BlackListed

[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.

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.

I didn't know that but that's fucking hilarious, I thought that it was some big thing that the companies did jointly for some reason.

Luckily though people that have the balls to actually bear the tarnished title of "games journalists" are stepping to the plate to replace these bloggers.
Go techraptor!
and escapist still got it too, don't worry I didn't forget about the site I was posting on.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

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)

Ironically, they're doing better now than before Bethesda or Ubisoft started their respective blackouts.

The only reason I know this is because of the people trying to destroy them, but still.

 

[Gatlank]

"Kotaku getting blacklisted for reporting actual news?"
Nope. They leaked info about games before their reveal and that can put in jeopardy months or years of developers work besides adding more pressure over their jobs.
They act like dicks for clicks and now those companies decided to close the door. Coincidentaly at the same time.

 

[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...

Again, it's not really a blacklist, as it's individual companies making choices, not colluding.

You think Kotaku don't do the same? They pick and choose who they cover, often their good mates.

It's still blacklisting. It's individual companies making the choice to blacklist a gaming outlet.

And of course Kotaku pick and choose who and what they cover, but that's because they are not super-human. There are so many games being released these days that it is *physically impossible* for a review desk of maybe a dozen people to review everything that comes out. So they have to prioritize what they think will be of most value to their readership.

Bethesda and Ubisoft's behaviour is not even comparable. They are trying to control and denude a popular gaming press outlet and their readership by refusing access necessary for Kotaku to create coverage for their games.

 

[Gatlank]

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...

Again, it's not really a blacklist, as it's individual companies making choices, not colluding.

You think Kotaku don't do the same? They pick and choose who they cover, often their good mates.

It's still blacklisting. It's individual companies making the choice to blacklist a gaming outlet.

And of course Kotaku pick and choose who and what they cover, but that's because they are not super-human. There are so many games being released these days that it is *physically impossible* for a review desk of maybe a dozen people to review everything that comes out. So they have to prioritize what they think will be of most value to their readership.

Bethesda and Ubisoft's behaviour is not even comparable. They are trying to control and denude a popular gaming press outlet and their readership by refusing access necessary for Kotaku to create coverage for their games.

Show me the blacklist.
As far as everyone nows this wasn't a joint effort to be called a blacklist.
Those companies decided they wouldn't waste more of their time with Kotaku and they aren't banned from reviewing their games (they now will have to buy them) has for interviews they are in their right to decide which media outlet can or cannot interview them.

 

[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...

Again, it's not really a blacklist, as it's individual companies making choices, not colluding.

You think Kotaku don't do the same? They pick and choose who they cover, often their good mates.

It's still blacklisting. It's individual companies making the choice to blacklist a gaming outlet.

And of course Kotaku pick and choose who and what they cover, but that's because they are not super-human. There are so many games being released these days that it is *physically impossible* for a review desk of maybe a dozen people to review everything that comes out. So they have to prioritize what they think will be of most value to their readership.

Bethesda and Ubisoft's behaviour is not even comparable. They are trying to control and denude a popular gaming press outlet and their readership by refusing access necessary for Kotaku to create coverage for their games.

This is Kotaku.
They aren't known for their gaming press.
What planet are you from where this is true?
Even if that was true then it'd be Bethesda and Ubisoft the ones out of luck, they're missing out on free advertising for their titles on launch day, and they willingly decided the coverage from Kotaku wasn't worth it, bottomline.
See Kotaku is offering a service which is to review your game on launch day, Bethesda and Ubisoft decided not to do so.

Kotaku can still review both titles, but they won't be able to do so until they purchase them.

 

[Ukomba]

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.

Obviously true, I only mention the law in relation to no NDA being involved, but I wouldn't classify it as unethical either, at least how I understand the story. If it went down like this:

No Ethical Issues, just Drama:
- Kotaku Writer Discovers Games in production
- Kotaku Writer Writes article about Game being in production
- Developer is annoyed and doesn't send them review copies.

However, if it went down like this

Kotaku Positive Ethical Actions:
- Kotaku Writer Discovers Games in production
- Kotaku Writer asks Developer about rumor and is told not to write about it or there will be consequences
- Kotaku Writer writes article anyways
- Developer follows through on threat and doesn't send review copies.

I would applaud Kotaku. I suspect, however, it's just a Kotaku writer having eye catching headline and running with it.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

Oh, but people are using this opportunity to talk about "ethics in gaming journalism".

Here's a Call of Duty developer talking about it: https://twitter.com/ChanceGlasco/status/667458383600099328

Here's a BioWare developer talking about it: https://archive.is/IvowH

Here's Boogie 2988 talking about it: https://twitter.com/Boogie2988/status/667491610255491072

And Notch: https://twitter.com/notch/status/667674105370529792 https://twitter.com/notch/status/667675030248161280

Here's Adrian Chmielarz and George Broussard talking about it: https://twitter.com/adrianchm/status/667708335517532160

Here's Penny Arcade: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2015/11/20/parabolic1
And GameZone: http://www.gamezone.com/originals/opinion-no-kotaku-you-weren-t-blacklisted-for-speaking-the-truth-jxh2

Among other publications.

I can kind of agree with both sides somewhat, but this would be a lot easier to swallow if Kotaku and Gawker in general wasn't such a pit of shit. They are entitled to write about whatever they want, they aren't entitled to getting free Pre-Release copies and invitations to Release-parties and the likes. Frankly if Kotaku and Gawker would shut down today, the world tomorrow would be a better and happier place aside from the few sociopaths that they are keeping under lock and key being set free into the larger New York area.

Pretty much all of this.

But what I especially found "ugh"-worthy about this whole situation is that Kotaku's principles clash with the "freedom of the press motto" that is being ascribed to them here.

Did they have the right to print stories on leaks. Yes, but they were slimy about it and regularly insult game developers' products in a very PC Principal-esque manner long before whichever game in question comes out. They have a right to, but everyone else has a right to critique them......or would if Kotaku didn't have one of the more restrictive comment sections on the internet. Effectively making the website an echochamber.

Totilo also writes about how Kotaku writes about "real" journalism, which they do at times, but still has writers under Kotaku's employ that embody the abuse of Journalistic Integrity. When you have Nathan Grayson still employed and Jason Schrier trying to fill the Cheif of PC Police role that Anthony Burch left open (along with him trying to use his influence to Blacklist Boogie), it makes it very, very hard to take any "we're here to do serious news" statement seriously.


A blacklisting happened to NicheGamer a year ago by way of XSEED for literally no reason. No gaming websites commented on it through a comic or even a mention. Where were you people who now come out to defend Kotaku back then?

Totilo's article is an invitation to a Kotaku pity party, and I don't know about you guys and gals, but I'm going to RSVP "Go Fuck Yourselves". Simply because both Kotaku and Bethesda/Ubisoft have the right to their actions, but one side of the coin at least provides games to enjoy. The other provides tabloid journalism brought to us by way of Gawker.

I'll be sticking to Video Content on gaming on YouTube, NicheGamer, The Escapist, and TechRaptr for my gaming news.

 

[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...

Again, it's not really a blacklist, as it's individual companies making choices, not colluding.

You think Kotaku don't do the same? They pick and choose who they cover, often their good mates.

It's still blacklisting. It's individual companies making the choice to blacklist a gaming outlet.

And of course Kotaku pick and choose who and what they cover, but that's because they are not super-human. There are so many games being released these days that it is *physically impossible* for a review desk of maybe a dozen people to review everything that comes out. So they have to prioritize what they think will be of most value to their readership.

Bethesda and Ubisoft's behaviour is not even comparable. They are trying to control and denude a popular gaming press outlet and their readership by refusing access necessary for Kotaku to create coverage for their games.

Show me the blacklist.
As far as everyone nows this wasn't a joint effort to be called a blacklist.
Those companies decided they wouldn't waste more of their time with Kotaku and they aren't banned from reviewing their games (they now will have to buy them) has for interviews they are in their right to decide which media outlet can or cannot interview them.

What the heck are you even talking about? "Show me the blacklist"?

We're not arguing over whether or not Ubisoft and Bethesda have or have not blacklisted them. You even admit that they're refusing Kotaku press access. Right there! In bold

It is completely legal for Bethesda and Ubisoft to choose who they do and do not talk to. That does not make it *right*.

Such actions hurt consumers by setting a precedent that if you are a gaming press outlet or Youtuber that does not "play ball" by probing too deeply into developer affairs, you will be refused press access, which ultimately hurts that outlet with a loss in readership since they won't be able to review games in time for release day.

 

[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...

Again, it's not really a blacklist, as it's individual companies making choices, not colluding.

You think Kotaku don't do the same? They pick and choose who they cover, often their good mates.

It's still blacklisting. It's individual companies making the choice to blacklist a gaming outlet.

And of course Kotaku pick and choose who and what they cover, but that's because they are not super-human. There are so many games being released these days that it is *physically impossible* for a review desk of maybe a dozen people to review everything that comes out. So they have to prioritize what they think will be of most value to their readership.

Bethesda and Ubisoft's behaviour is not even comparable. They are trying to control and denude a popular gaming press outlet and their readership by refusing access necessary for Kotaku to create coverage for their games.

This is Kotaku.
They aren't known for their gaming press.
What planet are you from where this is true?
Even if that was true then it'd be Bethesda and Ubisoft the ones out of luck, they're missing out on free advertising for their titles on launch day, and they willingly decided the coverage from Kotaku wasn't worth it, bottomline.
See Kotaku is offering a service which is to review your game on launch day, Bethesda and Ubisoft decided not to do so.

Kotaku can still review both titles, but they won't be able to do them until they purchase them.

Reviews should not be treated as mere advertising. What a sad, sad thing gaming culture would be if that was allowed to be the case. Reviews are meant for consumption by the buying public, the consumer, so that we can make decisions about our hard-earned money. The gaming outlets are meant to be on our side not the developers!

And a gaming outlets ability to provide consumer advice is seriously affected when they are unable to put out a review within a matter of hours before or after release. Why is this message so difficult to process?

I don't like Fox News. I think they are a spectacularly bad news outlet.

However, they still deserve a place in the White House press briefing room!

Otherwise, what's the point in the concept of a free press?

 

[GrumbleGrump]

(...)it's true that Kotaku is also one of the few gaming sites with the connections, sources and clout to produce actual investigative journalism as opposed to traditional enthusiast press-release regurgitation.

This is the only important point in my opinion. It is also incredibly depressing.

 

[Gatlank]

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...

Again, it's not really a blacklist, as it's individual companies making choices, not colluding.

You think Kotaku don't do the same? They pick and choose who they cover, often their good mates.

It's still blacklisting. It's individual companies making the choice to blacklist a gaming outlet.

And of course Kotaku pick and choose who and what they cover, but that's because they are not super-human. There are so many games being released these days that it is *physically impossible* for a review desk of maybe a dozen people to review everything that comes out. So they have to prioritize what they think will be of most value to their readership.

Bethesda and Ubisoft's behaviour is not even comparable. They are trying to control and denude a popular gaming press outlet and their readership by refusing access necessary for Kotaku to create coverage for their games.

Show me the blacklist.
As far as everyone nows this wasn't a joint effort to be called a blacklist.
Those companies decided they wouldn't waste more of their time with Kotaku and they aren't banned from reviewing their games (they now will have to buy them) has for interviews they are in their right to decide which media outlet can or cannot interview them.

What the heck are you even talking about? "Show me the blacklist"?

We're not arguing over whether or not Ubisoft and Bethesda have or have not blacklisted them. You even admit that they're refusing Kotaku press access. Right there! In bold

It is completely legal for Bethesda and Ubisoft to choose who they do and do not talk to. That does not make it *right*.

Such actions hurt consumers by setting a precedent that if you are a gaming press outlet or Youtuber that does not "play ball" by probing too deeply into developer affairs, you will be refused press access, which ultimately hurts that outlet with a loss in readership since they won't be able to review games in time for release day.

If Kotaku is so "popular" like you said then it's their loss.
It's in their right to refuse who or when should get interviews and those actions wont hurt consumers because *drum roll* there's more gaming media outlets out there.
One final note neither Bethesda or Ubisoft need to ensure a gaming outlet survival. It's just not their duty.
Kotaku squandered all good will making controversy and guess what!
They can ignore them, it's in their right and they are not wrong to ignore someone who steps over them to get clicks.
If they banned Kotaku from reviewing their games they would be wrong, just ignoring them doesn't make it wrong and it's showing that Kotaku is in the business to make drama.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

Why is this even important? I just...arghh! So many comments for such a tiny issue! This...baffles. Ugh, back to the wine it is then!!

 

[The Kush Snickerer]

What the heck are you even talking about? "Show me the blacklist"?

We're not arguing over whether or not Ubisoft and Bethesda have or have not blacklisted them. You even admit that they're refusing Kotaku press access. Right there! In bold

It is completely legal for Bethesda and Ubisoft to choose who they do and do not talk to. That does not make it *right*.

Such actions hurt consumers by setting a precedent that if you are a gaming press outlet or Youtuber that does not "play ball" by probing too deeply into developer affairs, you will be refused press access, which ultimately hurts that outlet with a loss in readership since they won't be able to review games in time for release day.

It totally makes it right, they have the right to choose who they speak to and who they don't.
If they decide not to speak with the sensationalist Games Journalists Kotaku

They.
Don't.
Have.
To.

This isn't about Kotaku writing a bad review, they've done this before people still do bad reviews of titles and still get reviewer copies the year after, this is because Kotaku as an idividual site doesn't play ball like everyone else, see they are Journalists and bloggers when they need to be they play by their own rules.
Give me another website that claims an entire company "hates puppies"
It's shit like that, that got them "blacklisted" it wasn't a bad review or because they didn't "play ball".
They don't talk about fucking VIDEOGAMES, they talk about issues around them and nonexistent problems.

I don't know if your trying to play devil's advocate, or if you're genuinely supporting Kotaku, but I don't know how people can make it more clear to you that it's Kotaku's own fault.

 

[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...

Again, it's not really a blacklist, as it's individual companies making choices, not colluding.

You think Kotaku don't do the same? They pick and choose who they cover, often their good mates.

It's still blacklisting. It's individual companies making the choice to blacklist a gaming outlet.

And of course Kotaku pick and choose who and what they cover, but that's because they are not super-human. There are so many games being released these days that it is *physically impossible* for a review desk of maybe a dozen people to review everything that comes out. So they have to prioritize what they think will be of most value to their readership.

Bethesda and Ubisoft's behaviour is not even comparable. They are trying to control and denude a popular gaming press outlet and their readership by refusing access necessary for Kotaku to create coverage for their games.

Show me the blacklist.
As far as everyone nows this wasn't a joint effort to be called a blacklist.
Those companies decided they wouldn't waste more of their time with Kotaku and they aren't banned from reviewing their games (they now will have to buy them) has for interviews they are in their right to decide which media outlet can or cannot interview them.

What the heck are you even talking about? "Show me the blacklist"?

We're not arguing over whether or not Ubisoft and Bethesda have or have not blacklisted them. You even admit that they're refusing Kotaku press access. Right there! In bold

It is completely legal for Bethesda and Ubisoft to choose who they do and do not talk to. That does not make it *right*.

Such actions hurt consumers by setting a precedent that if you are a gaming press outlet or Youtuber that does not "play ball" by probing too deeply into developer affairs, you will be refused press access, which ultimately hurts that outlet with a loss in readership since they won't be able to review games in time for release day.

If Kotaku is so "popular" like you said then it's their loss.
It's in their right to refuse who or when should get interviews and those actions wont hurt consumers because *drum roll* there's more gaming media outlets out there.
One final note neither Bethesda or Ubisoft need to ensure a gaming outlet survival. It's just not their duty.
Kotaku squandered all good will making controversy and guess what.
They can ignore them, it's in their right and they are not wrong to ignore someone who steps over them to get clicks.

I absolutely agree that people are free to choose who and what to read and support. I, for instance, don't actually read Kotaku very much at all. If people don't read Kotaku because of the quality of their reporting, that's fine.

I will still defend them because they should be given access to press events, interviews and review copies so the consumers that do choose to read them and support them are informed about their purchasing choices. Denying press access hurts the quality of reporting through no fault of the outlet themselves, other than they dared to upset the plans of developer PR people.

Bethesda and Ubisoft should never be the arbitrators of what we the consuming public do and do not get to read about their business practices or games.

 

[The Kush Snickerer]

Reviews should not be treated as mere advertising. What a sad, sad thing gaming culture would be if that was allowed to be the case. Reviews are meant for consumption by the buying public, the consumer, so that we can make decisions about our hard-earned money. The gaming outlets are meant to be on our side not the developers!

And a gaming outlets ability to provide consumer advice is seriously affected when they are unable to put out a review within a matter of hours before or after release. Why is this message so difficult to process?

I don't like Fox News. I think they are a spectacularly bad news outlet.

However, they still deserve a place in the White House press briefing room!

Otherwise, what's the point in the concept of a free press?

Reporters come and go, again you're acting like they are being denied to speak they aren't.
>The gaming outlets are meant to be on our side not the developers!
Kotaku made their decision when they realized who had more money to give them, they aren't on your side or my side, this sudden "change of heart" is crocodile tears nothing more.

>Reviews should not be treated as mere advertising. What a sad, sad thing gaming culture would be if that was allowed to be the case. Reviews are meant for consumption by the buying public, the consumer, so that we can make decisions about our hard-earned money.
Reviews are treated like that and always have been what are you talking about, hell you proved my own point with the "Reviews are meant for consumption". Reviewers don't supply artistic merit or creativity, they supply their personal opinion and that's about it (at least in the case of game journos, like Kotaku).

>Otherwise, what's the point in the concept of a free press?
See the free press goes both ways friend, the person being asked a question doesn't have to reply.

 

[Gatlank]

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...

Again, it's not really a blacklist, as it's individual companies making choices, not colluding.

You think Kotaku don't do the same? They pick and choose who they cover, often their good mates.

It's still blacklisting. It's individual companies making the choice to blacklist a gaming outlet.

And of course Kotaku pick and choose who and what they cover, but that's because they are not super-human. There are so many games being released these days that it is *physically impossible* for a review desk of maybe a dozen people to review everything that comes out. So they have to prioritize what they think will be of most value to their readership.

Bethesda and Ubisoft's behaviour is not even comparable. They are trying to control and denude a popular gaming press outlet and their readership by refusing access necessary for Kotaku to create coverage for their games.

Show me the blacklist.
As far as everyone nows this wasn't a joint effort to be called a blacklist.
Those companies decided they wouldn't waste more of their time with Kotaku and they aren't banned from reviewing their games (they now will have to buy them) has for interviews they are in their right to decide which media outlet can or cannot interview them.

What the heck are you even talking about? "Show me the blacklist"?

We're not arguing over whether or not Ubisoft and Bethesda have or have not blacklisted them. You even admit that they're refusing Kotaku press access. Right there! In bold

It is completely legal for Bethesda and Ubisoft to choose who they do and do not talk to. That does not make it *right*.

Such actions hurt consumers by setting a precedent that if you are a gaming press outlet or Youtuber that does not "play ball" by probing too deeply into developer affairs, you will be refused press access, which ultimately hurts that outlet with a loss in readership since they won't be able to review games in time for release day.

If Kotaku is so "popular" like you said then it's their loss.
It's in their right to refuse who or when should get interviews and those actions wont hurt consumers because *drum roll* there's more gaming media outlets out there.
One final note neither Bethesda or Ubisoft need to ensure a gaming outlet survival. It's just not their duty.
Kotaku squandered all good will making controversy and guess what.
They can ignore them, it's in their right and they are not wrong to ignore someone who steps over them to get clicks.

I absolutely agree that people are free to choose who and what to read and support. I, for instance, don't actually read Kotaku very much at all. If people don't read Kotaku because of the quality of their reporting, that's fine.

I will still defend them because they should be given access to press events, interviews and review copies so the consumers that do choose to read them and support them are informed about their purchasing choices. Denying press access hurts the quality of reporting through no fault of the outlet themselves, other than they dared to upset the plans of developer PR people.

Bethesda and Ubisoft should never be the arbitrators of what we the consuming public do and do not get to read about their business practices or games.

Bethesda and Ubisoft are private companies and not public systems of goverment where public scrutiny is important.
In the end they are a business and a business can choose who gets access for interviews.
They can still report about games and their business practices.
You seem to be mistaken and think that Bethesda and Ubisoft issued a ban.
They didn't and Kotaku can still operate as normal. Had an army of lawyers stormed their offices and issued an cease and desist order then your last sentence would make sense.
You're letting emotion speak and being led by the drama.
Kotaku is trying again to make controversy where isn't none.

 

[The Kush Snickerer]

I absolutely agree that people are free to choose who and what to read and support. I, for instance, don't actually read Kotaku very much at all. If people don't read Kotaku because of the quality of their reporting, that's fine.

I will still defend them because they should be given access to press events, interviews and review copies so the consumers that do choose to read them and support them are informed about their purchasing choices. Denying press access hurts the quality of reporting through no fault of the outlet themselves, other than they dared to upset the plans of developer PR people.

Bethesda and Ubisoft should never be the arbitrators of what we the consuming public do and do not get to read about their business practices or games.

What the fuck are you even going about?
None of this has happened, they just can't interview employees of Bethesda and Ubisoft.
Stop trying to make this bigger than it is!

 

[FEichinger]

Bethesda and Ubisoft should never be the arbitrators of what we the consuming public do and do not get to read about their business practices or games.

And they're not. This is about leaks of trivial information that would've been released on their terms. At least if you believe Kotaku's story. It's about when this information is given to the public, not whether.

There is no service done to the consumer here, by publishing information early that the consumer would've gotten anyway. The articles lack notability. That's one of the big reasons why people aren't willing to defend Kotaku over the articles. It was a shitty move on Kotaku's part, it served absolutely no one except for their own bank account.

When you publish information that the origin of that information doesn't want published, you'll ruin your business relations with that origin. You need to find a reason that actually outweighs that before publishing a piece, or they will be fully justified in cutting ties with you.

 

[Defective_Detective]

Bethesda and Ubisoft should never be the arbitrators of what we the consuming public do and do not get to read about their business practices or games.

And they're not. This is about leaks of trivial information that would've been released on their terms. At least if you believe Kotaku's story. It's about when this information is given to the public, not whether.

There is no service done to the consumer here, by publishing information early that the consumer would've gotten anyway. The articles lack notability. That's one of the big reasons why people aren't willing to defend Kotaku over the articles. It was a shitty move on Kotaku's part, it served absolutely no one except for their own bank account.

When you publish information that the origin of that information doesn't want published, you'll ruin your business relations with that origin. You need to find a reason that actually outweighs that before publishing a piece, or they will be fully justified in cutting ties with you.

I'm just going to leave a quote here that I think sums up my attitude towards this whole thing, really....

"Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations."


- George Orwell

I will just leave you with the question. Do you actually want gaming journalism? Or public relations hype train?

Even if it's an outlet that I don't particularly care for, I think this kind of chicanery on the part of the developers ultimately hurts the consumer more.