Support NeoGAF

[Jacksinthe]

Here's my take on this situation as a fledgling PS4 developer.

I have blacklisted a website, myself. Some bad stuff went down early this year and I was contacted to say my peace. I gave my side of the story, with evidence supporting it, and it was largely ignored and passed off as I "suggested" it in the article by the site. The other party involved was quoted QA style, despite the mountain of evidence I had knocking down their claims. Needless to say I was pissed at how it was covered and so blacklisted the website.

I feel in this regard, a blacklisting is justifiable. I literally had every smoking gun to support my story because it was a literal timeline of events held by 3rd part websites I had no control over, whois info, meta information from the other party's site showing a copy/paste of my same site name to drive hits, it was revolting. But none of that was even mentioned. Sigh.

Now in regards to leaks I'm a bit torn on this. If it is a new IP from a small dev, there is very much a chance a copycat dev with more manpower can pull that IP from under you - and it has happened before to even popular devs and even be accused of being the copier despite being in development first. Its a legit concern to protect your work and NOT have it leaked. This is where judgement must come into play by the websites that wish to cover it and post the leak. I think leaking for these cases is ultimately shitty.

Now with larger IPs from huge publishers, things are a little bit different. It would be almost impossible for AAA A to copy a known IP from AAA B and call it theirs. There's a lot more money to toss around in legalities by larger devs which the small guys don't have. New IPs can still be attacked but, again, money and manpower. I don't feel leaks of this nature against AAA devs cause much damage.

Lastly, the leak is not because of the website, its because your chain of custody has been broken. There's a hole somewhere and it needs plugging. This is ultimately the responsibility of the developer to find the leaker and discipline them. News outlets want news, clicks and views.

I would first and foremost find the leaker and get rid of them. I would then contact the sites involved in passing this leak and work out an official press release and blast it simultaneously to all websites.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Some of you people are so fucking revolting in your cowed acquiescence to the will of companies you give money to, it makes me a bit sick.

The best concise post in here.

And they spew words like "entitlement" for those expecting certain standards out of a company, we as consumers, keep in business.

Mind boggling. You serve your masters well.

 

[kavanf1]

Lastly, the leak is not because of the website, its because your chain of custody has been broken. There's a hole somewhere and it needs plugging. This is ultimately the responsibility of the developer to find the leaker and discipline them. News outlets want news, clicks and views.

I would first and foremost find the leaker and get rid of them. I would then contact the sites involved in passing this leak and work out an official press release and blast it simultaneously to all websites.

Pretty cool that you posted this directly after me, it reinforces what I was referring to about where responsibility ultimately lies.

 

[silvermember]

I'm just gonna continue to pretend he isn't.

Otherwise I'll have to stop watching on principle.

Essentially you never had s principal since you are making exceptions because of someone you like.

Nothing wrong with that humans can be hypocritical.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Is he?

Search his twitter history. When GG first came out, he was tweating pro GG and hashtagging because he felt "attacked as a male gamer". He also encouraged his followers to do so.

Not only is that Boogie thing untrue, the thought of us "blacklisting" a youtuber doesn't even make sense. How would that even work? The fact that Stephen publicly responded to him on Twitter is itself proof that this is nonsense.

Boogie receives free shit. Major Nelson showed up and gave him and Xbox. He is a known PC fanboy (loves him some Bethesda), openly admits it, and loves the publishers that send him free swag. YouTubers in general are the new PR paupers. There were articles on this very thing would come into fruition this Gen several years ago.

Now we see why he made that tweet. I stopped following most of them because of the transparency was so thin. He serves his masters well.

 

[RPGam3r]

Kotaku exposes secrets of companies and said companies don't like it. Go figure.

It's fine that Kotaku focuses on the readers/visitors and releases information publishers don't want released. In turn, it is also fine that companies blacklist a site that has burned a working relationship.

Kotaku knew what they were doing, actions have consequences.

 

[Tertullian]

I think what's rubbing some people wrong about this article is that it seems to evince a kind of double standard. The underlying assumption seems to be that journalists have no obligation to help or cooperate with publishers, but publishers have an obligation to help and cooperate with journalists.

Kotaku refuses to play ball with Ubisoft. They post leaked information, negative info about the internal workings of the company, reveal games that the company doesn't want revealed yet. And the response is "well, they don't owe anything to Ubisoft." But when Ubisoft doesn't give review copies and interviews to Kotaku, the response is "How dare they refuse to cooperate with this media outlet!?"

When Kotaku refuses to play ball with Ubisoft, they're noble principled journalists. But when Ubisoft refuses to play ball with Kotaku, they're bad evil blacklisters. Whence this double standard?

Let me be perfectly clear: I think Kotaku was absolutely right to publish all those stories, including the leaks. I think they were doing their job as journalists, and that it is in fact good and principled to refuse to kowtow to publishers' desires. That is not the part I'm disputing.

The part I'm disputing is Kotaku's license to get indignant and self-righteous when Ubisoft no longer caters to them in return. Kotaku says "We aren't PR or partners of these publishers, so we don't owe them shit and we're gonna do whatever we want with respect to them," and rightly so. But when the publishers understandably reply "Well, we aren't your partners or friends either, so we're just not gonna give you interviews and early copies of games and return phone calls," does Kotaku really have the right to respond "How dare you!?"

People seem to be just assuming that publishers somehow inherently owe Kotaku interviews and returned phone calls and review copies and press access (whereas Kotaku doesn't owe publishers shit). Thus if they deny Kotaku those things (which Kotaku is owed), then they're dirty blacklisters. But where does this obligation come from? Why does Ubisoft owe those things to Kotaku? On what grounds is Kotaku entitled to receive those things from Ubisoft, such that Ubisoft deserves to be criticized for refusing to provide them?

Anyway, sorry if this ground has already been covered a million times; I read large chunks of the thread, but not all of it.

 

[FlappyHands]

They weren't blacklisted for criticizing, they were blacklisted for revealing the existence of a game that hadn't been Announced yet.

This. How can you not expect to get burned if you take what is an open secret and run it as a main story on your site?

 

[jschreier]

snip

Again, I'd love to see exactly what parts of this piece indicate at all that we believe we're entitled to anything from these companies.

 

[eot]

Also, come to think of it, I remember the guy from being the ongoing target of disgusting torrents of mockery, degradation and fat shaming suicide pushers as per toxic internet culture... to the point where every prominent youtuber in those circles disabled their comments section in support against it. Doesn't seem like someone to tread on others, or that should be tread on.

Not saying he did or didn't but being oppressed or discriminated against (surprisingly) doesn't seem to make you less likely to do the same to others.

 

[Lagamorph]

Yeah I'm kinda on the side of Bethesda and Ubisoft here.
Leaking information that you've been given in confidence in advance of a public announcement is not journalism.

Now, if the publically announced information was radically different from what you were given in advance, and you reported on the changes, then I could totally get behind that, but that doesn't appear to be the case here.

 

[Apollo Cree]

Again, I'd love to see exactly what parts of this piece indicate at all that we believe we're entitled to anything from these companies.

You're avoiding the entire argument he's making. An article was written about being blacklisted. No matter which way you try and pose it, it still comes off as a complaint piece. Hence the entitlement callouts.

 

[Corpekata]

Yeah I'm kinda on the side of Bethesda and Ubisoft here.
Leaking information that you've been given in confidence in advance of a public announcement is not journalism.

.

Why isn't it, especially in an entertainment / enthusiast press?

Like every other hobby on the planet has press that absolutely DOES publish the sort of stuff they did and without being blacklisted.

 

[jschreier]

You're avoiding the entire argument he's making. An article was written about being blacklisted. No matter which way you try and pose it, it still comes off as a complaint piece. Hence the entitlement callouts.

You don't think we should've written an article about this?

 

[RPGam3r]

Again, I'd love to see exactly what parts of this piece indicate at all that we believe we're entitled to anything from these companies.

I'll be honest that it comes of as disingenuous to say you're not asking for things outright, despite making an entire article calling the companies out for treating you differently (and by differently I mean not giving you things).

That's my feeling on it anyway.

 

[Tertullian]

Again, I'd love to see exactly what parts of this piece indicate at all that we believe we're entitled to anything from these companies.

You call their ignoring you "galling." You characterize their behavior as a "cutting off," the terminology someone would use when describing someone denying them something they they just naturally have or need, like a utilities company cutting off your water. You write that they "have done their damnedest to make it as difficult as possible for Kotaku to cover their games," when what they've done is simply decline to actively give you anything.

Most clearly, you write "Both publishers’ actions demonstrate contempt for us and, by extension, the whole of the gaming press." In what sense does publishers not giving you things deserve the very strong word "contempt," if not because they owe you press access?

Really, the entire article assumes that there is an obligation of some sort for publishers to give journalists press access. It's tone is very obviously one of righteous indignation. Why righteous indignation, unless these publishers have done something wrong or denied you something you deserve?

Let me reiterate, again, that I have no objection whatsoever to the pieces that got you blacklisted. I think you did your job as journalists, and that you did it correctly.

What I'm not convinced of is that I should be critical of Ubisoft and company for declining to give you return phone calls, interviews, and review copies. I am not convinced that they are doing something wrong or blameworthy or unethical by choosing not to provide those things.

 

[JDSN]

This thread is why people deserve bug ridden games at launch.

 

[muteki]

This. How can you not expect to get burned if you take what is an open secret and run it as a main story on your site?

The key here is that neither party (press or publisher) did anything wrong, nor should it come as a surprise that either reacted the way they did.

(Outside the leaker, who is a jerk, but that is beside the point.)

This thread is why people deserve bug ridden games at launch.

This thread is why we deserve the Media we have.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Yeah I'm kinda on the side of Bethesda and Ubisoft here.
Leaking information that you've been given in confidence in advance of a public announcement is not journalism.

Wait, I'm not sure if I follow this. Was Kotaku given info in confidence with the expectation that it wouldn't show up on their site? Because I agree that it would be kind of shitty to be told "hey, off the record, I'll let you in on a little secret," and then they proceeded to disclose that. However, stuff willingly disclosed that isn't intended for public consumption would presumably be covered by an NDA or something similar. And if that's the case, the repercussions would be different than simply opting to blacklist and would then often proceed to some sort of legal action.

 

[Whompa02]

You don't think we should've written an article about this?

Maybe some are suggesting that your company is calling the masses to discuss a personal/business matter. Inciting a hate mass, or a topic of debate (if you want the pc terminology). They feel as if Kotaku should settle their (yours indirectly) blacklisting with the companies involved, directly. The author of the piece is treating these companies as if their aren't people behind them.

This thread is why people deserve bug ridden games at launch.

Because gaming journalism is the bastion of quality control...what?

 

[Apollo Cree]

You don't think we should've written an article about this?

I'm impartial. I believe that Kotaku has the right to act in a way that benefits itself and I afford that belief to the publishers as well. What I don't think is that you should be surprised by the responses that you're getting. Perception is reality and that is doubley true when you're a public entity.

 

[Laevateinn]

Yeah I'm kinda on the side of Bethesda and Ubisoft here.
Leaking information that you've been given in confidence in advance of a public announcement is not journalism.

Now, if the publically announced information was radically different from what you were given in advance, and you reported on the changes, then I could totally get behind that, but that doesn't appear to be the case here.

The very nature of a leak is that it's information given to a journalist with the idea that it would be published. If Bethesda or Ubisoft's PR department gave Kotaku information about upcoming projects it would come under the terms of an NDA. These articles were published based on information that explicitly came outside of the traditional PR cycle. That's why they're upset. It's like getting upset at the Guardian for publishing information leaked to them about secret spy programs because they didn't go to the NSA to ask for permission first.

 

[Nirolak]

Maybe some are suggesting that your company is calling the masses to discuss a personal/business matter. Inciting a hate mass, or a topic of debate (if you want the pc terminology). They feel as if Kotaku should settle their (yours indirectly) blacklisting with the companies involved, directly. The author of the piece is treating these companies as if they aren't people behind them.

It is a matter that's of direct interest to their readership beyond just their back end business deals:

In recent weeks, readers have asked questions. They’ve wondered why I, someone who has enthusiastically covered Assassin’s Creed games for years, didn’t review the most recent one. They’ve wondered why we didn’t seem to be subject to Fallout 4 embargoes of embargoes and why we didn’t have a review of that game on the day it came out. In both cases, we managed some timely coverage because Ubisoft and Bethesda did send review copies of their games to one of our remote freelancers, presumably with the hope he’d cover them for the other main outlet he writes for, The New York Times. Make no mistake, though, their efforts to shut out Kotaku have been unambiguous. Our colleagues across the world in Australia and the UK have been met with the same stony silence. Representatives from both publishers did not reply to requests to share their perspective for this story. Points for consistency.

People ask "Why is your Fallout 4 review eight days late?" or "Where's the Assassin's Creed review?". What do you expect them to say in this case?

 

[foltzie1]

Penny Arcade weighs in, kinda.

 

[jschreier]

Maybe some are suggesting that your company is calling the masses to discuss a personal/business matter. Inciting a hate mass, or a topic of debate (if you want the pc terminology). They feel as if Kotaku should settle their (yours indirectly) blacklisting with the companies involved, directly. The author of the piece is treating these companies as if their aren't people behind them.

You saw that it's been two years, right? We have tried many, many times in many, many different ways to talk to them and resolve things. It didn't work.

There are two main reasons we made this public. One is that it's a news story--"video game publishers blacklist outlet" is worth covering no matter who the parties are. The other is that our readers want to know why games like Fallout 4 are being reviewed so late. Both of those feel like very valid reasons for this piece to me.

 

[sol740]

The best concise post in here.

And they spew words like "entitlement" for those expecting certain standards out of a company, we as consumers, keep in business.

Mind boggling. You serve your masters well.

If one believes they are entitled to have something, and they are in fact NOT entitled to have that thing, than yes, the word entitlement may get tossed around.

In Kotaku's defense, the replies in this thread seem to absolve them of this attitude. Even if the article itself comes off a bit more questionable.

No one here is serving a master, as you so self-righteously declare, it's simply common sense to people who both understand how business works, and have a logic process beyond "but but but journalism". Which in today's world is a sadly corrupted term.

Journalists, in all areas of news media have to develop relationships with the people from whom they expect to gather information. Whether that's the politician they desire to interview, the head coach of a football team whose practice they'd like to attend, or a game developer with information they'd like to tap, the dance is the same.

Investigative Journalists (and boy am I using that term loosely, as this is simply clickbait "journalism") can hardly demand or expect the cooperation of those whose dirt they plan on digging up. That comes with the territory. No one in this business doesn't understand this.

Lastly, consuming games-related news/media is a bi-product of consuming games, and since there is no reasonable expectation of information from the companies beyond what they deem in their best interest, the only way to get a message to them (that they will actually listen to) is to refuse to buy their games. For many of us our buying decisions are largely based off of past experiences. For instance if my favorite game developer never gives anyone any details about their games, never answers any questions from the media, refuses to provide any review copies to anyone, no preview builds, alpha-access, or even says directly "We truly hate the morons that buy our games, and their children are just the ugliest", but they still release what I subjectively feel to be quality games, I'm probably going to buy them.

Any coverage in regard to the games I actually want is entirely nonessential, welcome, but nonessential. When I get burned (DA:2), I readjust my opinions about the studio/publisher, and alter my future purchasing choices.

 

[Mike Golf]

You call their ignoring you "galling." You characterize their behavior as a "cutting off," the terminology someone would use when describing someone denying them something they they just naturally have or need, like a utilities company cutting off your water. You write that they "have done their damnedest to make it as difficult as possible for Kotaku to cover their games," when what they've done is simply decline to actively give you anything.

Most clearly, you write "Both publishers’ actions demonstrate contempt for us and, by extension, the whole of the gaming press." In what sense does publishers not giving you things deserve the very strong word "contempt," if not because they owe you press access?

Really, the entire article assumes that there is an obligation of some sort for publishers to give journalists press access. It's tone is very obviously one of righteous indignation. Why righteous indignation, unless these publishers have done something wrong or denied you something you deserve?

Let me reiterate, again, that I have no objection whatsoever to the pieces that got you blacklisted. I think you did your job as journalists, and that you did it correctly.

What I'm not convinced of is that I should be critical of Ubisoft and company for declining to give you return phone calls, interviews, and review copies. I am not convinced that they are doing something wrong or blameworthy or unethical by choosing not to provide those things.

Reading their article through just now to assess the tone I had the same opinion. I understand the need for it to let their readers know why the delay in reviews or lack of reviewers covering certain games, but the rest comes off as you have described due to the word choice.

 

[CapitalismSucks DonkeyBalls]

Reading their article through just now to assess the tone I had the same opinion. I understand the need for it to let their readers know why the delay in reviews or lack of reviewers covering certain games, but the rest comes off as you have described due to the word choice.

Sensationalist word choice to arouse strong feelings among their dedicated readership. Writing 101.

 

[MrJoobJoob]

I think it's a little unprofessional on the publishers' parts to completely ignore Kotaku and all their affiliates. As Trump would say, they have absolutely no class.

 

[Kintaro]

You saw that it's been two years, right? We have tried many, many times in many, many different ways to talk to them and resolve things. It didn't work.

There are two main reasons we made this public. One is that it's a news story--"video game publishers blacklist outlet" is worth covering no matter who the parties are. The other is that our readers want to know why games like Fallout 4 are being reviewed so late. Both of those feel like very valid reasons for this piece to me.

Why a "piece" though? Why not just answer the question simply? "Well, it appears both companies have blacklisted us. Isn't the first time, won't be the last. Hasn't hurt us. Moving on!"

Instead, the piece does come off a little whiny as Tartullian notes.

 

[CGwizz]

I think what's rubbing some people wrong about this article is that it seems to evince a kind of double standard. The underlying assumption seems to be that journalists have no obligation to help or cooperate with publishers, but publishers have an obligation to help and cooperate with journalists.

Kotaku refuses to play ball with Ubisoft. They post leaked information, negative info about the internal workings of the company, reveal games that the company doesn't want revealed yet. And the response is "well, they don't owe anything to Ubisoft." But when Ubisoft doesn't give review copies and interviews to Kotaku, the response is "How dare they refuse to cooperate with this media outlet!?"

When Kotaku refuses to play ball with Ubisoft, they're noble principled journalists. But when Ubisoft refuses to play ball with Kotaku, they're bad evil blacklisters. Whence this double standard?

Let me be perfectly clear: I think Kotaku was absolutely right to publish all those stories, including the leaks. I think they were doing their job as journalists, and that it is in fact good and principled to refuse to kowtow to publishers' desires. That is not the part I'm disputing.

The part I'm disputing is Kotaku's license to get indignant and self-righteous when Ubisoft no longer caters to them in return. Kotaku says "We aren't PR or partners of these publishers, so we don't owe them shit and we're gonna do whatever we want with respect to them," and rightly so. But when the publishers understandably reply "Well, we aren't your partners or friends either, so we're just not gonna give you interviews and early copies of games and return phone calls," does Kotaku really have the right to respond "How dare you!?"

People seem to be just assuming that publishers somehow inherently owe Kotaku interviews and returned phone calls and review copies and press access (whereas Kotaku doesn't owe publishers shit). Thus if they deny Kotaku those things (which Kotaku is owed), then they're dirty blacklisters. But where does this obligation come from? Why does Ubisoft owe those things to Kotaku? On what grounds is Kotaku entitled to receive those things from Ubisoft, such that Ubisoft deserves to be criticized for refusing to provide them?

Anyway, sorry if this ground has already been covered a million times; I read large chunks of the thread, but not all of it.

Great post. If they keep ruining shit the publishers creators do with leaks and other things they have every right to not give a shit about the site.
You go and post a massive leak of a new game a company was working , ruining all the plans and work for the game announcement, ruining all the surprise just to get clicks and more traffic, and then you expect them to be all happy about it, give you free copy of the game for you to review , invite you to the interviews of the game, show you the game behind close doors etc ? lol

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

Penny Arcade sounds dumb

 

[Real Hero]

Penny Arcade weighs in, kinda.

good to know penny arcade is still shit

 

[jschreier]

Why a "piece" though? Why not just answer the question simply? "Well, it appears both companies have blacklisted us. Isn't the first time, won't be the last. Hasn't hurt us. Moving on!"

Instead, the piece does come off a little whiny as Tartullian notes.

Because, as I just said in the post you quoted, this is news. It's a news story that is interesting and relevant to many, many people.

 

[ElNarez]

Penny Arcade weighs in, kinda.

It's cool to see them siding with the little guy on this. Finally, someone is speaking out in favor of those poor publishers. Poor Bethesda, poor Ubisoft. Can't someone think of them? Some PR intern has to go hit upload on a reveal trailer weeks before it was due. Who will speak up for that intern, if not for Mike & Jerry? You should be ashamed, all of you.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Penny Arcade weighs in, kinda.

That is ripe, coming from them of all people. Then again, they have their gaming trade show to now protect. Don't want certain publishers/developers to not want to show up.

There is no big or little guy, these aren't competing entities, they are largely symbiotic. Nor does one's existence as "the little guy" entitle them to information "the big guy" has.

He was being sarcastic.

 

[sol740]

It's cool to see them siding with the little guy on this. Finally, someone is speaking out in favor of those poor publishers. Poor Bethesda, poor Ubisoft. Can't someone think of them? Some PR intern has to go hit upload on a reveal trailer weeks before it was due. Who will speak up for that intern, if not for Mike & Jerry? You should be ashamed, all of you.

There is no big or little guy, these aren't competing entities, they are largely symbiotic. Nor does one's existence as "the little guy" entitle them to information "the big guy" has.

 

[JDSN]

Penny Arcade weighs in, kinda.

That poor zen máster Bethesda, I remember the teachings of my favorite monk Gurú Lacunta "Make peace with small developer, hold on payments and buy them when they go bankrupt". Trash.

 

[Coxy100]

You saw that it's been two years, right? We have tried many, many times in many, many different ways to talk to them and resolve things. It didn't work.

There are two main reasons we made this public. One is that it's a news story--"video game publishers blacklist outlet" is worth covering no matter who the parties are. The other is that our readers want to know why games like Fallout 4 are being reviewed so late. Both of those feel like very valid reasons for this piece to me.

Whilst some may be disagreeing with you - I definitely agree with you. I love kotaku articles, out of all the gaming sites you are the one I respect (and trust) the most and long may it continue.

You're journalists at the end of the day - if you get a scoop then should you hold it back? Hell no - unless it will cause hurt or something like that. The fact that they have blacklisted you says it all to me.

To me the way they are acting is childish - although I can see their point of view slightly in that you broke their trust or whatever - didn't want to announce said game yet etc etc. But at the end of the day....you're journalists.

Unless we just want gaming sites to release reviews / previews and the odd bit of news that publishers deign to give you??

 

[His Majesty]

It's cool to see them siding with the little guy on this. Finally, someone is speaking out in favor of those poor publishers. Poor Bethesda, poor Ubisoft. Can't someone think of them? Some PR intern has to go hit upload on a reveal trailer weeks before it was due. Who will speak up for that intern, if not for Mike & Jerry? You should be ashamed, all of you.

Poor Gawker.

 

[v0yce]

The very nature of a leak is that it's information given to a journalist with the idea that it would be published. If Bethesda or Ubisoft's PR department gave Kotaku information about upcoming projects it would come under the terms of an NDA. These articles were published based on information that explicitly came outside of the traditional PR cycle. That's why they're upset. It's like getting upset at the Guardian for publishing information leaked to them about secret spy programs because they didn't go to the NSA to ask for permission first.

Is that not okay to be upset? None of that is any reason that a dev/publisher should feel the need to play ball with a suspect site like Kotaku.

This might be relevant news to the Kotaku audience, but I can't help but feel this was just some kind of political move to try and pressure Bethesda or whoever to let them back on the train.

 

[Devilgunman]

You don't think we should've written an article about this?

Tbh, I'm still figuring out what the purpose of the article is. Just to tell the world that you're deservedly banned from these publishers? To tell your readers that you're doing everything for them and those companies are the evil hindering you from your cause? Seriously, I fail to understand.

You have been blacklisted for awhile now and you know full well why it happened. Why write about it now? Why do you think we as a reader should know about this?

Editted:

Ok I was late. It's been answered above.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Is that not okay to be upset? None of that is any reason that a dev/publisher should feel the need to play ball with a suspect site like Kotaku.

This might be relevant news to the Kotaku audience, but I can't help but feel this was just some kind of political move to try and pressure Bethesda or whoever to let them back on the train.

Sad part is, there shouldn't be "a train". The fact people accept this, is quite troubling.

 

[PepsimanVsJoe]

Penny Arcade weighs in, kinda.

Lord have mercy, PA has gone completely off the rails.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Lord have mercy, PA has gone completely off the rails.

It is quite simple. PA Expos.

 

[sol740]

Sad part is, there shouldn't be "a train". The fact people accept this, is quite troubling.

What should there be in its place?

 

[MouldyK]

Tbh, I'm still figuring out what the purpose of the article is. Just to tell the world that you're deservedly banned from these publishers? To tell your readers that you're doing everything for them and those companies are the evil hindering you from your cause? Seriously, I fail to understand.

You have been blacklisted for awhile now and you know full well why it happened. Why write about it now? Why do you think we as a reader should know about this?

Because the Kotaku review for Fallout 4 had to be done a week later, so they lost all the clicks...

...so they had to speak up now to get them clicks back on another page!

 

[Coolio McAwesome]

However, stuff willingly disclosed that isn't intended for public consumption would presumably be covered by an NDA or something similar. And if that's the case, the repercussions would be different than simply opting to blacklist and would then often proceed to some sort of legal action.

That's not entirely true. Litigation is expensive and it can be a long, drawn out process. Moreover, it can be really hard to determine how much damage is caused in cases like these. And of course there's always an off chance of creating a PR nightmare by filing a lawsuit. You'd be surprised how often companies decide not to pursue legal action even when it's in their rights. I worked for a company that had a formula to determine when a lawsuit would be worthwhile. NDAs were broken all the time, but lawsuits are anything but automatic.

Blacklisting someone is an immediate (and free) way of punishing someone for acting in bad faith or breaking an NDA.

 

[DrWong]

Tbh, I'm still figuring out what the purpose of the article is. Just to tell the world that you're deservedly banned from these publishers? To tell your readers that you're doing everything for them and those companies are the evil hindering you from your cause? Seriously, I fail to understand.

You have been blacklisted for awhile now and you know full well why it happened. Why write about it now? Why do you think we as a reader should know about this?

Becaue it's an interesting story and even more, the reactions in this very thread are quite fascinating.

 

[RealityPales]

"Or perhaps they feared a repeat of 2007, when then-Kotaku editor-in-chief Brian Crecente embarrassed Sony out of blacklisting this outlet for reporting the existence of then-unannounced PlayStation projects."

I usually love Totillio, but man does he come off as a pompous Lord Farquad in an ivory Kotaku tower in this one.