PdotMichael
Banned
How does that ensure they will never publish a leak again?
Mafia tactics would work better:
But Ubisoft doesn't send their games to Kotaku anymore.
How does that ensure they will never publish a leak again?
Mafia tactics would work better:
What do people propose is the best recourse for companies to do in the face of leaks? I'm genuinely curious to see if the response isn't simply "Deal with it. Shit happens.".
I'm just trying to understand what you imagine a publisher should do when, they reveal to you information early on a regular basis and allow you to criticize them with no recourse, when you get information that one of its employees illegal sends you and you expose it. Like, should they be expected to ignore it? Take it as a likelihood of being in a public facing industry? Disregard it and continue trusting you with other information?
Maybe it's because I'm not in journalism, but I'm legit confused what the expected reaction should be
I think a new game announcement is pretty important. I'm a reader. So it serves me. And it's cool to find out the existence of something before it's officially announced.
I work for Microsoft. I'm bummed when the existence and details of a product I'm working on or know about get leaked. It can wreck a lot of work by Marketing and PR or misrepresent the product due to incomplete or inaccurate information.
But it's not the prerogative of the journalist to consider my feelings. It's up to the employees to respect their employer's wishes and not fuck up the marketing plan.
Jason is being a responsible journalist by telling his readers about something his readers will be interested in. It's not his responsibility to respect Bethesda's marketing and PR teams.
When an employee is a piece of shit, and wants to ruin a lot of his coworker's work, he or she will find a way to do it regardless of outlet. If he or she didn't leak it to Kotaku, it would've gone to somewhere else. And then Jason would have been an idiot for squandering what could have been a major financial boon to his site and a major interest of his readers.
Let the employers deal with the employees, and let Jason and Kotaku do their job.
Sorry please point out my casual homophobia?
Is this a response to "bend over backwards"? Are gay people the only ones that can have anal sex?
The article says otherwise:
You weren't cut off for your harsh reviews or revealing some terrible secret about working conditions or such.
You were cut off for publishing leaks about upcoming games. That's not "real reporting" that's just posting information that was obtained by questionable means (breaking NDAs and such) for the sole purpose of getting more views. It didn't reveal anything that would improve the gaming industry, it's just for clicks.
Leaking pre-release game information is not serving your readers - that's what reviews and critiques are. These kind of leaks are just serving yourself.
No. Responsible journalists decide what should and what shouldn't be published based on the importance and content of the leaked information. A responsible journalist doesn't just publish every piece of secret information that falls into his hands.
If you got a leak about something bad or revolutionary happening in the games industry - of course you should publish it without the company's permission. But this is not even remotely the case here.
So please explain to me what was the ethical justification in publishing those specific leaks. What was so important in those leaks that you had to publish them despite knowing that it shouldn't be public yet.
Not all leaks are equal and the ones mentioned in the article aren't some groundbreaking reveals. You just decided to screw over those publishers for more viewers. That's absolutely fine - it's your choice. But don't come crying later when those publishers no longer want to cooperate with you.
If it was about blacklisting for bad reviews (like Jim Sterling) or revealing some horrible working conditions than I would agree with you. But it's not.
Bullshit. Not everything is "censorship". The publishers are in no way "not allowing for dissenting opinions" they clearly have no control over what Kotaku do or do not publish. It's an exercise in PR not censorship. Really what "blacklisting" amounts to is that it ends the previously beneficial relationship between the two parties. No business has any obligation to provide a media outlet with access or with pre-release copies, if the PR arm of the business feels that allowing the media outlet this access is harmful to their image theyre entirely within their rights to withdraw it.
Considering the amount of bitching about the unfairly cushy treatment games journalists get from publishers people this is a step in the right direction. All games media outlets should be "blacklisted" as then it removes the bizarre dynamic between the publisher and the journalists.
Not to single you out but responses along this line keep popping up. Why do you feel that any media outlet is entitled to special treatment from a publisher?
The site I work for, Gameblog.fr (the second biggest website in France) has been blacklisted by Ubisoft for the last two years. We are not invited to press events anymore, we don't get interview opportunities, we don't get review copies until games have been released (sometimes we don't get anything at all) and it looks like we don't get press releases anymore (it's funny because we were talking about it yesterday at the office).
All of that because some of our sources told us Ubisoft's plans for the Assassin's Creed IP (our situation is quite similar to Kotaku's). It should be noter that Ubisoft tried to pressure my editor in chief into revealing who gave him all that information. But he protected his sources' indentity.
Well, blacklisting Kotaku would be a first step.
The thing that bothers me is that there are insiders leaking information like this in the first place. No one needs to be told how bad, not to mention illegal this is. Can we put the blame on Kotaku for running with it? Well, frankly yes. They are participating in an illegal disclosure of confidential information. There's a very good reason why most emails from anyone within a corporation comes with the following:
This e-mail message (including attachments, if any) is confidential and may be privileged. Any unauthorized distribution or disclosure is prohibited. Disclosure to anyone other than the intended recipient does not constitute waiver of privilege. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us and delete it and any attachments from your computer system and records.
The employees providing Kotaku with this information are in the wrong, and should be punished accordingly. Responsible journalists would seek out a statement from the company, and vet the information first before releasing to the public, but most of all, make sure they have permission to do so.
I like Kotaku, but what Stephen has just done is admit that his site is guilty of a lack of ethics at best, and a crime at worst.
What? What??
To be clear, and I say this as someone with plenty of experience on the media side, no company can prevent "serious reporting" by refusing to speak with a journalist. That is a fallacy.
Anyone who studies journalism, or trains to be a journalist, learns that from the very start. You have to chase the story. You don't expect it to be handed to you on a silver platter (and if it is, you should be asking why).
It's the dev/publisher's job not to let leaks out. It's not the media's job to suppress leaks or decide what should or shouldn't be published.
There were more than two stories involved here, as anyone who actually reads the article will find out.
The amount of people in this thread siding with multi-million dollar companies whose multi-million dollar AAA games still generate multi-million dollars of revenue despite being leaked a year or two beforehand is not shocking - it's fucking sad.
The secrecy even in the face of the most exposing leaks is ridiculous in this day and age. They want you to watch shitty press conferences where they announce their games with shady trailers to build the maximum amount of hype - hype based on pitches and not off substance.
Salute to Kotaku and its writers for giving a fuck about journalism that is more than just sitting on publisher's laps' and writing everything down they get whispered in their ears.
It doesn't make that clear. Just because one event happened after another doesn't mean they ignored for example that Kotaku shone light on the predatory acquisition practices of Zenimax.But the article makes it clear that the blacklists happened specifically after leaking the existence of games and not after the investigative pieces like about Doom's troubled development. So...?
Not one thing you wrote matters. The press is free to report on this kind of information as it sees fit, they do not have to pass some kind of "worthiness" test before publishing. The only unethical action that has taken place here is Bethesda/Ubisoft's childish attempts to punish those in the press who report on their products outside of their sanctioned messaging. Information leaking to the press is a fact of life for any public-facing company, they can either choose to accept that and move on, or get rightfully called out when they throw their toys out of the pram.
If you don't have them sign an NDA then you open yourself up top leaks and that's your fault. If leaked from within they should put their big boy pants on and find out who leaked it inside their own company and deal with it internally.What do people propose is the best recourse for companies to do in the face of leaks? I'm genuinely curious to see if the response isn't simply "Deal with it. Shit happens.".
I'm just trying to understand what you imagine a publisher should do when, they reveal to you information early on a regular basis and allow you to criticize them with no recourse, when you get information that one of its employees illegal sends you and you expose it. Like, should they be expected to ignore it? Take it as a likelihood of being in a public facing industry? Disregard it and continue trusting you with other information?
Maybe it's because I'm not in journalism, but I'm legit confused what the expected reaction should be
Please tell me how leaking AC Syndicate internal promo images (aka bullshots) is better than a conference.
Is he/she the casual homophobia avenger? Cause I gotta say. He's pretty bad at it.He disagrees with you but had no actual way to refute what you had to say.
If anything it's a rape joke, which isn't really any better, but he was obviously reaching.
What do people propose is the best recourse for companies to do in the face of leaks? I'm genuinely curious to see if the response isn't simply "Deal with it. Shit happens.".
I'm just trying to understand what you imagine a publisher should do when, they reveal to you information early on a regular basis and allow you to criticize them with no recourse, when you get information that one of its employees illegal sends you and you expose it. Like, should they be expected to ignore it? Take it as a likelihood of being in a public facing industry? Disregard it and continue trusting you with other information?
Maybe it's because I'm not in journalism, but I'm legit confused what the expected reaction should be
That is like saying there is no difference between a gossip magazine and an actual news report.
One has information that is worthwhile to know, the other is to just make money.
Oh yeah, I agree with that too. It's also not the dev/publisher's job to supply content to the media.
Absolutely wrecked. Indisputably.
This is punishing a company for their perceived naivety in building a working relationship. If Kotaku was an actual news site, they'd be out here disclosing the names and identities of their sources for lulz, then complaining when they're not on the visitor's list at prison.
I'm not sure what they expected, you write damming news about publishers, take private info and publish it, help leak information that they want to keep within the company etc etc...
Not that there is anything wrong with that, but you sure as fuck shouldn't stand there with your hand out for free games to review, special access to developers for interviews, or Other exclusive stories being handed out on a platter, on their dime.
But Ubisoft doesn't send their games to Kotaku anymore.
To be clear, we've been blacklisted by both companies. Because we do real reporting and refuse to act as publishers' marketing arms. If anyone has any questions, let me know.
Sure, indisputably, if you ignore what journalism is about.
It is hilarious that you are agreeing with some guy that is talking about "responsible journalism". Sure, you may not think announcing a game beforehand is super important news, but on the other side it doesn't have a big negative effect either. So they are completely responsible in what they are doing.
Also you can't have a working relationship with a journalist by having them tell only what you want them to tell. What in the fuck is that shit?
Is he/she the casual homophobia avenger? Cause I gotta say. He's pretty bad at it.
I misunderstood. I thought you said Kotaku was the one doing it wrong when you were laying down a much broader criticism of the industry.
*Shrug*
Given the shape of the thread it was a fairly easy mistake to make. No need to be too haughty over somebody seeing what you said and thinking you were one of the mindless bashers.
This thread is more disturbing than anything in that article.
Holy shit, guys.
So you leaked nothing, but were blacklisted because you wouldn't give up your source?The site I work for, Gameblog.fr (the second biggest website in France) has been blacklisted by Ubisoft for the last two years. We are not invited to press events anymore, we don't get interview opportunities, we don't get review copies until games have been released (sometimes we don't get anything at all) and it looks like we don't get press releases anymore (it's funny because we were talking about it yesterday at the office).
All of that because some of our sources told us Ubisoft's plans for the Assassin's Creed IP (our situation is quite similar to Kotaku's). It should be noter that Ubisoft tried to pressure my editor in chief into revealing who gave him all that information. But he protected his sources' indentity.
I think a new game announcement is pretty important. I'm a reader. So it serves me. And it's cool to find out the existence of something before it's officially announced.
I work for Microsoft. I'm bummed when the existence and details of a product I'm working on or know about get leaked. It can wreck a lot of work by Marketing and PR or misrepresent the product due to incomplete or inaccurate information.
But it's not the prerogative of the journalist to consider my feelings. It's up to the employees to respect their employer's wishes and not fuck up the marketing plan.
Jason is being a responsible journalist by telling his readers about something his readers will be interested in. It's not his responsibility to respect Bethesda's marketing and PR teams.
When an employee is a piece of shit,
(and let's be perfectly clear here, any employee who deliberately and maliciously leaks information about upcoming product announcements is a really awful piece of shit with no regard for their coworker's hard work, and is just an egotistic self-serving fame-starved person who is probably missing something important from their lives)
and wants to ruin a lot of his coworker's work, he or she will find a way to do it regardless of outlet. If he or she didn't leak it to Kotaku, it would've gone to somewhere else. And then Jason would have been an idiot for squandering what could have been a major financial boon to his site and a major interest of his readers.
Let the employers deal with the employees, and let Jason and Kotaku do their job.
So I don't really understand
A) The magical arbitrary "worthiness" line that separates good leaks from bad ones when it comes to details about electronic entertainment products
B) The idea that Kotaku is clearly indiscriminate in what they post leak-wise, which would be impossible to assert without being a Kotaku employee privy to all leaks submitted to them
C) The very concept that learning that new entries in an AAA series that is guaranteed to have new entries is somehow harmful to AAA publishers and their marketing schemes
D) Why I as a consumer should particularly care about that C) even if it was true
I can't name examples off the top of my head, but recently I feel like I've seen some publishers just embrace when a game is leaked by putting out a teaser trailer shortly after the leak is published or at the very least issue a confirmation along with a "Look forward to seeing more at E3" kind of statement. I think that's a pretty classy way of dealing with itWhat do people propose is the best recourse for companies to do in the face of leaks? I'm genuinely curious to see if the response isn't simply "Deal with it. Shit happens.".
Sure, indisputably, if you ignore what journalism is about.
It is hilarious that you are agreeing with some guy that is talking about "responsible journalism". Sure, you may not think announcing a game beforehand is super important news, but on the other side it doesn't have a big negative effect either. So they are completely responsible in what they are doing.
Also you can't have a working relationship with a journalist by having them tell only what you want them to tell. What in the fuck is that shit?
I think a new game announcement is pretty important. I'm a reader. So it serves me. And it's cool to find out the existence of something before it's officially announced.
I work for Microsoft. I'm bummed when the existence and details of a product I'm working on or know about get leaked. It can wreck a lot of work by Marketing and PR or misrepresent the product due to incomplete or inaccurate information.
But it's not the prerogative of the journalist to consider my feelings. It's up to the employees to respect their employer's wishes and not fuck up the marketing plan.
Jason is being a responsible journalist by telling his readers about something his readers will be interested in. It's not his responsibility to respect Bethesda's marketing and PR teams.
When an employee is a piece of shit,
(and let's be perfectly clear here, any employee who deliberately and maliciously leaks information about upcoming product announcements is a really awful piece of shit with no regard for their coworker's hard work, and is just an egotistic self-serving fame-starved person who is probably missing something important from their lives)
and wants to ruin a lot of his coworker's work, he or she will find a way to do it regardless of outlet. If he or she didn't leak it to Kotaku, it would've gone to somewhere else. And then Jason would have been an idiot for squandering what could have been a major financial boon to his site and a major interest of his readers.
Let the employers deal with the employees, and let Jason and Kotaku do their job.
I have no problem with journalists reporting anything they want to.
Likewise, I have no problem with someone refusing to give interviews/etc to someone they don't want to.
This isn't 'standing with the big company'. It's actually a very coherent and logical stance -- people are free to do as they wish. I don't criticize 'big company' for shutting off communications with a journalistic outlet because it's up to them.
Imagine if you were, say, in a band. You did an interview with Rolling Stone, and they totally took things you said out of context and smeared you, or otherwise wrote stuff you personally found unflattering or hurtful - or maybe even hurt sales of your new album. Two years later, you have a new album coming out, and Rolling Stone asks for an interview -- don't you think it's perfectly fine to refuse them? Isn't that your right? That doesn't 'hurt journalism'.... it's your damn prerogative. Journalists do not have some basic right to interview you, or to get inside information from you... and if you feel burned, you have every right to shut them out from future communication.
Likewise, it's the 'big companies' prerogative in this case.
Is it possible this creates a environment where journalists are scared to print anything bad? Sure, but -every- industry deals with this, because it's the price of any expose. You can't do an expose and then expect the company to happily work with you in the future. And you certainly can't force them to.