This. I don't get how that is so difficult to grasp.Daelin Dwin said:Bethesda and Ubisoft are totally justified to blacklist Kotaku for publishing leaked documents. It doesn't matter if they were legally obtained and they didn't sign an NDA. They should have respected the developer/publisher in not publishing documents they clearly didn't want published. If these documents exposed evil business practices or terrible work conditions then it would be a different story. But in both cases it was information about an upcoming title before it was ready for reveal. Heck, with Fallout 4 it was a script who's content was used in the final game.
Kotaku showed they have no respect for the developer/publisher, and published the leaked documents for a quick buck. Why should Bethesda or Ubisoft respect them?
Half and half. They're not really bloggers, since it's not really a personal thing. They're a gaming site in the vein of most Gawker stuff. That is, heavy on the personal voice, often very informal, though, they've yet to follow the rest of Gawker in engaging in the uttermost of scumbaggery and unethical practice (Whatever you think of Kotaku, Gawker made their name to fame by declaring they didn't give a fuck about standards, including a couple of things mentioned in this comic over the years. Whatever Kotaku's failings, they haven't done that).Dornedas said:What has Kotaku to do with Games Journalism?
I thought they were bloggers not journalists.
It's not exactly Watergate, true, but that just raises the question: If the stories were so inconsequential, why did Bethesda/Ubisoft even bother to bring the hammer down? It just makes them look like dicks for no good reason.Meiam said:I get the general idea behind "being blacklisted = bad" (BTW, blacklist are not cool, just come out and publicly say what you want), but it's not like they were blacklisted for great reporting, they got blacklisted for telling the world something everyone knew, Fallout 4 is in development (Noooooo?!) and there's a new assassin creed coming out (again, Noooooo?!).
I dunno, if they were for something big like "activision blizzard use child slave to program there game" or something, they yeah awesome, but this...
Beside weren't they already blacklisted by ubisoft for not showering assassin creed 1 with praise?
Because they spent a lot of money on big launch that was spoiled by a bunch of bloggers going for their own ad revenue. Bethesda/Ubisoft are business that exist to make money, not a branch of government. Fundamentally they are entitled to send or not send review copies to who the hell they want. Turns out if you spoil the big reveal at the show you piss them off and they screw you back.NinjaDeathSlap said:It's not exactly Watergate, true, but that just raises the question: If the stories were so inconsequential, why did Bethesda/Ubisoft even bother to bring the hammer down? It just makes them look like dicks for no good reason.Meiam said:I get the general idea behind "being blacklisted = bad" (BTW, blacklist are not cool, just come out and publicly say what you want), but it's not like they were blacklisted for great reporting, they got blacklisted for telling the world something everyone knew, Fallout 4 is in development (Noooooo?!) and there's a new assassin creed coming out (again, Noooooo?!).
I dunno, if they were for something big like "activision blizzard use child slave to program there game" or something, they yeah awesome, but this...
Beside weren't they already blacklisted by ubisoft for not showering assassin creed 1 with praise?
Then blame the people inside your own house who leaked it to them. Or better yet, realise in the modern age leaks to the press are just gonna happen, and pretty much the only way to mismanage them is to take it out on the press in question who do absolutely nothing wrong by reporting on stories that are given to them.albino boo said:Because they spent a lot of money on big launch that was spoiled by a bunch of bloggers going for their own ad revenue. Bethesda/Ubisoft are business that exist to make money, not a branch of government. Fundamentally they are entitled to send or not send review copies to who the hell they want. Turns out if you spoil the big reveal at the show you piss them off and they screw you back.NinjaDeathSlap said:It's not exactly Watergate, true, but that just raises the question: If the stories were so inconsequential, why did Bethesda/Ubisoft even bother to bring the hammer down? It just makes them look like dicks for no good reason.Meiam said:I get the general idea behind "being blacklisted = bad" (BTW, blacklist are not cool, just come out and publicly say what you want), but it's not like they were blacklisted for great reporting, they got blacklisted for telling the world something everyone knew, Fallout 4 is in development (Noooooo?!) and there's a new assassin creed coming out (again, Noooooo?!).
I dunno, if they were for something big like "activision blizzard use child slave to program there game" or something, they yeah awesome, but this...
Beside weren't they already blacklisted by ubisoft for not showering assassin creed 1 with praise?
You and I clearly have very different ideas about journalism.Daelin Dwin said:They should have respected the developer/publisher in not publishing documents they clearly didn't want published.
Kotaku made money at the expense of Bethesda/Ubisoft, what else did you think was going to happen.NinjaDeathSlap said:Then blame the people inside your own house who leaked it to them. Or better yet, realise in the modern age leaks to the press are just gonna happen, and pretty much the only way to mismanage them is to take it out on the press in question who do absolutely nothing wrong by reporting on stories that are given to them.
No, they're not obliged to work with the press, but they sure as hell don't look like adults either when they decide to take their ball and go home because the press does what it's supposed to do. Who do these guys hire for their PR that they think this is a good idea?