Kotaku - Someone Doesn't Like Us

blind Bethesda fanboyism ITT

Sacred_Path said:

blind Bethesda fanboyism ITT

Click to expand...

Maybe. I'm inclined to think general anti-Gawker-ism. I'm mostly ok with that. They've got a lot of flaws as a blogging/journalist hybrid. But I will point again and again to what Joxer said. Totilo's position has been consistent and it is honest and it is a good position in the interests of gamers and readers. That Ben Kuchera takes the same one should be an indication that this is not something pulled out of various nether regions.

By the way, I've posted it before, but it's worth posting again. This is the Society for Professional Journalists' ethical creed:

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

Even a games blog can do well to pay attention to this stuff and follow it. Especially if you hold yourself out as professionals and journalists; I'd even go so far as to say that adhering to that should be required.

I think the issue is not that they have blocked Kotaku, is that they have allowed sites like Kotaku feel entitled to receive free copies of unreleased products to "buy" their positive reviews.

I understand that all kinds of publicity are good, and if even notorious Youtubers are promoting your game, you are gaining possible sales. But there is an issue when these sites and Youtubers (and I mention Youtubers because some of them are in the same page as Kotaku) believe themselves entitled to exclusive free headstarts into games. And when the free goods stop pouring in, the badmouthing and besmirching begins to put their fanbase against the developers.

If they want the game so badly, they can pay for it as everyone else does.

This is worth reading:

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/...ing-and-the-independence-of-the-gaming-press/

Especially please read the promoted comments. Particularly this point:

Hey, if a company doesn't want to cooperate with a major news outlet or specific reporter, that's its right, but I know that for my part, when I hear of this, I assume said company is up to no good. If such noncooperation is selective, well, then I know what weight to give to the outlets with which the company does cooperate.

Click to expand...

And further one of the Ars Technica journalists responded:

If video game journalists want to be treated like real journalists they should act like real journalists.

Click to expand...

They generally do, and the gaming industry often does not like it.

Click to expand...

Emerwyn said:

I think the issue is not that they have blocked Kotaku, is that they have allowed sites like Kotaku feel entitled to receive free copies of unreleased products to "buy" their positive reviews.

I understand that all kinds of publicity are good, and if even notorious Youtubers are promoting your game, you are gaining possible sales. But there is an issue when these sites and Youtubers (and I mention Youtubers because some of them are in the same page as Kotaku) believe themselves entitled to exclusive free headstarts into games. And when the free goods stop pouring in, the badmouthing and besmirching begins to put their fanbase against the developers.

If they want the game so badly, they can pay for it as everyone else does.

Click to expand...

As Bedwyr and Joxer have said already Kotaku does have its faults but being paid for a positive reviews with a pre-release copies isn't one of them. They were blacklisted because they have decided not to shut up when a producer and/or publisher told them to. So accusing them not only of entitlement but also of badmouthing and besmirching is not only silly but it's also shifts the blame onto the victim.

I've written for a gaming magazine (print!) for a couple years. It was quite a while ago, but from what I get to observe, not a lot has changed since. Back then, I thought I was doing journalism. Looking back, I'm not so sure anymore.

I'd really hope there was some clear distinction between sources of independent, critical information about the industry (and its products) and auxiliary marketing tools supported and funded mainly by said industry.

Of course, I realize it's not that simple, not least because proper coverage of the industry requires a certain closeness to it. And yet, I'd expect any site counting itself to the former group to always strive to strike a healthy balance and make transparent any possible conflicts of interest.

What's the Watch's stance on this?

Moorkh said:

I've written for a gaming magazine (print!) for a couple years. It was quite a while ago, but from what I get to observe, not a lot has changed since. Back then, I thought I was doing journalism. Looking back, I'm not so sure anymore.

I'd really hope there was some clear distinction between sources of independent, critical information about the industry (and its products) and auxiliary marketing tools supported and funded mainly by said industry.

Of course, I realize it's not that simple, not least because proper coverage of the industry requires a certain closeness to it. And yet, I'd expect any site counting itself to the former group to always strive to strike a healthy balance and make transparent any possible conflicts of interest.

What's the Watch's stance on this?

Click to expand...

You were. It wasn't coverage of deep, really important issues of the sort covered in the Washington Post or Wall Street Journal, but it mattered in its context. Don't sell your work short.

I made the point that product journalism follows slightly different rules than regular news journalism and requires a closer relationship to the people making the product, but that shouldn't ever threaten your independence. That is something that should be continually cultivated because it's not the Devs you're supporting, it's your readers who are the ones trusting your coverage.

Let me put it in simple terms, easily understood. Bethesda has created several products that I have spent thousands of hours enjoying. If they deem Kotaku unimportant enough to bypass as part of their business strategy, I totally support that.

Kotaku hasn't written anything or accomplished anything that is especially worthy of my regard. If you are so impressed with their journalistic accomplishments, and have pertinent examples of how they've improved our lives as gamers, please list them. Unlike Bethesda, Kotaku cannot charge directly for their product, as they really don't have anything that people would pay money to acquire.

Otherwise, you are drawing a line also, based on your enjoyment of Bethesda products. Not a problem, but let us be real. Even the article in discussion is cheap, gimmicky click-bait. I'm not saying I haven't read a Kotaku article. I probably have. I read a lot of rpg stuff. I've also read Joxer and DArtagnan. It doesn't mean that I would pay to read their thoughts

This is not a rebuttal to anything that other's have said, this is just my view on where the relative merits of the two companies stand.

But you're Beth's fanboy nut and it's fanboy's sworn duty to defend their beloved company come hell or highwater. You couldn't be objective no matter how you tried.

@crpgnut: That's honestly cool. I affirm your support of Bethesda and give you thumbs up for supporting the company and liking their stuff.

This may sound odd, but I absolutely love Bethsoft's work. I think they make amazing products and have adored Elder Scrolls since Morrowind assuaged my sorrows at the demise of the Ultima series. I'm level 18 in F4 right now and have not seen signs I'll stop soon. Boy they're fun.

I also don't like Kotaku very much. They're not in my regular rotation and most of the stuff is pretty fluffy. Sometimes I like the photoshop stuff Mike Fahey puts up (and he can be kind of funny and silly), but largely I triangulate between PaperRockShotgun, Polygon, and here for my games news.

And yet, I still think Totilo's post has merit. I've already explained why so I don't need to repeat that. But true journalistic integrity is a huge huge deal with me. Even in entertainment media it *means* something. It's not trivial or drivel; it's on a continuum of press freedom and good journalism that's needed to make a good society.

So I can hold these things simultaneously. I can support Stephen Totilo's opinion. I can Support Bethesda's good work making games. And I can dislike Kotaku. That's where I'm coming from.

zahratustra said:

But you're Beth's fanboy nut and it's fanboy's sworn duty to defend their beloved company come hell or highwater. You couldn't be objective no matter how you tried.

Click to expand...

One could even call him a Bethnut.

While news outlets are in their right to find leaks and publish about them, companies are also in their right to blacklist or freeze out news outlets.

One downside for the company is that when the bridge is burned they can't reburn it. Which will free up the news outlet to do even more sleuthing since that's the only way they'd get anything newsworthy about the company and it's products before the products are released.

I'm saying Kotaku doesn't owe the keeping of secrets to Bethesda or Ubisoft. And Bethesda and Ubisoft don't owe easy access to Kotaku.

The way I see it, only Kotaku has something to lose. Bethesda will live without Kotaku just fine. But when people don't find proper reviews or treatment of their favourite games in Kotaku, they'll check other sites.

Kotaku's statement has the powerful stench of a tantrum from a bunch of entitled kids. The talent at making incredibly good videogames and bringing them to the gamers all over the world is at Bethesda. All Kotaku does is talk about other people's talent, without having any of their own. Does anyone at Kotaku even have a degree or career on journalism? I ignore the answer to that question but it doesn't even matter.

Imagine any gamer is presented a choice: "Today, one of these two will completely disappear from your life: Kotaku or Bethesda. Your choice".

Easiest choice ever.

It seems to me that it's dependent on the nature of the rejection. One could think of it in terms of wider journalism, and, say, politicians.

If a public figure states that he won't cooperate with a certain news organisation because he regards it as biased, poor quality, and non-credible, that is one thing. But if it is a strategy to control the message of the media through threats of cutting off access, that is something to be concerned about. We have seen this recently with a certain group of politicians telling TV networks what their rules will be (including pre-screening and vetoing the questions to be asked), or they will be denied access. If the marketing suits at games publishers are using these sort of tactics (and I suspect they are), I think that is worth criticising them for, as it reduces the press to a marketing tool, which is not in our interest.

Kotaku and the other Gawker sites are pretty juvenile. While entertaining and occasionally having a well written and researched article they seem like a bunch of kids posting little blogs. I remember rolling my eyes when they all voted to join the journalist union as there is nothing journalist quality about the sites. As to being ignored by a few gaming companies, who cares. Now they can post whatever they feel like about the game without worrying about any NDA.

I think its funny how people think that companies should be so transparent and share everything with journalists.

The sad truth is that the general public are idiots and most "journalists" are scum. You can't explain everything to people so you choose what to release and when. If the outlet you choose to release to doesn't honor your timelines, then you don't use them. Simple.

I have no strong feelings for or against Kotaku. They're not on my 'go-to' or 'stay-away-from' list. I have enjoyed some articles and reviews published there.

As to their arguments with Bethesda and Ubisoft; it's important to understand that journalistic integrity is a two way street. It's one thing to bravely publish newsworthy facts for the benefit of the public. But its another thing entirely to publish a company's private information when that information has been essentially stolen from the company, and when publication of that information has no 'public benefit' purpose.

The big distinction here is private information verses public information.

Has the information already entered into the public domain (properly or otherwise)? In this case journalists are entitled to publish.

But information that is secret information known only to company employees and their restricted agents is another thing entirely. In this case the information can be the same thing as stolen property that ought to be returned to its actual owner rather than being sold or given to someone else, unless there is a real public benefit to be served by publication (Edward Snowden information and the like).

Kotaku seems to be, in the case of the disputes in question, the first and original publisher, of private and secret company information. It seems to me that true journalistic integrity would advise caution against publication of such information unless the publication was clearly for the benefit of the public; and not just for the benefit of the publisher.

Regards to all.

__

I actually disagree with the majority here. While I do believe they should have the right to chose who they interact with, I think this approach of major publishers creates an implication that the review site better treat them positively at all times. Good way to help artificially inflate review scores, and also a bit disingenuous.

cptbarkey said:

Kotaku is run by a bunch of 11 year old kids. go figure.

Click to expand...

And rpgwatch forums are littered with middle aged adults acting like 10 year olds. It's like vomit telling poop it stinks.

I seem to remember concluding Kotaku was crap, much like most modern gaming news sites.

However, I don't remember why