aren't preventing Kotaku from reviewing their game, so there isn't an issue there.
 

Karadalis

New member
Apr 26, 2011
1,065
0
0
altnameJag said:
...speaking of baseless accusations...

Look, you don't like Kotaku, that's fine. Not a fan myself. But I'm shocked that you're okay with a publisher blacklisting reviewers who don't give their games good reviews. I mean, they don't have an obligation too, and bad reviews certainly aren't in the publisher's best interest...

See where I'm going with this?
Yeah, into a dead end aparantly because not even kotaku claims that they where "blacklisted" because of bad reviews.

It doesnt take a brain surgeon to see that kotaku has been a highly toxic influence in the gaming industry and has done nothing but to actively harm EVERYONE involved in gaming.

From gamers to developers to publishers themselves. They have made everyone look bad in the eye of the public.

Furthermore bethesda and Ubisoft arent exactly known for their extensive blacklisting policies and have kept supplying people with review copies that havent given their games stellar reviews. So good luck trying to convince anyone about bethesda and ubisoft ignoring kotaku because kotaku gave their games poor scores (wich they didnt)...

Again, im really surprised you guys find it hard to believe that publishers are simply fed up with kotaku and its constant shitflinging and defamation of the industry, the people playing games, the games themselves and the entire hobby. But no.. its because kotaku didnt play by the rules and aint afraid of anything... kept for not getting free review copies anymore it seems.
 

ShakerSilver

Professional Procrastinator
Nov 13, 2009
885
0
0
Karadalis said:
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.
If it were just Ubisoft that cut ties with Kotaku I may have been inclined to agree with you, as Kotaku has continuously slandered them for easy clicks. Yet they haven't done the same with Bethesda. Just quickly looking under the articles tagged with Bethesda, it's composed of editorials giving praise, some press statements, a couple of rumors, and lots of blog posts about things in their games kotaku thinks are interesting. The only thing I can think of that would sour their relationship is that leaked piece.

Had it just been for Kotaku's reputation as an outlet, no publisher would do business with them. The only reasons I think more publishers would begin to cut ties with them is if they see how Kotaku treats information leaks and how little they care for their information control.
 

Defective_Detective

New member
Jul 26, 2010
159
0
0
inmunitas said:
altnameJag said:
Look, you don't like Kotaku, that's fine. Not a fan myself. But I'm shocked that you're okay with a publisher blacklisting reviewers who don't give their games good reviews. I mean, they don't have an obligation too, and bad reviews certainly aren't in the publisher's best interest...
They aren't preventing Kotaku from reviewing their game, so there isn't an issue there.
How are you meant to review a game before general release if there isn't a review copy? That is the definition of preventing Kotaku from putting out a review. Yes, you can make a review after release, but consumers expect to be able to read about a title at least a week before launch. It completely destroys a publications ability to give consumer advice!
 

Karadalis

New member
Apr 26, 2011
1,065
0
0
ShakerSilver said:
Karadalis said:
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.
If it were just Ubisoft that cut ties with Kotaku I may have been inclined to agree with you, as Kotaku has continuously slandered them for easy clicks. Yet they haven't done the same with Bethesda. Just quickly under the articles tagged with Bethesda, it's composed of editorials giving praise, some press statements, a couple of rumors, and lots of blog posts about things in their games kotaku thinks are interesting. The only thing I can think of that would sour their relationship is that leaked piece.

Had it just been for Kotaku's reputation as an outlet, no publisher would do business with them. The only reasons I think more pubkishers would begin to cut ties with them is if they see how Kotaku treats information leaks and how little they care for their information control.
Yeah i see your point with bethesda somewhat... however bethesda is... special.. in certain aspects...

I mean remember them suing notch for daring to call his game "Scrolls"?

Bethesda seems to take alot of things very personal.

I certainly doubt any collusion between bethesda and ubisoft was going on behind the scenes however. I dont think these big publishers would spit on eachother if they where on fire.
 

The Kush Snickerer

New member
Nov 20, 2015
12
0
0
Defective_Detective said:
inmunitas said:
altnameJag said:
Look, you don't like Kotaku, that's fine. Not a fan myself. But I'm shocked that you're okay with a publisher blacklisting reviewers who don't give their games good reviews. I mean, they don't have an obligation too, and bad reviews certainly aren't in the publisher's best interest...
They aren't preventing Kotaku from reviewing their game, so there isn't an issue there.
How are you meant to review a game before general release if there isn't a review copy? That is the definition of preventing Kotaku from putting out a review. Yes, you can make a review after release, but consumers expect to be able to read about a title at least a week before launch. It completely destroys a publications ability to give consumer advice!
That's the grave Kotaku dug when they decided to leak info out early, obviously.
You can't expect to be in a companies back pocket while simultaneously fucking them in the ass for clicks.
 

Defective_Detective

New member
Jul 26, 2010
159
0
0
MarsAtlas said:
Defective_Detective said:
Hey, just curious. So, anyone here arguing that they neither see, hear or are currently speaking on behalf of Ubisoft and Bethesda's evil... Would you be comfortable if a state government refused journalists from seeking freedom of information requests if they were from a certain newspaper because they wouldn't be more supportive of government policies, and placed them on a government blacklist of "inappapropriate media"?
While they're both controlling the flow of information to keep people in the dark, Bethesda and Ubisoft owe us nothing in that regard where the government is absolutely accountable to its citizenry. A better comparison would be a candidate in the running for a political position blacklisted a news organization. That would be like, say, if Hillary Clinton's campaign refused any and all requests from CNN. CNN's a laughingstock but they're important nonetheless and it would reflectly poorly upon the campaign to refuse to respond to reasonable requests.
Whilst I think that's also a good example you bring up, I think mine still stands. We want the gaming press to hold publishers and developers to account, and when we don't support outlets (even if they're Kotaku) that do more than act as third-party marketing then we are giving more developers/publishers license to try and control outlets that don't push specific company lines.

How the heck are we meant to have consumer advocacy otherwise?

What's next? Are we going to be a-okay with DMCA takedowns of Kotaku's Youtube content? Where does it end when we allow this thin end of the wedge to stand?
 

inmunitas

New member
Feb 23, 2015
273
0
0
Defective_Detective said:
inmunitas said:
altnameJag said:
Look, you don't like Kotaku, that's fine. Not a fan myself. But I'm shocked that you're okay with a publisher blacklisting reviewers who don't give their games good reviews. I mean, they don't have an obligation too, and bad reviews certainly aren't in the publisher's best interest...
They aren't preventing Kotaku from reviewing their game, so there isn't an issue there.
How are you meant to review a game before general release if there isn't a review copy?
Well for starters Kotaku don't do pre-release reviews.
That is the definition of preventing Kotaku from putting out a review.
No it's not, that isn't preventing Kotaku from putting out a review at all.
Yes, you can make a review after release, but consumers expect to be able to read about a title at least a week before launch.
Given that both these publishes (and a number of others) have released buggy games on launch, any pre-launch review is essentially useless.
It completely destroys a publications ability to give consumer advice!
No it doesn't, savvy consumers can just wait for a review after launch.
 

Defective_Detective

New member
Jul 26, 2010
159
0
0
The Kush Snickerer said:
That's the grave Kotaku dug when they decided to leak info out early, obviously.
You can't expect to be in a companies back pocket while simultaneously fucking them in the ass for clicks.
I'm sorry, but exactly what kind of relationship are you expecting Kotaku to have with publishers?

Are you saying it's completely acceptable for a company to blacklist journalists for unfavourable coverage?

There leads a very dangerous road...
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 12, 2020
4,399
2,196
118
Country
United States
Defective_Detective said:
How are you meant to review a game before general release if there isn't a review copy? That is the definition of preventing Kotaku from putting out a review. Yes, you can make a review after release, but consumers expect to be able to read about a title at least a week before launch. It completely destroys a publications ability to give consumer advice!
Man, I remember the days of reviewers burning through a game as quickly as possible to get their review out "first".

That was some shoddy ass reviewing. Still, I'm sure that the "play by the rules and you get to keep your launch day reviews" policy couldn't possibly hurt us, the consumer.

Even if most game sales happen launch week and a review is largely useless after that window.

Hey, remember when people thought post-launch review embargos were a bad thing? Good times.
 

The Kush Snickerer

New member
Nov 20, 2015
12
0
0
Defective_Detective said:
Whilst I think that's also a good example you bring up, I think mine still stands. We want the gaming press to hold publishers and developers to account, and when we don't support outlets (even if they're Kotaku) that do more than act as third-party marketing then we are giving more developers/publishers license to try and control outlets that don't push specific company lines.

How the heck are we meant to have consumer advocacy otherwise?

What's next? Are we going to be a-okay with DMCA takedowns of Kotaku's Youtube content? Where does it end when we allow this thin end of the wedge to stand?
Name a gaming press that does hold publishers and developers to account.
Everything in games media is more or less Third-party marketing.

This isn't Kotaku trying to stand up against the AAA giant; this is them throwing a hissy-fit because they fucked up and did a naughty no-no in their benefactor's eyes, it's a last ditch effort to pressure Bethesda and ubisoft into not blacking them out.

They aren't taking down content that has been posted and they aren't being censored, they are being thrown out on their ass because both companies are probably sick of their antics.
 

Defective_Detective

New member
Jul 26, 2010
159
0
0
inmunitas said:
Defective_Detective said:
inmunitas said:
altnameJag said:
Look, you don't like Kotaku, that's fine. Not a fan myself. But I'm shocked that you're okay with a publisher blacklisting reviewers who don't give their games good reviews. I mean, they don't have an obligation too, and bad reviews certainly aren't in the publisher's best interest...
They aren't preventing Kotaku from reviewing their game, so there isn't an issue there.
How are you meant to review a game before general release if there isn't a review copy?
Well for starters Kotaku don't do pre-release reviews.
That is the definition of preventing Kotaku from putting out a review.
No it's not, that isn't preventing Kotaku from putting out a review at all.
Yes, you can make a review after release, but consumers expect to be able to read about a title at least a week before launch*.
Given that both these publishes (and a number of others) have released buggy games on launch, any pre-launch review is essentially useless.
It completely destroys a publications ability to give consumer advice!

No it doesn't, savvy consumers can just wait for a review after launch.

*First of all, I need to put my hand up and admit a mistake. Reviewers, not consumers, expect to be able to play a title at least a week in advance. This is in order to put out a review either a day or two before release day if not on or at the very latest a day or two after release.

This is because with the typical playing time of modern games, we are talking about hours of content that needs to be covered before there can be a fair and comprehensive review. So an advance review copy is a necessity for reviewers that want to give their readers a review that is timely, newsworthy and fair.

Bethesda and Ubisoft are not doing anything illegal, but they are definitely not on the side of the consumers here.
 

The Kush Snickerer

New member
Nov 20, 2015
12
0
0
Defective_Detective said:
The Kush Snickerer said:
That's the grave Kotaku dug when they decided to leak info out early, obviously.
You can't expect to be in a companies back pocket while simultaneously fucking them in the ass for clicks.
I'm sorry, but exactly what kind of relationship are you expecting Kotaku to have with publishers?

Are you saying it's completely acceptable for a company to blacklist journalists for unfavourable coverage?

There leads a very dangerous road...
You know I'm expecting them to not receive free merch from the company they are reviewing to be honest.
This is the best thing that has happened to them, they are finally given the chance to do REAL reviewing and real journalism, I'd bet my bottom dollar that both leaks were found by press given tours of the studios while there for interviews or some shit.

>but exactly what kind of relationship are you expecting Kotaku to have with publishers?
I wanted to reply to this line differently, because you know full well that Kotaku HAS this relationship I'm implying with multiple companies, they had it with Ubisoft and Bethseda in the past, you're acting like they aren't guilty of this.