This post actually interested me a bit, so I might as well give it a whirl.
Karadalis said:
Could you please explain what you want then?
This isn't about what I want. This is what a group of people claim they want, and I am pointing out that this is not the way to get it.
On one hand you dont want them to be dependant on big publishers and do real journalism from the sound of it...
Again, my point was specifically to the goal the poster claimed to want. I don't really have to know how to perform coronary bypass to understand that beating a patient in need of one with a sledgehammer is probably not going to fix their heart.
On the other you argue that they should keep getting review copies and access to devs for interviews..
Where did I say they should have access to devs for interviews?
I'm going to go out on a limb and say I didn't.
it seems because either way you turn in this whole debate, youre against it for some reason.
I'm simultaneously against it, and some sort of idealist, it seems.
Ohyes and unnecesary gamedropping and then the famous claim that "you dont care about gamergate"...
Don't know what Gamedropping is, so I can't comment. But again, you're claiming something I never said. This is a common claim among you and your compatriots, a line I haven't said. And you added quotes, indicating that it is a literal statement from me. To what end?
The closest thing I can think of right now is saying that I don't believe for a second GamerGate cares about ethics in games journalism. As a whole, a movement, I stand by that based on the conduct I've seen. I can't speak to individual members, nor do I think that's particularly relevant.
and i have to tell you that it doesnt work that way in the real world. You can NOT have real journalism when you are DEPENDAND on the goodwill of those that you report about. Because then we have situations like what is going on with kotaku at the moment.
It's really strange to be told I have no side, am against everything, and then be told specifically what my views are. You seem to directly contradict your own claims about me in doing so
As I've said before, I've been both a reporter and a reviewer in the real world. I stopped pursuing journalism in college for two reasons: 1. I don't like to spend a lot of time dealing with people, and 2. I was doing almost 80 hour weeks between school and work to try and stay afloat. I found I cold make as much money in a fraction of a time and not deal with people as often by essentially doing IT work.
And you know, CDs are far less costly than games. The idea that the reviewer should incur the cost (which is, realistically, where this goes) is one that stands to put game reviewers in the hole unless they get paid significantly better than other critics/reviewers. There is a very real potential that such a situation puts reviewers in the hole, and that puts the publishers in a stronger position. This is where we came in, remember? I pointed out this exact same thing, before you started knocking down this strawman about my idealism and beliefs I don't hold.
Review copies in music are a matter of course and easy to obtain. I've been told the same is true for other media (in fact, I've been sent unsolicited novels and even a couple of movies, and I'm not even anyone of repute. I'm inclined to believe them). And, as I've mentioned before, when the music industry tried to pull something similar to this because of "piracy" and "leaks," it was not stood for. Review copies did not dry up. I can say pretty readily that it does work in the real world, my friend. Does it work all the time? I would be utterly shocked if it did. But what I responded to, what caused you to take issue with my comments, was cutting off one's nose to spite one's face--and I think simply pointing that out is of merit.
The real difference is that the gaming media has spawned largely directly from the gaming industry itself, like some sort of paradox-inducing consanguinous twin. There is, quite literally, an expectation of this sort of bullshit, both from critics and from fans. It's like a company store. But it's not like that everywhere.
Either you have the publications being nothing more then PR mouthpieces for the big publishers, or you have "independand" journalists who dont rely on the goodwill of publishers and do real journalism without fearing loosing some priviliges in return.
And you can have the latter without removing things like review copies. Which doesn't really help the false dichotomy here.
There is no inbetween, there is no journalism AND getting all the free stuff + interviews + adds and still get to shit on the companies who give you all that. This is business relationships 101 for christs sake.
It's not business 101. It's not even the same class bracket.
Were Siskel and Ebert journalists? They got free stuff. Early on, GamerGate held them up as a hallmark, even while pushing for things directly contrary to their examples. Siskel, Ebert and Roper get access to screenings for movies whose creators have had prior works raked over the coals. Is this not the real world? Is this just fantasy? Caught in a landslide, no escape from...sorry, I'm back now.
Are you for outlets like kotaku getting free shit? Then you are for the status quo of game outlets being nothing more then extended PR departments.
Patently false.
Wich ofcourse will NEVER happen because that would suggest the games journo scene has any integrity left whatsoever.
Does that include The Escapist? The site you're posting on right now?
As jim sterling in his most recent video that covered this story said: "If you cannot survive without early review copies and interviews then you didnt had a product worth selling anyways" and that "Acess is a bonus" and this time i have to agree with Mr. Sterling.
I would assume you would agree, as only about half of that is the actual quote and half is words added in.
But you just said the entire journalistic media is without scruples, so this quote doesn't really seem to apply.
Oh, and the other thing....
See, I'm pretty much of the opinion that the consumer doesn't want journalism. I don't think that the gaming press can divorce itself from hype culture, because I think this is what the consumer demands. People are too busy shouting "shut up and take my money" and will buy a bad or broken product while complaining that game journalists were paid off to give it a low score. We have people right here complaining that the reviews for Fallout 4 are biased because they're too high and too low, because it seems more important to reaffirm our personal opinions on a game than it is to get someone's honest opinion.
I say "we," but I don't care much about reviews anyway. In a world where I can watch people playing it on YouTube or Twitch and develop my own idea, in a world where it's more beneficial to wait for the game to be 95% off in 6-24 months, I don't care what reviews say most of the time, and I especially don't care if they agree with me. But amidst a base that demands heads roll if a review doesn't give the "right" score, I'm not even sure it's the publishers who are the real threat.
This is, as I've mentioned before (it's weird how you keep saying I haven't contributed, but so many of these points are ones I've made in this thread or the sister thread), the free market in action. Kotaku did what it did because that's the kind of "journalism" people seem to want. Same with click-bait and hype pieces. As far as I can tell, the publishers have a willing ally in the general fan base.
And you kow what? That's fine. I'm not saying it's bad or the base is bad for wanting it. But If consumers are going to demand the hype and to be told what they want to hear, it baffles me that they then turn around and complain about the lack of ethics or journalism or integrity. This is a free market press. This is, as far as I can tell, a feature, not a bug. As the Jam might say, "the public gets what the public wants."
But I don't get what this society wants...I can only point out what isn't a good means to a stated end.
