Konami Shuns Kotaku Japan Over Corruption Comments

[SaintWaldo]

Okay, you are familiar with the idea of an opinion editorial, yes? There is a difference between news reporting and an opinion piece.

The expectation is that if Kotaku were similarly involved with the promotion of a game (and if Kotaku reviews were so influential as those of Famitsu), it would have to disclose such a thing in its review.

And you don't have to invite guests who insult you to your party, either.

 

[SilverKyo]

This totally doesn't make them seem more suspicious or look like massive pricks... oh wait.

 

[DigitalSushi]

Isn't it peculiar how half of Famitsu's perfect scores occured within just the past two years? C'mon now, that's just damned odd for a mag that's been around for 24.

I'm curious about that, too. I have a hard time believing that the past two years has seen that huge an upswing in the ability of people to make 'perfect' games. At this point, I'm not sure how reliably I can count any of those recent 'perfect' scores to be.

Perhaps this is the real story here. Maybe someone should look into it and write a story about that.

It could be because the staff has changed around abit (as it does happen, just ask Activision) and the newer journo's are prone to be less critical.

 

[Abriael]

This totally doesn't make them seem more suspicious or look like massive pricks... oh wait.

"This site has posted a libelous post on us, sir"
"Write them a letter with a formal protest and don't invite them to our launch party"

yes, TOTALLY suspicious. One needs to be a "massive prick" to retaliate very mildly against open libel.

 

[John Funk]

Okay, you are familiar with the idea of an opinion editorial, yes? There is a difference between news reporting and an opinion piece.

Opinion pieces don't allow you to say whatever the hell crosses your mind, mate. You're still subject to laws and regulations, and if you write something that potentially damages someone's public image and credibility, you better have your proof well lined up, and much more solid than your own little conjectures.

The expectation is that if Kotaku were similarly involved with the promotion of a game (and if Kotaku reviews were so influential as those of Famitsu), it would have to disclose such a thing in its review.

Kotaku are similarly involved in the promotion of a ton of games. They splatter their whole site with full blown themes that basically turn the whole site into an ad.
How influential they are is irrelevant. And they disclose nothing.
The same goes for all the other publications that receive tens of thousands dollars (not to mention all the freebies) from publishers to advertise games.

As long as the site makes it clear that they are the opinions of the particular writer, they... kind of do, actually. Have you LOOKED at the internet lately? Political blogs - or the op-ed sections of any given newspaper - are full with the sort of thing you describe.

How is it any different from Susan drawing her conclusion that the presentation for the Move is muddying the PS3's image [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/context-sensitive/7278-Context-Sensitive-Who-Is-the-PS3-For]? Couldn't that potentially be seen as endangering someone's job? Or, on the positive side, my own conclusion that the SC2 payment model for Russia is one of the best ideas I've ever seen? These are all opinion pieces, as was Brian Ashcraft's saying that "I don't think we should trust Famitsu's reviews anymore."

Pointing out that Famitsu and Peace Walker have a very close business relationship that runs well beyond ads isn't beyond the pale, dude. And yes, I think the scope of the matter absolutely separates it from standard advertising dollars and freebies.

There is a definite potential conflict of interest here, and he wasn't wrong in pointing it out. He certainly wasn't libelous.

Okay, you are familiar with the idea of an opinion editorial, yes? There is a difference between news reporting and an opinion piece.

The expectation is that if Kotaku were similarly involved with the promotion of a game (and if Kotaku reviews were so influential as those of Famitsu), it would have to disclose such a thing in its review.

And you don't have to invite guests who insult you to your party, either.

That's the interesting part. Bashcraft wasn't insulting Konami or Peace Walker - far from it. His concerns were solely focused on Famitsu. That Konami would then turn around and blacklist him is interesting enough on its own.

 

[Space Jawa]

Or perhapse they simply have a new generation of reviewers and journalists that are more enthusiastic about games and more free in giving high scores?

Look around the world-wide press. How many perfect scores did you use to see in the nineties and early 2000s? Lately there's tons of 10s dropped around. God of War III, Uncharted 2, Metal Gear Solid 4. Lots of examples out there. Why?
Simply because gaming journalism, as a whole, has changed.
Once upon a time an 8/10 was a great score. Now if a game gets 9.2 instead of 9.5-10, then it's a failure and a trainwreck ensues.

It's most definitely not a matter of Famitsu.

I disagree. Enthusiasm about and 'feeling free' to give out high scores is a very bad thing. It makes those scores worthless and unreliable. If those scores are unreliable, what's the point of using them to determine if a game is worth playing?

The way you mention game journalism? Yeah, the way you put it, it is changing. And it's changing for the worse. When 9.5 is considered a terrible score, it's time to readjust the grading scale and start retooling those 9.5s into run of the mill 5s.

And if Famitsu is beginning to follow the trend, their scores, including their perfect scores, are no longer worth the page it's printed on.

So yeah. It is most definitely a matter of Famitsu.

It could be because the staff has changed around abit (as it does happen, just ask Activision) and the newer journo's are prone to be less critical.

Isn't being 'critical' part of the job of a game 'critic'? I would think that having journalists who are less critical (in either the positive or negative sense of the word) in their reviews is a bad thing.

 

[Abriael]

And if Famitsu is beginning to follow the trend, their scores, including their perfect scores, are no longer worth the page it's printed on.

So yeah. It is most definitely a matter of Famitsu.

None of their perfect scores has ever been given to a game on which that perfect score didn't make sense. Even Nintendogs (and mind you, i HATE nintendogs with an absolute, flaming passion), can easily be defined a perfect game for it's target and audience.

When Famitsu will give a perfect score to an objectively bad or mediocre game, then it'll be a matter of Famitsu. 'till then, it's a non-issue.

Isn't being 'critical' part of the job of a game 'critic'? I would think that having journalists who are less critical (in either the positive or negative sense of the word) in their reviews is a bad thing.

being "critical" doesn't mean not giving a perfect score when you think it's warranted. If you don't ever give perfect scores just for the sake of being "critical" then you're the one doing a disservice to your readers.

 

[DigitalSushi]

This is getting hilarious. Ashcraft writes an hot headed (and hypocritical) ranting post against a competing publication, a post that really borders libel and might easily have legal implications and he gets bent out of shape when he gets called on it?

This is the point where a professional journalist should swallow his pride, understand that he thrown accusations without a shred of proof, admit he was wrong and move on.

But no, he grasps at straws so desperately that it isn't even funny anymore: "waaaaah they responded on the same day!

Ashcraft and Kotaku hasn't been punished in anyway shape or form, so he's not going to swallow his pride he's just going to run with it, you see Konami "uninvited" the Japanese site "Kotaku" which isn't owned by the same company as the american arm.

Basically his caustic tongue and greasy hair has got a company not affiliated with him in any way in hot water with Konami.

The guy is clearly a jerk since he's banging the same drum.

 

[DigitalSushi]

Isn't being 'critical' part of the job of a game 'critic'? I would think that having journalists who are less critical (in either the positive or negative sense of the word) in their reviews is a bad thing.

Well yeah but disliking one aspect of a game wont stop it getting the allusive perfect 10, a perfect score doesn't actually mean perfection because everyone knows perfection is unattainable.

I give you my "Michael Winner" argument;
If it was their job to advertise every little fault and broadcast it to the world then you wouldn't respect their opinions because their moany little shit bags.

 

[Abriael]

As long as the site makes it clear that they are the opinions of the particular writer, they... kind of do, actually. Have you LOOKED at the internet lately? Political blogs - or the op-ed sections of any given newspaper - are full with the sort of thing you describe.

The fact that not everyone gets called out on it doesn't mean that it's allowed, ethical or professional. It's so funny that internet wannabe writers nowadays have developed this delusion of immunity that makes them think they can slander and defame anyone they want and not face any consequence.

How is it any different from Susan drawing her conclusion that the presentation for the Move is muddying the PS3's image?

you're comparing apple to oranges.

If you tell "this thing done by X is bad". That's opinion, as long as the thing done by X is public knowledge. You're giving your opinion on something real and proved.

If you tell "I think X is doing this thing (even if I have no proof), and that thing is bad", then you're being libelous. Not only you're giving your opinion on something, but you're also throwing open accusations against another entity, and accusations on which you have no proof. Very, very different.

Pointing out that Famitsu and Peace Walker have a very close business relationship that runs well beyond ads isn't beyond the pale, dude. And yes, I think the scope of the matter absolutely separates it from standard advertising dollars and freebies.

"Standard advertising dollars"? How do you know what's the difference between that and standard advertising dollars? Do you know how much Famitsu has been paid for lending their image to a game? IF they have been paid at all besides the standard advertising rates for the publicity pages gone on the mag?
You have absoliutely no element, and "standard advertising dollar" are what allows sites like kotaku to survive. So no, I'm sorry, the scope isn't different at all.
Anything else is something that you (and Ascraft) suggest without any kind of proof. That's exactly the by the book definition of libel.

There is a definite potential conflict of interest here, and he wasn't wrong in pointing it out. He certainly wasn't libelous.

There's no more conflict of interest than the give and take relationship between any big publication (including Kotaku) and publishers. Ergo, he's an hypocrite, and yes, it's libel.

That's the interesting part. Bashcraft wasn't insulting Konami or Peace Walker - far from it. His concerns were solely focused on Famitsu. That Konami would then turn around and blacklist him is interesting enough on its own.

This is some serious straw grasping mate. he clearly accused Konami of having bought or otherwise encouraged an perfect score on a magazine. If that's directly attacking Konami, I don't know it is. The fact that he sweetened the pill with a few backhanded compliments afterwards doesn't make his piece less aimed towards Konami.

 

[Cid Silverwing]

Diffrent people likes diffrent things.
People have been giving HALO and Call of Duty series a string of near perfect scores since years back when they aren't better than good old Doom.

This. So fucking this.

So Konami got straight buster on Famitsu and won't let them in on the launch because of a dishonest 40/40?

*+1 faith in humanity*

 

[Abriael]

Basically his caustic tongue and greasy hair has got a company not affiliated with him in any way in hot water with Konami.

Actually this is incorrect. Kotaku Japan chose to translate and publish his libelous article on their own accord. When you publish something, you take responsibility for it. So while Ascraft is definitely the origin of the problem, Kotaku Japan isn't innocent.
No one held them at a gunpoint to reiterate a libelous piece by publishing it. They freely decided to. Their bad.

 

[mikecoulter]

Haha, serves them right. I hate underhanded business.

 

[SilverKyo]

This totally doesn't make them seem more suspicious or look like massive pricks... oh wait.

"This site has posted a libelous post on us, sir"
"Write them a letter with a formal protest and don't invite them to our launch party"

yes, TOTALLY suspicious. One needs to be a "massive prick" to retaliate very mildly against open libel.

It's called man up and grow a pair. So some people don't like your game, big deal. The fact that the editor of a magazine such as that, and how rare that particular score is, with the relation he has to the company does still beg the question. Instead of acting like childish kids and lashing out at anyone who smells bullshit, why not be civil and try to prove your reasoning and logic behind your argument so such a score... you know, like adults. The fact that they wrote a letter at all is extremely suspicious. So they got a bad review, big deal, happens all the time. A letter complaining about it means they only want praise for their game, not an opinion, and will do what they want to get it, including revoke whatever they feel and giving gifts to those who do act the way the want. A bribe is a bribe no matter how you want to present it.

 

[John Funk]

As long as the site makes it clear that they are the opinions of the particular writer, they... kind of do, actually. Have you LOOKED at the internet lately? Political blogs - or the op-ed sections of any given newspaper - are full with the sort of thing you describe.

The fact that not everyone gets called out on it doesn't mean that it's allowed, ethical or professional. It's so funny that internet writers nowadays have developed this sensation of immunity that makes them think they can slander and defame anyone they want and not face any consequence.

How is it any different from Susan drawing her conclusion that the presentation for the Move is muddying the PS3's image?

you're comparing apple to oranges.

If you tell "this thing done by X is bad". That's opinion, as long as the thing done by X is public knowledge. You're giving your opinion on something real and proved.

If you tell "I think X is doing this thing (even if I have no proof), and that thing is bad", then you're being libelous. Not only you're giving your opinion on something, but you're also throwing open accusations against another entity, and accusations on which you have no proof. Very, very different.

Pointing out that Famitsu and Peace Walker have a very close business relationship that runs well beyond ads isn't beyond the pale, dude. And yes, I think the scope of the matter absolutely separates it from standard advertising dollars and freebies.

"Standard advertising dollars"? How do you know what's the difference between that and standard advertising dollars? Do you know how much Famitsu has been paid for lending their image to a game? IF they have been paid at all besides the standard advertising rates for the publicity pages gone on the mag?
You have absoliutely no element, and "standard advertising dollar" are what allows sites like kotaku to survive. So no, I'm sorry, the scope isn't different at all.
Anything else is something that you (and Ascraft) suggest without any kind of proof. That's exactly the by the book definition of libel.

There is a definite potential conflict of interest here, and he wasn't wrong in pointing it out. He certainly wasn't libelous.

There's no more conflict of interest than the give and take relationship between any big publication (including Kotaku) and publishers. Ergo, he's an hypocrite, and yes, it's libel.

Okay, you are familiar with the idea of an opinion editorial, yes? There is a difference between news reporting and an opinion piece.

The expectation is that if Kotaku were similarly involved with the promotion of a game (and if Kotaku reviews were so influential as those of Famitsu), it would have to disclose such a thing in its review.

And you don't have to invite guests who insult you to your party, either.

That's the interesting part. Bashcraft wasn't insulting Konami or Peace Walker - far from it. His concerns were solely focused on Famitsu. That Konami would then turn around and blacklist him is interesting enough on its own.

[/quote]

You have potentially the most broad view of libel I have seen in quite some time. Just because you say it is, doesn't actually make it so.

What Ashcraft is doing, is saying, "Here are the facts: Famitsu gave Peace Walker a 40/40. Famitsu's scores are incredibly influential in a title's success in Japan, a rare perfect score exponentially more so. Famitsu and its founder are also incredibly involved in the game's promotional material, and in fact in the game itself. I, personally, find something suspicious about this."

That is an opinion. That is drawing a conclusion based on the facts at hand. That is not libel.

How is this different from people saying, "Well, Gamespot had advertising for Kane & Lynch, Jeff Gerstmann gave it a bad score, and Gerstmann was fired. Huh???"

Or, to use a different example, people calling foul when Haliburton got a number of contracts for reconstruction in Iraq, when Dick Cheney used to be an executive for them.

Same damn thing. If using an opinion piece to say "I think there's something fishy about this" was libel, suits would be flying every which way. But as long as it's clear that this is opinion and not news, then sorry, dude, nothing you can do.

It's not libel, it's an op-ed. That's how they work. If we gave Jack Thompson his own column, whatever lunacy he wanted to spout there would be his own opinion.

This is some serious straw grasping mate. he clearly accused Konami of having bought or otherwise encouraged an perfect score on a magazine. If that's directly attacking Konami, I don't know it is. The fact that he sweetened the pill with a few backhanded compliments afterwards doesn't make his piece less aimed towards Konami.

Famitsu was, at some point, involved with the game itself. Famitsu appears in the game. Its founder and head is in lots of the promotional material. That's a bit deeper of a relationship than advertisers usually have.

All Ashcraft is saying is that it's incredibly shady of Famitsu not to even mention that they've been so involved with MGSPW in their perfect review as a disclaimer. The onus is on Famitsu here, not Konami.

 

[DigitalSushi]

Basically his caustic tongue and greasy hair has got a company not affiliated with him in any way in hot water with Konami.

Actually this is incorrect. Kotaku Japan chose to translate and publish his libelous article on their own accord. When you publish something, you take responsibility for it. So while Ascraft is definitely the origin of the problem, Kotaku Japan isn't innocent.
No one held them at a gunpoint to reiterate a libelous piece by publishing it. They freely decided to. Their bad.

But he's not being punished in anyway, thats kinda my point, so he's not going to swallow his pride because its not like they've served him legal documents or struck him off the christmas card list.

He'll carry on doing what he does best, making crap bulletpoint style articles dressed up as news.

 

[Abriael]

It's called man up and grow a pair. So some people don't like your game, big deal. The fact that the editor of a magazine such as that, and how rare that particular score is, with the relation he has to the company does still beg the question. Instead of acting like childish kids and lashing out at anyone who smells bullshit, why not be civil and try to prove your reasoning and logic behind your argument so such a score... you know, like adults. The fact that they wrote a letter at all is extremely suspicious. So they got a bad review, big deal, happens all the time. A letter complaining about it means they only want praise for their game, not an opinion, and will do what they want to get it, including revoke whatever they feel and giving gifts to those who do act the way the want. A bribe is a bribe no matter how you want to present it.

Ahem. You seem to have completely missed the issue. Kotaku didn't review the game. No bad review was issued.
Famitsu gave the game a perfect score, and Kotaku accused Konami to have corrupted Famitsu in order to get the perfect review, not only without a shred of proof, but also without having even seen the game themselves.
That's not a bad review. That's libel, and libel in Journalism is bad.

Kotaku Japan got away with a very, very mild reaction for something that could have just as easily spawned a lawsuit.

 

[DigitalSushi]

What Ashcraft is doing, is saying, "Here are the facts: Famitsu gave Peace Walker a 40/40. Famitsu's scores are incredibly influential in a title's success in Japan, a rare perfect score exponentially more so. Famitsu and its founder are also incredibly involved in the game's promotional material, and in fact in the game itself. I, personally, find something suspicious about this."

There was a column in Edge Magazine about a 2 or 3 years ago that touched on the Japanese public not trusting video games publication's because they are either owned or in bed with Software Devs, and articles and previews tend to be written by the marketing department of Game makers.

So Ashcraft is technically right, its just he's late to the party.

also: if Kotaku now give a perfect score to Peace Walker (because it might be really good), are we to trust them?.

 

[Abriael]

But he's not being punished in anyway, thats kinda my point, so he's not going to swallow his pride because its not like they've served him legal documents or struck him off the christmas card list.

He'll carry on doing what he does best, making crap bulletpoint style articles dressed up as news.

This we'll have to see about. Obviously Konami and Famitsu thought that the article was original. The article's paternity is explained only in a small link at the end, with no explanation. If one doesn't click on that link, he'll never notice that the article is just published and translated there.

It's an easy mistake given that the name of the site is the same and Kotaku Japan is made for half or so by translated articles from Kotaku.

It's not unlikely that this is just the first step. Konami and Famitsu still have plenty time to notice who the real moron is, if they didn't already.

By the way, I wouldn't trust anything that Edge says. Reading the comments to the article on Kotaku Japan, they mostly say that there's no issue and the score is probably deserved.