BlackListed

[Gorrath]

Wow, I don't think I've ever seen so many people argue that reviewers and "games journalists" should kow-tow to developer's wishes before.

We get the journalism we deserve, I guess. We don't want any news the developer doesn't want out, we don't want scores to be too low in case the devs lose money, we don't want scores to be too high if the game's too small or we don't like it personally, and for god's sake, your news better not cost anything. Just be a nice little PR outlet unless we want you to be our attack dog.

Now follow all these journalistic rules to the letter or we'll vow to destroy you and everyone you're connected with. And don't call us names.

You might have been well served by directly quoting someone when making this post because I'm not sure anyone has said anything that means what you appear to think they mean. Exactly which posts said or implied that any person wants journalists to "kow-tow" to developers and only publish what the developer wants them to publish. Without attribution, it's impossible for anyone to tell you that you've misinterpreted their post. As it stands, your post seems like it's made of straw.

 

[Irridium]

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?

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.

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.

Yep, poor little Bethesda. It's a shame Fallout 4 bombed all because Kotaku showed everyone Fallout 4 is getting made. Those poor, poor souls. And poor Ubisoft, Assassin's Creed Syndicate's poor sales were totally because of this and not the fact that Unity was bugged to fuck. It was all Kotaku. Hopefully these multi-million dollar companies can find some way to soldier on, in the wake of a gaming site doing some actual journalism and not just waiting like good little boys and girls for the game companies to give them marketing materials for them to regurgitate for the rest of us.

 

[NPC009]

Really, the only reason they have the weight to throw around was because of how complicit the gaming press (Kotaku included) has been in how corporate gaming is so controlling with information. They've mostly been just regurgitating what the companies reveal through press statements, private press showings, conferences, etc. It's no wonder that when Kotaku breaks that business relation, the companies would break ties with them.

Is there an alternative to using press releases, though? I mean, should game journalists sneak into offices, maybe corner some designers and sweettalk them into sharing some juicy new character models?

Well, I guess more info could be gained from interviews, but companies have every right to say no to those and very few indivuals would be willing to risk their job so the masses can hear about the new AssCreed setting early.

In any case, the companies will always be both subject and source to gamejournalists. What journalists can and should do, is be critical towards that source. For instance, companies will praise their own work to high heaven in press releases, so the job of the reporter is to filter the facts out of the bullshit and place those facts into context.

 

[Rapidriots]

BlackListed

On Kotaku and Blacklists

Read Full Article

Kotaku publishes actual news? Sorry, no.

 

[LOLITRON]

Did Kotaku have the right to publish that shit? Yeah. Do Ubisoft/Bethesda also have the right to blacklist them in response? Of course. This is similar to a politician blacklisting a TV network after participating in an interview that they found to be too tough or something. The politician is within their rights to do that and it's scummy as fuck, but why keep putting up with that bullshit? This is why those who are frustrated with the media might often fine themselves screaming at the TV saying "WHY DIDN'T THEY ASK THIS QUESTION????" and the answer is simply "Because then they'd stop coming on my show and I'd be out of a job." Some things will just get you blacklisted.

Personally, I don't think this was worth getting blacklisted over and Kotaku likely didn't see it coming. As people have pointed out, anybody could've guessed that Fallout 4 and an Assassin's Creed game was being worked on. However, the publishers obviously wanted to make an example out of them. It's scary shit and basically discourages journalists from running big stories unless they run it by the big publishers first.

 

[Something Amyss]

We get the journalism we deserve, I guess.

That's a depressing thought, but true. This is pretty much the sticking point for any discussion on games journalism. No matter what we demand, we reward the status quo.

 

[ShakerSilver]

Is there an alternative to adapting press releases, though? I mean, should game journalists sneak into offices, maybe corner some designers and sweettalk them into sharing some juicy new character models?

Well, I guess more info could be gained from interviews, but companies have every right to say no to those and very few indivuals would be willing to risk their job so the masses can hear about the new AssCreed setting early.

In any case, the companies will always be both subject and source to gamejournalists. What journalists can and should do, is be critical towards that source. For instance, companies will praise their own work to high heaven in press releases, so the job of the reporter is to filter the facts out of the bullshit and place those facts into context.

There's always some other ways to get information out of big companies. The film industry isn't a stranger to information leaks, and yet no outlet that releases them is afraid that a film company isn't all buddy-buddy with them. Investigative reporting is definitely not something easy to do, but even in the most tight-lipped industries it's possible.

I do agree that journalists should be more critical of the information that they are given by gaming companies, but the current gaming press we have is more than happy to ride the hype-trains companies try to start if it means they continue to get exclusive advertising deals and special passes to press showings. Companies definitely have the right to control how information is given, but if the gaming press was more critical and actively involved in getting information, we wouldn't have to worry about the industry being so tight-lipped.

 

[Fappy]

But information security is their responsibility. It doesn't matter who they blacklist. If there's still a risk info will be leaked somewhere outside the company someone will happily follow Kotaku's example. As long as there are leaks there will always be someone around to break the news to the world. It gets clicks, and that's really all that matters in the end. To many, it's worth getting blacklisted by one company.

It might stop happening if such sites fear such reprisal. Which is exactly the problem here: a publisher is attempting to exercise undo control over gaming "press." It shouldn't even need to be said that this is a form of coercion.

Yep. This kind of scenario demonstrates perfectly just how gross the business of game journalism is. The unfortunate reality is that enthusiast press is not "real" news. Very few things they cover in any amount of depth can be considered open to the public in the same sense that public records, studies and police reports are in hard news. Because publishers have no obligation to supply the press with details of future or current projects, journos have to play ball with PR departments. As an audience we have to give outlets the benefit of the doubt that these publishers aren't influencing them too much. It's a shitty, wishy-washy model, but that's just the way it works.

I place a majority of the blame on the publishers, however. Some journalists are corrupt/greedy, sure, but most of the time they just do whatever is necessary to stay alive. For many, paying the bills and staying fed > god-tier journalistic integrity. The publishers hold all the keys. They have all the power in these relationships.

Coercion is the name of the game in this industry, and I don't see it changing anytime soon.

 

[Gorrath]

But information security is their responsibility. It doesn't matter who they blacklist. If there's still a risk info will be leaked somewhere outside the company someone will happily follow Kotaku's example. As long as there are leaks there will always be someone around to break the news to the world. It gets clicks, and that's really all that matters in the end. To many, it's worth getting blacklisted by one company.

It might stop happening if such sites fear such reprisal. Which is exactly the problem here: a publisher is attempting to exercise undo control over gaming "press." It shouldn't even need to be said that this is a form of coercion.

There's nothing "undo" about refusing to talk to a specific press outlet because you don't like what they say or what they've reported on about you in the past. They are under no more an obligation to talk to Kotaku than you are to talk to Fox News. There's lots of organizations, for profit and not, that refuse to interact with specific news outlets all the time. Ubi and Bethesda have no more obligation to respond to Kotaku's existence than they do any youtube critic, MSNBC, the Queen of England or you and I.

Now, if they'd done something like try to get people who wrote the story fired or threatened lawsuits over the coverage or actually tried to get Kotaku on a blacklist, I'd be all aboard your train of thought. As it is, you seem to be asserting that they violated some ethical code by exercising a right everyone else has. If that's so, can you elaborate on why you think this is an unethical act?

 

[Something Amyss]

And poor Ubisoft, Assassin's Creed Syndicate's poor sales were totally because of this and not the fact that Unity was bugged to fuck. It was all Kotaku.

...wait a second.

How do we know it wasn't Kotaku who put the bugs in in the first place?

It all makes sense. They report on multiple games that are all buggy as hell. Different publishers, different developers, different years, different genres, but always the same outlet. How did they know, unless...it was an inside job!

This is similar to a politician blacklisting a TV network after participating in an interview that they found to be too tough or something.

A situation that, until recently, would also have been looked upon as a sketchy concept which impeded journalism. That's the exact reason actual journalistic coverage is dying: news outlets cannot do honest investigative work for fear of being blacklisted.

This, frankly, is a bad thing to accept in journalism.

 

[Glaice]

Okay, why are we reporting/focusing on the garbage outlet known as Kotaku in regards to their blacklist article? We all know they are shit with Ubisoft and Bethesda not being far behind in terms of quality as well.

 

[Albino Boo]

snip

100k is considerably less than paying for the same amount tv adverts worldwide. Its almost like they employ people whose job its to global advertising instead of relying on some guy on the internet.

Yep, poor little Bethesda. It's a shame Fallout 4 bombed all because Kotaku showed everyone Fallout 4 is getting made. Those poor, poor souls. And poor Ubisoft, Assassin's Creed Syndicate's poor sales were totally because of this and not the fact that Unity was bugged to fuck. It was all Kotaku. Hopefully these multi-million dollar companies can find some way to soldier on, in the wake of a gaming site doing some actual journalism and not just waiting like good little boys and girls for the game companies to give them marketing materials for them to regurgitate for the rest of us.

Hey can I borrow you portal into alternate dimensions, because that's the only way you can know what their sales might have been with the launch they planned.

 

[hermes]

snip.

@jasonschreier one time I killed a German Shepard in-game for a Gamescom media demo and Kotaku's headline was 'Infinity Ward Hates Puppies'

Haha... that would have been funnier if it wasn't true...

 

[hentropy]

So, you say you want games journalism to be more than just regurgitated press releases and marketing material for big publishers? Fine, we'll do what we can to report information before and in different ways than the publisher wants. Oh wait, you say we're meanies for doing that? Fine, we'll just keep regurgitating press releases and marketing material again. At least we still have reviews...

Oh wait, you don't want opinions that don't exactly line up with yours in your reviews? Total objectivity. Every review on every site will have the same score, then, but we live to serve our readers, we'll keep opinions to their own walled-off section...

Oh that's right, you don't even like THAT, because anyone having an opinion you don't like anywhere on the site is considered shots in the culture war, and unethical! We apologize, we should never have underestimated the emotional immaturity and entitlement of some of our readers.

 

[Fox12]

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?

I couldn't agree more. Look at this from the creators point of view. If I was a developer, working hard on a project that I wanted to keep secret, and a journalist leaked information, I would be livid. They would be blacklisted if they were lucky. I'd sue if I could. There should have been an NDA, but even without that, kotaku should have known better. The fact that they have the nerve to play the victim infuriates me. I hope they stay blacklisted indefinitely, and by other publishers.

If someone leaked private information, why on earth would I ever want to work with them again? Was it unethical when Alan Moore refused to associate with a reporter and her company when they leaked information about his unpublished story? Of course not. Otaku isn't revealing information about working conditions or ethics (like at Konami). They're releasing articles about unreleased big name titles to generate attention. This shows an utter lack of morality. That they would then try to use that to gain the good will of this whole "journalism ethics" fad is even worse. So yes, fuck kotaku.

Now, if they'd done something like try to get people who wrote the story fired or threatened lawsuits over the coverage or actually tried to get Kotaku on a blacklist, I'd be all aboard your train of thought.

If I was a developer, and kotaku did this to me, then I would be fine with all of these options. Of course, I would have had them sign a non-disclosure agreement, so take that as you will.

 

[Loonyyy]

Because this isn't them, "Throwing around their weight." This is two companies being petty because they didn't like something the outlet did.

Blacklisting an outlet because you don't like them covering leaks from your company is the very definition of throwing your weight around. This is their weight, and they're throwing it around, because they don't have control. Bethesda, and Ubi, shouldn't have editorial control over any press. And when outlets won't kowtow to them, they'll block access to their games and refuse to comment on any stories (Which they're obviously not obliged to do so, but those outlets are obliged to try to reach them for comment).

Well, I guess more info could be gained from interviews, but companies have every right to say no to those and very few indivuals would be willing to risk their job so the masses can hear about the new AssCreed setting early.

No. But it'd be nice to have a heads up before an Asscreed Unity or Arkham Knight drops. The way the press works at present, they regurgitate the releases the company wants, they write a review to release at launch, and them once the Publisher has raked in all of the preorder and Day 1 sales money, the gamer, the reader, gets fucked in the ass by both of them. The journalists report on the trailers, the announcements, the goodies in the Special Editions, get people hyped up and preordering, reap the traffic of all that, and then the review, and the publisher gets some lovely coverage (Which is what they want). At present, what we get is what hype wants, which is what both publisher wants first, and what we want second. It should be us first, and that annoys the publisher, too bad.

There's not a massive amount of investigative or boundary pushing stuff that can be done, but we should all be a little disappointed with the state of things at present. At present, they don't take a critical eye to those releases. Look at this site. There's a bunch of cookie cutter reports every day with a link to another site which wrote on it originally, and it's all press material that the publishers want us to see. For one, ideally we shouldn't see every bit of hype being reported on. This drip feed of advertising. Obviously that's not going to happen. Someone wants to read it, and it's going to be there. We're our own worst enemy like that. And if the coverage was cynical or critical, we'd see more of this. "We didn't like what you said about our trailer. We're going to let the other outlets know first, you're going to have to follow them". You know, like we're seeing here, or in other blacklisting cases.

Wow, I don't think I've ever seen so many people argue that reviewers and "games journalists" should kow-tow to developer's wishes before.

We get the journalism we deserve, I guess. We don't want any news the developer doesn't want out, we don't want scores to be too low in case the devs lose money, we don't want scores to be too high if the game's too small or we don't like it personally, and for god's sake, your news better not cost anything. Just be a nice little PR outlet unless we want you to be our attack dog.

Now follow all these journalistic rules to the letter or we'll vow to destroy you and everyone you're connected with. And don't call us names.

Pretty much.

And it's very telling when you recognise those names.

Kotaku still sucks, and they got burned for annoying a publisher by hyping wrong. Fucking weak on all fronts.

 

[Defective_Detective]

http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

Yeah... as much as people seem to be eager to declare Kotaku some kind of bastion of investigative journalism, I think if they are to be held to journalist standards, they clearly neglected to minimize harm. Like seriously, they published that stuff to satisfy their readers curiosity. There was no noble goal here, it was just for clicks.

But then again I don't consider Kotaku to be a journalistic outlet, and them getting blacklisted from big name publishers fazes me about as much as when a random youtuber doesn't receive a review copy for the new CoD or something like that. They don the mantle of the journalist only when it's convenient for them. I have no respect for that.

Oh, yeah, publishing stuff that's in the public interest. How terrible.

If you didn't realise what one of the primary purpose of the press is, it's to report on news that their readers will find interesting, informative and entertaining.

What the heck are you even talking about when it comes to "minimizing harm". Exactly what harm was done to anybody? I don't care much for Kotaku either, but I like the idea that people will accept developers only permitting access to simpering PR regurgitators or paid-for Youtubers that act as outsourced PR firms even less.

 

[Karadalis]

The real idiocy of this all is:

Kotaku isnt even really blacklisted...

They are just being ignored by two publishers. Not by the entire industry.

Said two publishers havent even colaborated in their decision to ignore Kotaku for all we know...

Kotaku is simply using the word "blacklisted" because it sounds so much more evil and generates more clicks then simply saying "Bethesda and ubisoft dont call back anymore!"

They are like an abusive partner that wonders why their significant other isnt answering their IMs anymore after having been told its over.

Also i would like to remind everyone that its kotaku that claims they are being blacklisted for these articles and leaks. It could very well be that ubisoft and bethesda simply dont want to support such a toxic and harmfull website like kotaku any longer and simply see no value in cooperating kotaku, especialy when in the past both publishers have had some serious accusations of mysoginy flung at them from kotaku.

I mean i dont know about you guys but when im being called out as a mysoginist cause my game has no playable female protagonists i would start ignoring these shitflinging monkeys just the same... just saying.

 

[NPC009]

Is there an alternative to adapting press releases, though? I mean, should game journalists sneak into offices, maybe corner some designers and sweettalk them into sharing some juicy new character models?

Well, I guess more info could be gained from interviews, but companies have every right to say no to those and very few indivuals would be willing to risk their job so the masses can hear about the new AssCreed setting early.

In any case, the companies will always be both subject and source to gamejournalists. What journalists can and should do, is be critical towards that source. For instance, companies will praise their own work to high heaven in press releases, so the job of the reporter is to filter the facts out of the bullshit and place those facts into context.

There's always some other ways to get information out of big companies. The film industry isn't a stranger to information leaks, and yet no outlet that releases them is afraid that a film company isn't all buddy-buddy with them. Investigative reporting is definitely not something easy to do, but even in the most tight-lipped industries it's possible.

But I wonder if there is truly a need for it, atleast to the degree some people claim there is. If it's something the public should know about, I'm all for investigative journalism. For example, things like programmers getting stuck in hired-fired-cycles because big developers find it more economical to let big chunks of teams go when projects near completion, or parts of electronics being produced in (environmentally) unsafe factories by underpaid, that's something consumers need to know. Heck, regular journalists should be reporting on that as well. But things like leaking games developers/publishers don't feel confident enough to reveal yet, I just don't see how something like that is or should be important.

 

[Erttheking]

Game companies viciously hoarding even the most trivial of secrets?

Well, I think it's time to dust off this old video.


Also fuck Konami.