Support NeoGAF

[Uthred]

What's the point of the article other than being cringingly self indulgent and self aggrandising?

they are not 'entitled' to special treatment. they don't even need 'special treatment' because apparently they can buy their own games. publishers still nonetheless look childish in the face of criticism.

No, publishers look like a fairly rational business who made the decision that they no longer wanted to extend preferential treatment to another business that they felt had broken faith with them. Thats how working relationships between business' work, there's nothing "childish" about it. People assigning emotions such as "spite" or "childishness" to a business decision strikes me as bizarre, though par for the course I suppose.

 

[Hitokiri03]

People defending Bethesda bad practices....... why I'm not surprised.


Keep doing the good work Jason.

 

[Prophet Steve]

Im sure 99 percent of buyers of said game will know nothing of all this lol

The plight of games journalism

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything I said.

You also can't have a working relationship with a company by publishing a bunch of leaked information you know they don't want published and you know you received in violation of someone else's NDA.

I mean, how obvious is this shit? Kotaku bit the hand that feeds so they don't get fed anymore.

No, you totally can. As long as you are not breaking agreements with the company itself. What do you expect from a journalist, seriously? Here, have a press statement, go show it to your viewers and then you get a game.

It is within companies their right to ignore them. But at the same time they also want to utilize those sites for marketing. So then they blacklist all the companies that don't do any journalism that goes against them.

 

[heyf00L]

Well, actually, it very much is. That's what PR/PA is.

There are people with that job, but that's not what I'm talking about. It's not the company's job (as in "they don't have to") supply pre release builds or footage to media. They do that to help promote their game. And it's usually mutually beneficial to both sides. When that's no longer the case, they don't HAVE TO continue to supply that content.

 

[MetatronM]

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.

Huh? That's literally the entire summary of an editor's job.

This is the best post in this thread. Journalists are supposed to look out for their readers and give them information they want. It's not their job to look out for some company's PR.

This, however, is also correct.

This isn't really a black and white thing. Ubisoft and Bethesda are completely within their rights to not provide Kotaku with any PR materials. At the same time, Kotaku is completely in the right to publish whatever it is they believe is relevant, interesting, or important to their readers, regardless of whether or not it jives with a corporation's marketing plans.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

This is the best post in this thread. Journalists are supposed to look out for their readers and give them information they want. It's not their job to look out for some company's PR.

Indeed. I really don't understand how anyone could be angry at Kotaku for reporting on information that they came across.

 

[capitalCORN]

No, publishers look like a fairly rational business who made the decision that they no longer wanted to extend preferential treatment to another business that they felt had broken faith with them. Thats how working relationships between business' work, there's nothing "childish" about it.

If a film withdrew review screenings, it would be met with great disdain. Guess that doesn't mean anything in gaming.

 

[Steez]

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.

The truth is that we’ve been cut off from Bethesda since our December 2013 report detailing the existence of the then-secret Fallout 4.

In April of 2013 we reported insiders’ accounts of the troubled development of the still unreleased fourth major Doom game.

I'm just quoting Totilo's article. Beth could've blacklisted them back in April, when Kotaku published a significantly more negative and "hard-hitting" piece or in May when they wrote about the Arcane thing, but they didn't.

According to Kotaku, Bethesda blacklisted Kotaku specifically after the FO4 leak.

 

[Heavy_D206]

This isn't surprising to me.

Kotaku runs more opinion pieces than actual news stories. I've always viewed them as the TMZ of Gaming sites.

 

[studyguy]

Bethesda and Ubisoft don't need people to protect them on GAF, that's what their own marketing and legal teams are for. It's silly to go up to bat for them on the basis of expecting journalists to not report on hot news beats like that, come on.

I don't frequent Kotaku but all the same it could have been basically any site.

 

[UnemployedVillain]

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 it

Wasn't that the case with a major movie trailer? I think like the first one for the new Star Wars (Avengers? Jurassic World? Something big) or something had a low quality cam leak and they just posted the official one a few days before they were planning to

 

[WanderingWind]

There are people with that job, but that's not what I'm talking about. It's not the company's job (as in "they don't have to") supply pre release builds or footage to media. They do that to help promote their game. And it's usually mutually beneficial to both sides. When that's no longer the case, they don't HAVE TO continue to supply that content.

Again, the PR within or contracted by the publisher or developer exists for that exact purpose. It doesn't matter why they do it (of course a public relations/public affairs representative's goal is the promote the company) it just matters that they're part of the process and it's very much their job to supply materials to the media. That is almost their entire reason for being.

 

[L Thammy]

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, and everything below "Amazon expose" level is somehow wrong to publish

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 about 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

With A, I would generally assume that a good leak is one that makes your favourite game look good, and a bad leak is one that makes your favourite game look bad. That seems to be how people judge the gaming media from what I've seen.

Though, how did people react to this particular leak? I didn't follow it.

 

[Q_A]

Leaking games that will be announced a few weeks/months from then is pretty shitty. Leaking info of bad practices like what Konami has been doing to their employees isn't.
Games costs several 10s of millions of dollars, some being more than that with hundreds of people working on them, ruining the reveal doesn't please anyone, you're just getting more clicks from it.
Don't think fans would like the surprise being ruined nor the marketing team losing the impact a reveal would have. I don't even like Ubisoft or Bethesda, but I can see why'd they'd be upset if their projects got leaked

If you don't like game reveals why are you here? By your logic doesn't this site by existing hurt games?

Hell I'm sure all the posts about fallout before it was officially released hurt those employees you care so much about. How should Bethesda proceed?

 

[GatticusFinch]

If a film withdrew review screenings, it would be met with great disdain. Guess that doesn't mean anything in gaming.

And they do. All the time. There are tons of movies that are released without review screenings because the film is afraid of bad press before release.

 

[Azuran]

Well stop fucking leaking things then. If you're privy to information that you know will be officially announced soon, then why damage your relationship with that company by leaking it earlier? Leaks aren't doing some "public good" or bringing to light anything games need to know and can't wait a while to find out

I hate leaks, they're awful.

If I was working on a game Id want to present it to the public when its ready and not when some dumb Kotaku "journalists" think its ready.

So fuck em, honestly.

Like when they leaked the Fallout 4 voice actor documents, spoiling us on the setting and more of the game years before it was even announced.

If you guys hate leaks so much then why are you posting on GAF?

 

[SeanTSC]

Better to be blacklisted than to just be a site that is basically all "Sponsored Content" and just an advertising machine for companies. Almost everything is one big Ad now a days no matter where you go, video games or not. The amount of crap that you have to filter through everywhere you go for any type of news now is nuts.

 

[Sami+]

Genuinely shocked that people on fucking NeoGAF of all places are defending Ubi and Bethesda on this. It's not even a step to stop leaks, it's petty punishment for journalists doing something they don't like.

Other games media sites should step up to defend their colleagues when shit like this happens, too.

 

[SentryDown]

Less bullshit involved.

Less bullshit involved in gameplay demo rather than promo shots made with 3D software & photoshop. Ok.

 

[Uthred]

If a film withdrew review screenings, it would be met with great disdain. Guess that doesn't mean anything in gaming.

And all film review sites get invited to those screenings right? The traditional relationship between game publishers and game reviewers is also a lot more incestuous so your analogy fails on several levels.

 

[Visceir]

Kotaku has the right to post leaked information and the companies have the right to blacklist them for it. I don't see either of them as the good guy here. Kotaku just happens to be in a position where airing dirty laundry benefits them more.

They say it's for the readers but they're still a business that needs those clicks clicks clicks and page views. So go be a good boy and click on that article so they get those daily clicks in.

 

[benny_a]

I'm just quoting Totilo's article. Beth could've blacklisted them back in April, when Kotaku published a significantly more negative and "hard-hitting" piece or in May when they wrote about the Arcane thing, but they didn't.

According to Kotaku, Bethesda blacklisted Kotaku specifically after the FO4 leak.

Oh they did Blacklist them after that point. That's not the disagreement.

This is what you said though: "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."

Which you have not presented any evidence for. So basically you are wrong that Totilo wrote what you wrote and in your mind you can't comprehend that the summation of events can lead to a blacklist, it has to be one individual story and everything else fell into the memory hole.

Yeah this is what stood out to me the most, and why I said they weren't really blacklisted for exposing anything negative about the company. It was literally just early leaks of games, while everything else is free reign

Right. If Kotaku was blacklisted mere months before then you would be white knighting Kotaku and shitting on Zenimax, right?

 

[UnemployedVillain]

I'm just quoting Totilo's article. Beth could've blacklisted them back in April, when Kotaku published a significantly more negative and "hard-hitting" piece or in May when they wrote about the Arcane thing, but they didn't.

According to Kotaku, Bethesda blacklisted Kotaku specifically after the FO4 leak.

Yeah this is what stood out to me the most, and why I said they weren't really blacklisted for exposing anything negative about the company. It was literally just early leaks of games, while everything else is free reign

 

[Shiggy]

Good for Kotaku, shows they are doing a great job I suppose!

 

[Megatron]

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.

Lol. "Hey Mr Nixon, we heard you had something to do with the bugging of the Watergate building. Do we have your permission to write it?"

 

[DrROBschiz]

Kotaku has the right to post leaked information and the companies have the right to blacklist them for it. I don't see either of them as the good guy here. Kotaku just happens to be in a position where airing dirty laundry benefits them more.

They say it's for the readers but they're still a business that needs those clicks clicks clicks and page views. So go be a good boy and click on that article so they get those daily clicks in.

Bingo

Lol. "Hey Mr Nixon, we heard you had something to do with the bugging of the Watergate building. Do we have your permission to write it?"

Entertainment Journalism VS Politcal journalism?

You gonna make this comparison?

 

[Backflip]

So you leaked nothing, but were blacklisted because you wouldn't give up your source?

That and because we wouldn't pull the story.

 

[Acerac]

*Edit*

Apologies, everyone. <3

 

[L Thammy]

What's the point of the article other than being cringingly self indulgent and self aggrandising?

It's a shady thing that Bethesda and Ubisoft did, from which we can extrapolate other shady things that they're likely to do? This isn't hard to figure out.

 

[Maztorre]

You also can't have a working relationship with a company by publishing a bunch of leaked information you know they don't want published and you know you received in violation of someone else's NDA.

I mean, how obvious is this shit? Kotaku bit the hand that feeds so they don't get fed anymore.

Yes, you absolutely can and other entertainment companies readily accept that journalists are going to do their jobs independent of their actions. It is not a journalists job to foster a "working relationship" with an entity they are reporting on, their responsibility is to their readers. It is the entity's responsibility to police the leaking of information internally, not to heavy-handedly attempt to manipulate the legal freedom of the press.

I literally can't believe this needs explained.

 

[LiegeWaffle]

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.

No, I think people have just an issue with the idea that leaked project details should be reported. I do too, and yet I'm totally with Kotaku on this one, blacklisting people is just plain dumb.

On the other hand, I suspect with at least one of those publishers it was more of a self-preservation instinct.

 

[MrJoobJoob]

Credit to Kotaku for publishing this info. I do wonder how much they actually care whether Bethesda talks to them though -- I feel like most of Kotaku's best stuff (at least the most popular & interesting stuff) is the "embedded" stories. The reviews & publisher-sanctioned previews are way less interesting than, for instance, all of Jason's work about Destiny. Like who cares what Bethesda or Ubisoft has to say about their own games anyway? We get plenty of that kind of stuff from the rest of the games press.

 

[PhineBuyM3]

There's no one to root for in this cat fight. Hate AAA publishers, but I also hate Kotaku.

 

[Prophet Steve]

What's the point of the article other than being cringingly self indulgent and self aggrandising?



No, publishers look like a fairly rational business who made the decision that they no longer wanted to extend preferential treatment to another business that they felt had broken faith with them. Thats how working relationships between business' work, there's nothing "childish" about it. People assigning emotions such as "spite" or "childishness" to a business decision strikes me as bizarre, though par for the course I suppose.

There was no faith involved, they haven't broken any agreement.

Also, there is some degree of spite involved. As there does not seem any effect on how Kotaku would review whatever they would receive of the publisher. And they can still review and post articles anyway, but not they have to do more effort.

What are they achieving by not sending Kotaku those things anymore? To me, it sounds like sending a message that "snooping around" by journalists will not be tolerated. I'm not really sure what else you would expect them to do.

There's no one to root for in this cat fight. Hate AAA publishers, but I also hate Kotaku.

I'm not fond of either party either, doesn't mean I can't agree with one side.

 

[CopperPuppy]

If a film withdrew review screenings, it would be met with great disdain. Guess that doesn't mean anything in gaming.

Uh...

Like the new Star Wars?

 

[heyf00L]

Huh? That's literally the entire summary of an editor's job

I'm only talking about leaks here, not articles in general. If Kotaku decides they want to publish leaks, then that's what they're going to do. There's nothing unethical about it. But it will damage business relationships.

Again, the PR within or contracted by the publisher or developer exists for that exact purpose. It doesn't matter why they do it (of course a public relations/public affairs representative's goal is the promote the company) it just matters that they're part of the process and it's very much their job to supply materials to the media. That is almost their entire reason for being.

You're completely missing what I'm saying. Unless you think that every publisher must send material to every media outlet equally or else they're being unethical.

 

[faridmon]

This thread is more disturbing than anything in that article.

Holy shit, guys.

If anything, its a good thread to actually see which ones deserve to be on the ignored list.
The fact that people are OK with the press to be a PR machine for companies, let alone justifying that, is very telling on its own right

I don't visit Kotaku at all, but if anything, I will be reading their Ubisoft and Bethesda reviews because we know that they aren't influenced by those two PR's team to sugar coat their opinion on their games.

 

[Uthred]

It's a shady thing that Bethesda and Ubisoft did, from which we can extrapolate other shady things that they're likely to do? This isn't hard to figure out.

I honestly dont know where to begin.

There was no faith involved, they haven't broken any agreement.

You clearly have an excellent grasp of the concept of good faith in a working relationship.

Also, there is some degree of spite involved. As there does not seem any effect on how Kotaku would review whatever they would receive of the publisher. And they can still review and post articles anyway, but not they have to do more effort.

Not seeing the spite, looks like a reasonable business decision. Kotaku were entirely right to publish the stories they want to publish, just like they need to be able to deal with the reprecussions of their actions.

 

[WickedLaharl]

Great post

It's actually a terrible post but ok.

Publishers are really shitty and petty apparently...

Unfortunately so are a lot of their consumers as evidenced by this thread.

 

[kenta]

Wasn't that the case with a major movie trailer? I think like the first one for the new Star Wars (Avengers? Jurassic World? Something big) or something had a low quality cam leak and they just posted the official one a few days before they were planning to

Sure, yeah, that works too. But I feel like I've seen it happen with games as well and I've walked away thinking it was a win-win, or at least that they made lemonade. Company adapts to the leak and treats it as if it were an announcement of their own, then (hopefully) has time to plan for the next major keynote and show a little more of the game than they would have otherwise. All good as far as I can see

 

[ito007]

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, and everything below "Amazon expose" level is somehow wrong to publish

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 about 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

C can be very harmful because many consumers are not as informed as you think. Also, marketing plans don't just deal with "reveals and exposure" but also competition, which can be extremely volitile if revealed early.

As far as D is concerned, I don't think people should be the concerned considering it's an open market place, and people will buy whichever they think is best for them (which is ultimately derived from decisions based on what product marketing tells them), so in that case, maybe C would be a concern? But the information is going to get out anyways, so from a consumer point if view it might not matter

My point is: from a company point of view, a ruined marketing plan can be disastrous, but maybe not much so for the consumer. Although that always depends

EDIT: well let me clarify, one reason it can be disastrous for the company is because a ruined marketing plan can give competitors advantages

 

[kaskade]

Kotaku should just lean into it, "real" gaming journalism. They already have a big enough fan base that they aren't really going to lose readers for something like this. Kind of gives some insight on how these larger sights need to stay on the good side of the publishers.

Games journalism sure is a weird thing.

 

[Gentleman Jack]

Though, how did people react to this particular leak? I didn't follow it.

Prey 2 thread on GAF

 

[Deleted member 47027]

Spoken like someone who doesn't know what responsible journalism means. It is the same crap that essentially let the U.S government get away with spying because all the major U.S news companies decided to be the PR piece for the government.

There is nothing inherently wrong with Ubisoft blacklisting Kotaku. The PROBLEM is that people like you are perfectly OK with that. You are actually defending such a terrible tactic. Be our mouth piece and if you decide NOT to, we are going to ban you. That is not how journalism works, at least that is now how it works everywhere else.

This article simply shows how terrible the current publisher and "journalism" system actually is. The current system rewards journalist for being a gloried marketing piece the publisher's machine. I mean if you are OK with it then, that is fine.

The stakes are far lower as it pertains to kideo games, though.

 

[jschreier]

Let's be clear about a few things. For one, the stories I'm most proud of writing are not stories about leaked Fallout 4 scripts or even the Prey 2 "press sneak fuck" e-mails. The stories I'm most proud of writing are real investigations, the type that reveal information nobody would have learned otherwise, whether it involves horrible working conditions, behind-the-scenes stories of how a game like Destiny turned out the way it did, or an explanation about what a highly-anticipated cancelled game like Titan actually was. You've all seen and hopefully appreciated those stories, so you know where I'm coming from here.

All that said, it is my responsibility as a reporter to serve my readers by reporting news about the gaming world, whether or not that's news that game companies are ready to announce. Kotaku does not work around publisher marketing plans. If someone sends me a tip that a studio has been shut down, I will investigate, assess the news value, and report. If someone sends me a leaked video, I will investigate, assess the news value, and report. Same with a script, screenshots, or whatever else people decide to pass my way, whether it's because they're mad at their employers or because they believe, as I do, that the video game industry's obsession with secrecy is irrational and misguided.

That doesn't mean I have or will publish every piece of information I get. But if something has news value, it's my responsibility to share it. The Fallout 4 scripts, for example, had news value in the wake of the Survivor 2299 hoax and frantic questioning about what Bethesda was actually working on. In the interest of serving readers, we chose not to post the pages that spoil what happens at the beginning of Fallout 4, and instead we just shared the two or three that we felt told the complete story -- that amidst all the hoaxes and rumors, it's true: Fallout 4 is real.

Other bits and pieces of information I've heard over the years, I've decided not to share, usually because it didn't have enough news value in our eyes. We have no interest in reporting on leaked games just for the sake of reporting on leaked games.

When publishers like Bethesda and Ubisoft decide to blacklist us for how we report, that's totally their prerogative. They have the right to work with whichever outlets they prefer, and I think it's been clear to anyone who reads Kotaku that their decisions have not affected our coverage of them or their games over the past two years. Nor will those decisions affect how we approach reporting on leaks in the future.

 

[Head.spawn]

So, what do you think game journalism is supposed to do then? Because clearly they have to do exactly what publishers tell them to, which makes them just PR machines. What are they achieving right now by locking out Kotaku? It is punishing them for doing their job while at the same time not preventing anything. It is some very petty practice.

They aren't demanding anything either, but it shows how publishers suddenly treat journalists differently when they don't publish what they want.

It's not punishing them, it is simply not actively helping them. If you go out of your way to spit in someone's face, why would act surprised when that person turns their back to you and doesn't give you free donuts they see you or a golden ticket whenever you call?

The problem with actual journalists is that it takes you out of the professional relationship status. Into aka "press sneak fuck"-status.

Nothing to be embarrassed about and should be a badge of honor IMO.

 

[jormungand]

I think this sheds light on the publisher strong-arming marketing deals and trying to dictate the control of information on a title in a manner they'd like to announce.

If something leaks, isn't it the responsibility of a games journalism outlet to report on it? I mean what's the point of a press outlet? Then again, there have been years of NDA's, moderated review events, and publishing agreements on sites that have been more than willing to cooperate.

It seems apparent that if you don't play by whatever arbitrary rules these publishers have concerning leaks, articles they don't like about their titles, or whatever else, they'll blacklist you. I feel like Kotaku has gotten a lot stronger in the last couple years, so this is a shame.

Except when you are on a retail meeting with an Ubisoft rep and they say things like "this is going to be published by Kotaku in about 15 minutes and then...boom. leaked assets out of nowhere".

 

[Breads]

A lot of businesses blacklist the Gawker media blogs due to their mission statement of unethical reporting practices and their predatory effects to search algorithms. Although Kotaku is relatively benign it is still in the Gawker media group and is treated accordingly.

 

[UnemployedVillain]

Right. If Kotaku was blacklisted mere months before then you would be white knighting Kotaku and shitting on Zenimax, right?

I've shit on devs for crappy games, scummy review embargo tactics, deplorable work conditions, and other reasons before (well, not on here because I only recently got an account, but still).

So yeah, if it was for that I probably would be shitting on Zenimax, not that it matters to you since you clearly have it set that I'm a game publisher shill and I doubt anything I say will change that

 

[GatticusFinch]

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything I said.



No, you totally can. As long as you are not breaking agreements with the company itself. What do you expect from a journalist, seriously? Here, have a press statement, go show it to your viewers and then you get a game.

It is within companies their right to ignore them. But at the same time they also want to utilize those sites for marketing. So then they blacklist all the companies that don't do any journalism that goes against them.

I'd say the fact we are having this conversation is proof that we totally can't. What do you expect from the company, seriously? Here, read this leak piece we just did against your wishes, give us free copies of your games to review and insider access to stories.

Kotaku can't bitch about not getting access from a company that they are leaking shit about. The companies obviously concluded, correctly, that Kotaku needs them more than the companies need Kotaku, so they ended that relationship. Kotaku made the decision to publish the leak, the companies made the decision to end the relationship.

Let's slow the whole "journalism" thing. Publishing some leaked information that was emailed to them doesn't make them Woodward and Bernstein. That is entertainment news, just like TMZ or Variety, and you need the other side to play ball somewhat. Kotaku chose not to play ball, so the companies stopped playing altogether. This isn't like exposing the Konami working conditions.

You can't fault either of them for what they did.