Kotaku - Someone Doesn't Like Us
- Thread starter Myrthos
- Start date
Some articles written there are a waste of time and I want those minutes of my life back. However some journalists there are excellent at what they do. They're a high traffic site that still interacts with their readers. The blog format is nice because it makes their journalism a little more human. Some of their journalists are some of the best in the business and enjoy working for Gawker media because of the freedom. Tyler Rogoway who is regular on foxtrot alpha is probably one of the best when it comes to military reporting, and Wes Siler who is a regular on indefinitely wild, Basically lives what he writes about. In a world of media outlets that are payed off for good reviews, it's refreshing to have honest outlets like this.
D
DArtagnan
Guest
Having an inconsistent quality of journalism isn't a great way to maintain the respect of your audience.
Besides, if you're writing about games - being a great journalist isn't enough. You should understand gaming and its history as well.
That's my main problem with these modern gaming sites. They're desperate for the attention needed to justify existence - and there's no way to retain integrity with the kind of drivel they sometimes put out. Worst of all, though, I just don't learn anything about games - because their insight is laughable and they'd rather generate clicks than do proper research.
Besides, if you're writing about games - being a great journalist isn't enough. You should understand gaming and its history as well.
That's my main problem with these modern gaming sites. They're desperate for the attention needed to justify existence - and there's no way to retain integrity with the kind of drivel they sometimes put out. Worst of all, though, I just don't learn anything about games - because their insight is laughable and they'd rather generate clicks than do proper research.
So are we going to get a link to that article? Or was this just posted as an opinion piece? because it sounds like half the people posting here haven't even read the article, they just want to consumate their marriage to Bethesda.
http://kotaku.com/a-price-of-games-journalism-1743526293
http://kotaku.com/a-price-of-games-journalism-1743526293
D
DArtagnan
Guest
I think your marriage to Kotaku is wedding enough for one thread.
But fret not, we're all in tears at the sight of true love
I think your marriage to Kotaku is wedding enough for one thread.
But fret not, we're all in tears at the sight of true love
Kotaku doesn't have a nude patch yet
PegasusOrgans
Sentinel
Wow, I gotta reconsider being, in any way, part of RPGWatch when the main thing I'm picking up is blind devotion to Big Publishers. What the hell has happened?! It was only a couple years since EA was "the most evil company" and now everyone is licking clean the collective anus of these mega publishers? F them. They care less than nothing about the opinions from people that frequent RPG sites. They, and their ilk are what drove the RPG to near extinction multiple times in history, and they in no way deserve any pity/sympathy/devotion at all. They exist to make as much money for as little money/effort possible, they streamline streamlining.
What I love is that Gamer'sGate was about "corruption" of gaming media, but ignored the corruption caused by mega publishers that literally buy good reviews!!! They pay for site wide ads on these review sites, and no one had any problem with that, it wasn't until there was some weirdness with some indie devs (relatively minor and dumb stuff) that, suddenly, it was a massive issue.
What is wrong with everyone?!
As for Kotaku, don't feel bad for em, they're, again, just there to make a buck, but it does highlight certain mafia-like behaviour on Big Publisher's part. Like "you better play ball, or we cut you off, kapish?", but Kotaku claiming they do anything resembling "journalism" is laughable, as is the (self-admitted) sour grapes of RPGWatch.
What the whole thing points out is that there really needs to be an overhaul of
rules for gaming journalism if it is to EVER become even remotely trustworthy
and genuine. I don't go by reviews for games. Ever. I do check multiple things
like aggregate scores, and user reviews but I would/could never base a purchase
on the opinion/review of a single site, or even a couple of sites involved in "modern
gaming journalism". I.Don't.Trust.Them.
BTW, this is coming from someone that has spent a great deal of time on Kotaku, and, so, I can say what I say with certainty. Sure, there are some great writers there, but that is true of many sites. But, they have no quality control of any kind and it covers everything in a thin layer of mildew and cat feces not to mention the massive click-bait issues gawker sites have.
What I love is that Gamer'sGate was about "corruption" of gaming media, but ignored the corruption caused by mega publishers that literally buy good reviews!!! They pay for site wide ads on these review sites, and no one had any problem with that, it wasn't until there was some weirdness with some indie devs (relatively minor and dumb stuff) that, suddenly, it was a massive issue.
What is wrong with everyone?!
As for Kotaku, don't feel bad for em, they're, again, just there to make a buck, but it does highlight certain mafia-like behaviour on Big Publisher's part. Like "you better play ball, or we cut you off, kapish?", but Kotaku claiming they do anything resembling "journalism" is laughable, as is the (self-admitted) sour grapes of RPGWatch.
What the whole thing points out is that there really needs to be an overhaul of
rules for gaming journalism if it is to EVER become even remotely trustworthy
and genuine. I don't go by reviews for games. Ever. I do check multiple things
like aggregate scores, and user reviews but I would/could never base a purchase
on the opinion/review of a single site, or even a couple of sites involved in "modern
gaming journalism". I.Don't.Trust.Them.
BTW, this is coming from someone that has spent a great deal of time on Kotaku, and, so, I can say what I say with certainty. Sure, there are some great writers there, but that is true of many sites. But, they have no quality control of any kind and it covers everything in a thin layer of mildew and cat feces not to mention the massive click-bait issues gawker sites have.
- Joined
- April 12, 2009
- Messages
- 23,459
After such statement I can only suspect you have me on your ignorelist.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2009
- Messages
- 23,459
Speaking as an ex-journalist, who never wrote for gaming magazines or websites (never wrote professionally about games at all) I have a couple of things to say about gaming journalism. First of all, there's no such thing. Don't take that as a criticism, because it's a fact. There's a lot of ethical matters that other kind of publications have to abide to, that aren't true in gaming journalism (and also other niche publications as well, but it's about gaming I'm writing about now).
As an example, a news article never, but never, should contain the opinion of the journalist. It does happen in the mainstream media, but it shouldn't (Fox News or british tabloids aren't role models). It happens a lot in gaming journalism. It happens so frequently that I could say it almost always happens to a certain degree. I suppose that gaming journalists know that they are addressing a crowd who doesn't care about the ethical side of a profession, and look at gaming news with a lighter disposition compared to what they would if they were political or economical news (and that's just fine). Also, I'm pretty sure that most gaming journalists never had experience in other fields of journalism. Some, probably, aren't really journalists, they are gaming experts (and that's also fine, readers care more about their knowledge of games than their grasp of media tecniques and styles). Also, gaming opinion-makers are also journalist, and that's a big faux-pas in other kinds of journalism. There are other matters that I could address, but this is enough.
So, what about people (usually politics, celebrities, soccer stars and millionaires) or companies black listing newspapers or TV stations? Is it right? Is it common? Well, if it's right or not, it's anyones opinion, but it's a right they have. No one has to explain why they don't give interviews to a certain newspaper. People just say no, and if you insist they will hang up on you. You can still write/ talk about them… Some newspapers or TV stations just give them back the cold shoulder (and in the case of celebrities or companies there's a cost to that partial lack of media coverage), others enact their reveng whining about the silence (the way Kotaku did), or even trying to uncover nasty things about the person/ company at stake. So, the rightness of it is a matter of discussion, but it happens. It happens a lot, and mainstream media it's unusual to cry about that (there are, of course, ridiculous episodes that I will not discuss here because they hapenned in my country, and nobody cares about Portuguese affairs).
So Kotaku is whining about Bethesda and Ubisoft. It's their right. But it is ridiculous and if gaming journalism was as fierce as mainstream media they would be the butt of the joke by now.
As an example, a news article never, but never, should contain the opinion of the journalist. It does happen in the mainstream media, but it shouldn't (Fox News or british tabloids aren't role models). It happens a lot in gaming journalism. It happens so frequently that I could say it almost always happens to a certain degree. I suppose that gaming journalists know that they are addressing a crowd who doesn't care about the ethical side of a profession, and look at gaming news with a lighter disposition compared to what they would if they were political or economical news (and that's just fine). Also, I'm pretty sure that most gaming journalists never had experience in other fields of journalism. Some, probably, aren't really journalists, they are gaming experts (and that's also fine, readers care more about their knowledge of games than their grasp of media tecniques and styles). Also, gaming opinion-makers are also journalist, and that's a big faux-pas in other kinds of journalism. There are other matters that I could address, but this is enough.
So, what about people (usually politics, celebrities, soccer stars and millionaires) or companies black listing newspapers or TV stations? Is it right? Is it common? Well, if it's right or not, it's anyones opinion, but it's a right they have. No one has to explain why they don't give interviews to a certain newspaper. People just say no, and if you insist they will hang up on you. You can still write/ talk about them… Some newspapers or TV stations just give them back the cold shoulder (and in the case of celebrities or companies there's a cost to that partial lack of media coverage), others enact their reveng whining about the silence (the way Kotaku did), or even trying to uncover nasty things about the person/ company at stake. So, the rightness of it is a matter of discussion, but it happens. It happens a lot, and mainstream media it's unusual to cry about that (there are, of course, ridiculous episodes that I will not discuss here because they hapenned in my country, and nobody cares about Portuguese affairs).
So Kotaku is whining about Bethesda and Ubisoft. It's their right. But it is ridiculous and if gaming journalism was as fierce as mainstream media they would be the butt of the joke by now.
zahratustra
SasqWatch
- Joined
- January 10, 2008
- Messages
- 4,721
That's one way of looking at it but here is another: Kotaku was blacklisted by Sony, made a noise about it and Sony (apparently) felt enough pressure to recount their decision. It's quite possible that, instead of whining, Kotaku has adopted a similar tactic with Beth and Ubisoft.
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2008
- Messages
- 4,721
Kotaku has the right to report whatever they want.
Developers and publishers have the right to refuse them special inside information, special interviews, and free products. In fact, this is exactly the reason your publication should not be participating in, expecting, or even allowing free games or anything else from publishers to begin with.
More importantly THE FINAL ARTICLE Kotaku wrote about Ubisoft before Ubisoft stopped giving them the time of day was an article about how Ubisoft was sexist and misogynist. Of course, Kotaku wont' tell you that. They'll tell you "hurr durr, they're refusing to talk to us because we facilitated leaked information" (which they also have the right to refuse to talk to you again for, even though you have a right to report it).
Sorry, but if someone accused me, my employees, or my company repeatedly of being "sexist and misogynist", I would no longer provide you with the courtesy of free products, special interviews, or any other garbage ever again. If you're a worthwhile journalist (but remember, Kotaku has said repeatedly that THEY ARE NOT JOURNALISTS as well as JOURNALISM SHOULD NOT TRY TO BE OBJECTIVE), you carry on and keep reporting stuff. You shouldn't be relying on cozy relationships to publishers/developers to begin with.
Developers and publishers have the right to refuse them special inside information, special interviews, and free products. In fact, this is exactly the reason your publication should not be participating in, expecting, or even allowing free games or anything else from publishers to begin with.
More importantly THE FINAL ARTICLE Kotaku wrote about Ubisoft before Ubisoft stopped giving them the time of day was an article about how Ubisoft was sexist and misogynist. Of course, Kotaku wont' tell you that. They'll tell you "hurr durr, they're refusing to talk to us because we facilitated leaked information" (which they also have the right to refuse to talk to you again for, even though you have a right to report it).
Sorry, but if someone accused me, my employees, or my company repeatedly of being "sexist and misogynist", I would no longer provide you with the courtesy of free products, special interviews, or any other garbage ever again. If you're a worthwhile journalist (but remember, Kotaku has said repeatedly that THEY ARE NOT JOURNALISTS as well as JOURNALISM SHOULD NOT TRY TO BE OBJECTIVE), you carry on and keep reporting stuff. You shouldn't be relying on cozy relationships to publishers/developers to begin with.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2015
- Messages
- 32
The whining bit was just a possible conclusion. They may have an agenda, I can't know about that. Anyway, if they really want to be considered a serious news/reviews site they shouldn't publish an editorial that feels like whining (even if it isn't). in my opinion they shouldn't have complained at all, because what they offer as proof of what is the motive behind Ubisoft's and Bethesda's behaviour towards them is no proof at all. Probably they are right, it was because of those "breaking news", but an editorial bashing on big companies without real proof (as long as I know neither Bethesda nor Ubisoft assumed they had black-listed Kotaku because of that - and they might have done it, as a kind of warning that they like to keep their future announcements under wraps until they want to).
Sure, Kotaku has the right to their "breaking news", but they should also have the maturity to endure possible repercussions and avoid editorials on that vein. Instead, they could have complained directly to the companies, off the record, and tried to get their full cooperation again. The press still has some power, even when it's online.
- Joined
- August 13, 2013
- Messages
- 2,871
Have you considered a career in Drama?
I don't believe there is a single post of blind devotion here. Most people are of the opinion that each side has a right to publish and blacklist as they see fit.
Just because you don't like a company doesn't mean they don't have rights too. I detest EA, what it stands for, what it does for gaming, and what it continues to do…. Yet I believe they would be fully justified in not using certain "journalists" when it comes to releasing information.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2013
- Messages
- 2,871
And Bethesda isn't EA. EA destroys some of the best game franchises, while Bethesda creates them. It's truly simplistic and dumb to compare the two under the label of "mega publishers".
Ubisoft would be more like EA, but I don't think anyone here is speaking for Ubisoft. A lot of people here are thinking "Wait, Bethesda brought me The Elder Scrolls and Fallout sagas amongst other great games, and Kotaku brought me poor, biased and unprofessional articles. Guess which of the two I can live without."
The only reason to say that this is being in marriage with Bethesda is because, in fact, the one making those claims is in a marriage with Kotaku.
Ubisoft would be more like EA, but I don't think anyone here is speaking for Ubisoft. A lot of people here are thinking "Wait, Bethesda brought me The Elder Scrolls and Fallout sagas amongst other great games, and Kotaku brought me poor, biased and unprofessional articles. Guess which of the two I can live without."
The only reason to say that this is being in marriage with Bethesda is because, in fact, the one making those claims is in a marriage with Kotaku.
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2015
- Messages
- 138
Lucky Day
Daywatch
We're not immune. Patrick Weekes used to contribute here semi-regularly but corporate policy regarding controlling the message forced him to stop IIRC.
Puff pieces in journalism are not new. In the 80's you could pick up any magazine on the newsstand and find and article that was pretty glib - especially if it was industry themed. The kind of bias you got depended on the magazine itself - Car Fancy magazine is not going to give you the same result as Consumer Report.
When I was in computer sales, once a year I sold a lot of Epson ink jet printers. Once a year at that was it. The rest of the year I was talking people out of them knowing they would come back.
This was also true for Compaq computers, except it went year round. This were quick and easy sales and they wouldn't listen to you anyway. Their mind was made up.
Compaq easily had the worst bloatware, substandard hardware for the price (they were rock solid, but a modem back then should be 28.8 not 19.2), and proprietariness that required you not only to buy their parts, but needed a special screwdriver.
And I think one of the overall mistakes in/about journalism, and on the internet in general, is the belief you can say anything you want due to some concept of "freedom of speech". Freedom of speech is really only concept in regards to relationship with government.
Puff pieces in journalism are not new. In the 80's you could pick up any magazine on the newsstand and find and article that was pretty glib - especially if it was industry themed. The kind of bias you got depended on the magazine itself - Car Fancy magazine is not going to give you the same result as Consumer Report.
When I was in computer sales, once a year I sold a lot of Epson ink jet printers. Once a year at that was it. The rest of the year I was talking people out of them knowing they would come back.
This was also true for Compaq computers, except it went year round. This were quick and easy sales and they wouldn't listen to you anyway. Their mind was made up.
Compaq easily had the worst bloatware, substandard hardware for the price (they were rock solid, but a modem back then should be 28.8 not 19.2), and proprietariness that required you not only to buy their parts, but needed a special screwdriver.
And I think one of the overall mistakes in/about journalism, and on the internet in general, is the belief you can say anything you want due to some concept of "freedom of speech". Freedom of speech is really only concept in regards to relationship with government.
Well no it isn't fact, it's your opinion. Journalism isn't gaming journalism. They're different. Normal jourealism requires a passion for... Journalism. Gaming journalism requires a passion for gaming. I'm not criticizing Siskel and Ebert and Roper... Etc for their opinion. Gaming reviews require a certain amount of passion. I think I recall an article in n the New York Times, a certain journalist who decided to write about a new popular game. He treated it as an actual journalist and it became an article pretty much no gamer would ever have an interest in reading. Good he's writing for the masses and not really doing a review. But hey its not gaming journalism! Do you really think Richard Hammond, James May and lol Jeremy Clarkson are considered journalists? No but they're a huge part of automotive journalism. No wait there's no such thing.
Bethesda the legal entity and Bethesda the developers are two different world's. The developers are excellent and create some of the most amazing things the gaming world has seen. Bethesda the legal entity wants to stomp on the others (Like Mojang and the Scrolls fiasco)
Kotaku didn't make any sort of article concerning a blackout until the readers started questioning them. So they were up front with their readers. Not sure where the problem lies.
Yes there is. And some of the big publishers butt lickers like Joxer and Dart have me on it
I am not sure about crpgnut, he might as well put me on it for saying sacrilegious things vs God King Todd
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2014
- Messages
- 3,819