One other thing I wanted to add: People are forgetting that this isn't one-off behavior from Kotaku. This is consistent with a pattern of abuse of their 'journalism' label that has been going on for years.
Kotaku has never given developers a fair share. They've never even tried to do anything except create clickbait.
The last article written about Ubisoft before this incident was when Kotaku trapped one of Ubisoft's producers in a room and started bombarding him with loaded questions meant to destroy his reputation [http://i.imgur.com/8L8x0N7.png]. Then they wrote that article which boils down to "Pfft, they didn't want to answer my loaded questions? I guess that means they have something to hide."
This isn't how journalists act. Certainly not how any journalist acts that wants to remain a credible source of news. If I were Ubisoft; I would have cut ties with Kotaku after that article came out slandering one of my employees for not wanting to answer a series of humiliating questions to someone that they knew would immediately try to turn them into clickbait.
So this idea that Kotaku has not had this coming for a while is nonsense.
Don't know why Ben Kuchera put this up but it made Totilo look like he enables bad journalism. Which is why no one feels bad for Kotaku in this situation. They have a right to do what they did, but Bethesda and Ubisoft have a right to refrain from giving them anything to report on. And we as the reader have a right to critique both sides. too bad for Kotaku that they pretty much go full MovieBob and insult people who don't like their opinions.
I'm curious. Six months later, when everyone has forgotten this happened, lets replace Bethesda with EA and Kotaku with a games journalist people don't hate on principle and see if the reactions are any different.
I'd have pretty much the same reactions if the journalist had gotten bitten for a cheap buck like Kotaku did. "The outlet was silly but within their right to publish this, and EA had the right to stop talking to them though it is going to bite them in the arse PR wise for it".
I think the main thing to take from this is, if you make your target audience hate you on principle you lose the protection of your readers backing you up when something like this happens. Remember what happened with this website and RSI a little while ago? The Escapist doesn't have an audience that hates it on principle (aside from one or two unnamed loons) and so people were willing to back up the outlet against the dev/publisher.
Ah yes, Call of Duty 4 hates puppies. Clickbait headline, taken completely seriously and never actually checked up on.
The whole article, from Kotaku.com.au:
By far the best part of Chance Glasco?s demo of Infinity Ward?s Call of Duty 4 at Activate Asia this year was when he killed a dog.
Yeah, a dog.
Sneaking through Pripyat, Russia, all decked out in his sexy-looking Ghillie suit, Chance tried to snipe an enemy soldier in a nearby church bell tower. He fired about five shots. They all missed. The soldier was ? expectedly ? upset.
Seconds later, Chance was beset by troops and trained killer puppies. One of the animals jumped Chance, knocking his player to the ground. After a few chomps, Chance, with deadly precision, reached his hands up and snapped the creature?s neck. Objectively, it was an awesome bit of gameplay.
We found out later that the neck-snapping was completely unintentional, and, in fact, it was the one thing Activision had informed Chance he shouldn?t do.
We didn?t mind that he did, though.
Now, just in case, the relevant bit: "After a few chomps, Chance, with deadly precision, reached his hands up and snapped the creature?s neck. Objectively, it was an awesome bit of gameplay.
We found out later that the neck-snapping was completely unintentional, and, in fact, it was the one thing Activision had informed Chance he shouldn?t do.
We didn?t mind that he did, though."
I'm underwhelmed. You'd think trying to ruin a dev's reputation would involve something meaner than "Objectively, it was an awesome bit of gameplay".
But sure, Kotaku never give devs a fair shake. Oi.
Sticky said:
The last article written about Ubisoft before this incident was when Kotaku trapped one of Ubisoft's producers in a room and started bombarding him with loaded questions meant to destroy his reputation [http://i.imgur.com/8L8x0N7.png]. Then they wrote that article which boils down to "Pfft, they didn't want to answer my loaded questions? I guess that means they have something to hide."
And again, I'm wondering if my computer loaded up the wrong article. Is everybody else seeing the same thing as I am?
Probably not. I mean, you see "trapped one of Ubisoft's producers in a room and started bombarding him with loaded questions meant to destroy his reputation" while I see "talked to one of Ubisoft's producers in the Ubisoft booth interview room with a PR person present."
""What I can say is... no, no, I shouldn't," Thompson finally blurted before laughing to lighten the mood.
It wasn't the first time this sort of thing had happened that day, and I definitely didn't blame Thompson or the PR guy. They'd both been extremely enthusiastic and helpful otherwise, but it was clear that their hands were tied. Mandate from on high and all that."
God, just going for the professional throat there. Brutal stuff.
Quite a few of your observations seem to fall under opinion. That and you don't really deconstruct any of the points they make. You just kinda point and mock then.
In a way you prove my point.
Also is there any reason you keep spamming the thread with comics that just scream "Strawman"? Again. You REALLY prove my point.
I'm curious. Six months later, when everyone has forgotten this happened, lets replace Bethesda with EA and Kotaku with a games journalist people don't hate on principle and see if the reactions are any different.
I'd have pretty much the same reactions if the journalist had gotten bitten for a cheap buck like Kotaku did. "The outlet was silly but within their right to publish this, and EA had the right to stop talking to them though it is going to bite them in the arse PR wise for it".
I think the main thing to take from this is, if you make your target audience hate you on principle you lose the protection of your readers backing you up when something like this happens. Remember what happened with this website and RSI a little while ago? The Escapist doesn't have an audience that hates it on principle (aside from one or two unnamed loons) and so people were willing to back up the outlet against the dev/publisher.
Fair enough. Although from experience I know it's easy to say you'll stay consistent but very hard to follow through.
What do you mean "target audience"? Because I know Kotaku is an acceptable target around here, but clearly ALL gamers don't hate the website considering it gets enough traffic to stay afloat.
I love that it falls to the press to be blameless while the poor innocent corporations are raking in the dough being deceptive shitstains as a matter of course. They must love all these free internet defenders, it's got to be an utter delight!
You know when it comes down to it, we are talking about enthusiast press. I think ethics factors into it when companies collude to convince consumers to buy products they might not otherwise buy based on advertising masquerading as journalism. Not giving companies special privileges for specifically burning you is not a breach of ethics, it's just reality. Was it journalism to report the leaks? Sure, but Kotaku made Bethesda and Ubisoft's job harder by screwing with what ever plans they had to announce what they wanted to on their terms. Like it or not getting early copies of a game even if it is to do your job, is a privilege the same way getting free meals at a restaurant as a reviewer is a privilege. Sometimes that reviewer can be really good for business and it makes sense not to charge them, but Kotaku spoiled the marketing plans for a game that they then did not receive a review copy for, is not a breech in ethics, its simply whining privileged babies whining that they screwed up relationships they should have been protecting. Is it wrong to report leaks? I donno, case by case? Was it wrong to report on the Sony hacks? I wonder what Kotaku thought about that issue.
I'm curious. Six months later, when everyone has forgotten this happened, lets replace Bethesda with EA and Kotaku with a games journalist people don't hate on principle and see if the reactions are any different.
Well Niche Gamer was blacklisted by XSEED earlier this year for equally mysterious reasons and I can't remember anyone really caring, It certainly wasn't on the front page of every gaming site on the internet.
As for this whole Kotaku blacklisting thing if all Beth and Ubi are doing is refusing to give them review copies and interviews that just puts Kotaku in the same boat as the hundreds of smaller sites/youtube reviews that also don't get free shit.
Not sure why so many people care.
again, they are not, you as a company are allowed to choose who to talk too.
you are not however, allowed to then enforce who others talk too, or influence their decision making.
blacklisting is when you isolate someone completely from the entire industry, nobody has done that to kotku, individuals simply decided not to talk to them.
now if you showed me some kind of proof of ubisoft talking to other big companies like konami or activision or whatever and telling them to shut out kotaku because of what they did to them, then you'd have a point.
I have no sympathy for anyone with a meaningful affiliation with Gawker. Kotaku's getting what they deserve, and I hope to hell Hulk Hogan sinks all of Gawker with his lawsuit.
This does come from someone who follows sites like TechRaptor, One Angry Gamer(run by the guy that blew open the whole "GameJournoPros" thing to begin with), APGNation and DualShockers for my gaming news; so I'm pretty sure you can all tell where my loyalties lie.
httand the gotcha that GamerGate won't rush to defend Kotaku is even worse.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I agree. It's based on the premise that GamerGate actually cares about ethics or games journalism.
I doubt anyone actually believes that to be true.[/quote]
I fail to see any reason for gamergate to get involved in this case. Not that you or anyone else for that matter actually provided an explanation why Gamergate should actually support kotaku in this matter besides "WONT ANYONE THINK ABOUT POOR KOTAKU!"
Kotaku hasnt violated any ethical standards, and ubi/beth havent violated any ethical standards either, not that beth and ubi have to obey to journalistic ethics... what with not being journalistic outlets or anything...
So your and the comics snide remarks about gamergate are completly missplaced and rather petty.
Besides... you expect a demographic that was declared "dead" allmost a year ago to come to the defense those who declared them dead? Well support from beyond the grave might be a little hard to pull off.. what with gamers being dead and all.
httand the gotcha that GamerGate won't rush to defend Kotaku is even worse.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I agree. It's based on the premise that GamerGate actually cares about ethics or games journalism.
I doubt anyone actually believes that to be true.[/quote]
I fail to see any reason for gamergate to get involved in this case. Not that you or anyone else for that matter actually provided an explanation why Gamergate should actually support kotaku in this matter besides "WONT ANYONE THINK ABOUT POOR KOTAKU!"
Kotaku hasnt violated any ethical standards, and ubi/beth havent violated any ethical standards either, not that beth and ubi have to obey to journalistic ethics... what with not being journalistic outlets or anything...
So your and the comics snide remarks about gamergate are completly missplaced and rather petty.
Besides... you expect a demographic that was declared "dead" allmost a year ago to come to the defense those who declared them dead? Well support from beyond the grave might be a little hard to pull off.. what with gamers being dead and all.[/quote]
Would not waiting for a comment for the article from ubi and bethesda be unethical? as in not giving them right of reply on an article attacking them over something perceived to have happened?
httand the gotcha that GamerGate won't rush to defend Kotaku is even worse.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I agree. It's based on the premise that GamerGate actually cares about ethics or games journalism.
I doubt anyone actually believes that to be true.[/quote]
I fail to see any reason for gamergate to get involved in this case. Not that you or anyone else for that matter actually provided an explanation why Gamergate should actually support kotaku in this matter besides "WONT ANYONE THINK ABOUT POOR KOTAKU!"
Kotaku hasnt violated any ethical standards, and ubi/beth havent violated any ethical standards either, not that beth and ubi have to obey to journalistic ethics... what with not being journalistic outlets or anything...
So your and the comics snide remarks about gamergate are completly missplaced and rather petty.
Besides... you expect a demographic that was declared "dead" allmost a year ago to come to the defense those who declared them dead? Well support from beyond the grave might be a little hard to pull off.. what with gamers being dead and all.[/quote]
Would not waiting for a comment for the article from ubi and bethesda be unethical? as in not giving them right of reply on an article attacking them over something perceived to have happened?[/quote]
The article is several days old now and theres no official response from either publisher so i guess they did decide to completly ignore kotaku. In wich case even if kotaku had given them a generous 24 h window to respond it would have been long been overstepped.
So no, the only thing you can blame on kotaku is using highly overblown vocabulary to summon up support for themselves and indirectly pressure the publishers to cave in by inciting a shitstorm over nothing so they can get their precious review copies and interviews back.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
