BlackListed

[The Kush Snickerer]

No punchline this week sadly

I thought the room was empty because everybody was still playing Fallout 4. Joke's on me, I guess...

If there was a joke it was clear over my head, rather be honest than a liar.

 

[inmunitas]

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]

...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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Defective_Detective]

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.

This. That highlighted bit? The bit in bold?

The fact that you even have to ask this question speaks volumes. That's the whole ****ing problem. There *should* be more gaming press outlets and Youtubers that hold developers and publishers to account, but they aren't there because people like yourself don't stand up for those that would. You just prefer to be force-fed PR drivel.

We gamers get the gaming press we deserve when we don't support outlets that try to stand up for themselves.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

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.

You realize this happened a year ago in Ubi's case, and two in Bethesda's, right? This isn't some new thing?

They were getting a lot of questions about stuff like "why wasn't your review of FO4 up on launch day?" and answered with "well, funny story about that..."

Well, at least if gaming press is just third-party marketing, they don't need to worry about those pesky journalism ethics and what not. Just blogs. Paid off shill blogs.

 

[inmunitas]

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.

There is absolutely no requirement for a review to be released on launch day, and there's no benefit for reviewers or the consumers in doing so. This is all setup for the publishes benefit, basically to maximise sales on launch.

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

Kotaku isn't on the consumers side here either, in fact consumers don't even come into it.

 

[Defective_Detective]

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.

There is absolutely no requirement for a review to be released on launch day, and there's no benefit for reviewers or the consumers in doing so. This is all setup for the publishes benefit, basically to maximise sales on launch.

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

Kotaku isn't on the consumers side here either, in fact consumers don't even come into it.

Are you kidding me? Ever since there were gaming magazines, it has been a requirement for gaming press, set by consumer demand, to print game reviews in a timely manner to their readers to digest so they can make a decision about a game that's being released that week. And people are going to go to the news sites and video producers that have those reviews first!

That setup is not for the publishers benefit. It is for the consumers benefit.

It is in the publishers benefit to hurt a "problematic"/"uncontrolled" gaming outlets profits by preventing them from releasing reviews on time, which reduces their traffic and readership.

Is that legal? Yes. Is it right? Absolutely not.

 

[The Kush Snickerer]

The fact that you even have to ask this question speaks volumes. That's the whole ****ing problem. There *should* be more gaming press outlets and Youtubers that hold developers and publishers to account, but they aren't there because people like yourself don't stand up for those that would. You just prefer to be force-fed PR drivel.

We gamers get the gaming press we deserve when we don't support outlets that try to stand up for themselves.

Hahahahah.
And you think Kotaku, the site that still holds these unethical ties with multitudes of other companies all the while they are crying about this blackout because they "didn't give Bethseda and Ubisoft's games good reviews".

What I'm saying is I don't believe Kotaku's sob story for minute, they're a site dedicated to being a corporate shill.


There aren't any games journo sites that don't have corporate ties was the point I was making with the sentence you kindly boldened (also statement not a question), I'd rather not read any of the popular sites because, I myself am not akin to being force fed opinions about videogames I haven't played, I wouldn't support any journo that decided to finally stand out because in my eyes they dug the graves they should lie in em.
And any new talent that willingly joins these sites is either misinformed or just a moron, anyone with integrity or sense would avoid working for games journo sites like the plague.


I'll gladly stand with the next wave of journos that had the balls to launch new websites in attempt to be the alternative, Kotaku is a sinking ship that I couldn't be more happy to see drown.

Also side note there are a lot of youtube content makers that hold game developers accountable, don't know why you brought that up though.

 

[Muspelheim]

Erhteks in garms jernlysm?! Ye basterds! Rydell & Carter's running the Völkischer Beobachter of gaming!! Aaarg grrr hurrmpfff!!

(no but srs, it's a bit of a shame. It's typical, devs make games, the production nobles make the dough and make dumb descisions. Not getting copies and getting a /ignore will be an embuggerance, but I doubt it'll sink them. I don't know, I don't read Kotaku, but I imagine they'll swim pretty well anyway)

Oh, and note of clarification, neither have done anything wrong. They don't have to cooperate with people they don't like. It's a silly move, but there's nothing to stop them.