Support NeoGAF

[jschreier]

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!

290,000 people have clicked on our Fallout 4 review, FYI.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

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.

But the question still remains: did Kotaku journalists violate NDAs? I understand if they are blacklisted for a betrayal of trust. But I think people are conflating "acquiring information you weren't intended to be privy to" with "leaking information you were expected to keep to yourself."

 

[Scientist Supreme!]

It is quite simple. PA Expos.

Explain.

 

[Nirolak]

You will notice with betas that when an NDA comes up, you have to "sign" it.

I can't just write a document and have it apply to everyone.

 

[Kintaro]

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.

But, you're known for a couple of years right? It's news, but old news? Why not post a note before the launch of Assassin's Creed Syndicate and Fallout 4 stating you wouldn't have a review up and why? Like other websites have in the past when a publisher does not provide copies. Why wait a full week and more for this piece? If the news was so interesting and relevant, why are you so late with it?

 

[BrokenFiction]

I get it, today is opposite day on PA.

 

[ElNarez]

Poor Gawker.

Fallout 4 and Assassin's Creed: Syndicate make more money for their publishers in one day than what the entire team at Kotaku will make in their entire career. (And I think Jason can confirm this one)

To say the blacklisting is deserved, and normal, and even good, is to say the publishers are the ones who should set the terms of what press coverage of their games will be. It's a line of thinking which, under the pretense of safeguarding secrecy, enables publishers to pull off some pretty unethical stuff, whether that's on their consumers or on their employees.

 

[v0yce]

Good post. Wonder if those last two PA comics were published before they started striking deals to make strips for major video game publishers.

Are you accusing PA of something?

 

[kavanf1]

But the question still remains: did Kotaku journalists violate NDAs? I understand if they are blacklisted for a betrayal of trust. But I think people are conflating "acquiring information you weren't intended to be privy to" with "leaking information you were expected to keep to yourself."

People are targeting the wrong entity. Seems highly unlikely, if not impossible for a NDA to have been in place when the existence of the stuff being discussed wasn't even known. Consequently it has got to have been the "acquiring information you weren't intended to be privy to" option, meaning Kotaku weren't at fault, the company who failed to keep control of its IP were at fault.

If they don't want the press intruding, they need to put in measures to minimise the likelihood that the press sees anything they don't want them to see. Gaming articles based on leaks are ten a penny - that's not the media's fault, it's the industry's for letting it happen.

 

[His Majesty]

Fallout 4 and Assassin's Creed: Syndicate make more money for their publishers in one day than what the entire team at Kotaku will make in their entire career. (And I think Jason can confirm this one)

To say the blacklisting is deserved, and normal, and even good, is to say the publishers are the ones who should set the terms of what press coverage of their games will be. It's a line of thinking which, under the pretense of safeguarding secrecy, enables publishers to pull off some pretty unethical stuff, whether that's on their consumers or on their employees.

Agreed. I've already given my opinion on the matter earlier in this thread.

Actually it is. A few months before the release of The Witcher 3 some plot-related documents with heavy spoilers got leaked on the internet. Any news outlet reporting on the specific content of that leak would be deserving of such a blacklisting.

While I have no love for Kotaku or any blog affiliated with Gawker, I feel like their leaks of Assassin's Creed and Fallout 4 are not sufficient grounds for such a blacklist.

Despite that I have a hard time sympathizing with Gawker over the matter seeing the shit they constantly pull.

 

[Haunted]

PA has been around long enough to see themselves become the villain.

 

[MouldyK]

290,000 people have clicked on our Fallout 4 review, FYI.

I was half-joking there, what with many sites doing worse things for clicks.


But, nice to give a number, I didn't expect you to reply haha.

Is that on-par with usual First Day of Reviews or do you think you'd get double that if you put it up the same time as everyone else?

I'm just curious is all.

 

[Toli08]

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.

That is the exact way I saw the article. If these sites want to be considered journalists they honestly shouldn't accept any free games. Real life journalists aren't suppose to accept gifts from these same corporations. However, in the video game industry all these so called "journalists" gladly accept the gifts. Then when they bite the hand that feeds them they go into a hissy fit.

I feel these sites have to choose either go towards the side and become a real journalistic site and stop accepting gifts from the corporations or accept all the gifts and continue being a PR arm for the corporations.

Can't have it both ways. In my opinion.

 

[sonicmj1]

Good post. Wonder if those last two PA comics were published before they started striking deals to make strips for major video game publishers.

I remember PA making comic strips for Prince of Persia: Two Thrones back when that game launched in 05 or something, before both quoted strips.

 

[DeepEnigma]

What should there be in its place?

Transparency. Journalists are not publishing/corporate PR. The "train" only serves to facilitate that.

Explain.

PA used to jump on publishers in the past with their comics, long before their Expos.

Now they have to "play nice", and support them, even if they are wrong, to make sure the hottest publishers will want to show up and pay to be at their shows. That draws attendance. That helps the bottom line.

Their whole shtick was to call out companies, gamers, and games through their comics.

 

[Lunar15]

I think blacklisting websites is petty and silly, and potentially dangerous when it's done over very sensitive issues such as labor disputes, working conditions in the industry or, hell, even review scores. However, I think what's making me so ambivalent to Kotaku's positioning is that they weren't (to my knowledge) blacklisted for digging up that kind of dirt. Kotaku has posted some great articles ABOUT working conditions in the industry, and I'm always delighted to read those, but in the case of bethesda, the "truth" being revealed was the location of an upcoming video game. While it's a leak of secret information, it's hardly a necessary truth that's shedding light on bad practices in the industry. It's really just more "hype machine" marketing-arm journalism. Just because it's something Bethesda didn't want to get out doesn't make it important. And for the record, I don't have any issues with Kotaku leaking that stuff. Leaks happen and publishers just have to get better at protecting their secrets. It's just what a site like Kotaku does and lives on.

We shouldn't applaud or defend blacklisting, as it is a bad tactic used by publishers to strong arm publications into writing specific things. But I think we can also look at a site with some skepticism when they claim to be all about exposing the "truth", when really, they're just another enthusiast tabloid with the occasional hard-hitting article.

Now, if Ubisoft blacklisted them for writing about working conditions, then yes, by all means, wear that fucking badge with honor.

 

[ScatheZombie]

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.

It's clear you've approached this as a small indie developer, so let me clarify a few viewpoints that, while you aren't necessarily wrong, are a little skewed (IMO).

The damage caused by leaks to AAA publishing isn't in the potential infringement of IP, it's in marketing deals. When you are gearing up to announce a new product or project, or announce new information about said project, certain outlets, publications or events sign contracts to guarantee they are given first priority of the announcement. This is why some outlets seem to get information first (and others pick up their news) and why some games are announced at one event rather than another. When a leak happens and this announcement is made early, that contract can be voided and incur penalties to the publisher. There is, quite literally, a real dollar amount attached to project announcement leaks. This is also a reason why delays are so costly. One project I worked on lost $8m in marketing because the game needed to be pushed back 6 months. The same thing can happen with a leak.

So it's not just a matter of 'working out an official press release' and blasting to all the publications to get ahead of the leak - those announcements are planned months in advance and wrapped up in a lot of money.

And while you aren't wrong that it is on the publisher/developer to find (and stop) leaks and the leaker - it's obviously far easier thing to suggest (and do) when the number of people aware of your unreleased product is <10 than it is when that number is >2000.

 

[Mihos]

Fallout 4 and Assassin's Creed: Syndicate make more money for their publishers in one day than what the entire team at Kotaku will make in their entire career. (And I think Jason can confirm this one)

To say the blacklisting is deserved, and normal, and even good, is to say the publishers are the ones who should set the terms of what press coverage of their games will be. It's a line of thinking which, under the pretense of safeguarding secrecy, enables publishers to pull off some pretty unethical stuff, whether that's on their consumers or on their employees.

There is no where, anywhere that says any company, person, country has to 'cooperate' with any media outlet. In fact, I find most media to 10 times less ethical than any company I have worked with. If you think the media is the right organization to keep companies or individuals 'ethical', then there is really no foundation to even begin to start a conversation..... unless you think Fox news should be able to kick in the door of the democratic party to look for ethics violations. There are departments and legal systems in place for people to be held accountable, the 'media' and some sense of social vigilantism is the absolutely wrong place.... unless you just are 'all for' one sided outrage click bait media whose primary purpose is to keep readership up at all cost.... 'outrage' has become big business, and you just better hope you are not on the receiving end of it.

 

[sol740]

Fallout 4 and Assassin's Creed: Syndicate make more money for their publishers in one day than what the entire team at Kotaku will make in their entire career. (And I think Jason can confirm this one)

To say the blacklisting is deserved, and normal, and even good, is to say the publishers are the ones who should set the terms of what press coverage of their games will be. It's a line of thinking which, under the pretense of safeguarding secrecy, enables publishers to pull off some pretty unethical stuff, whether that's on their consumers or on their employees.

Making more or less money is irrelevant to the situation.

Blacklisting is a reaction to a perceived wrong. You may perceive the original action as correct, but that is also irrelevant if your situation requires a line of access that is voluntary in nature.

Transparency. Journalists are not publishing/corporate PR. The "train" only serves to facilitate that.

So because they do not work directly for a publishing/PR arm, this means they deserve access to a developer for their own financial gain?

 

[jschreier]

But the question still remains: did Kotaku journalists violate NDAs? I understand if they are blacklisted for a betrayal of trust. But I think people are conflating "acquiring information you weren't intended to be privy to" with "leaking information you were expected to keep to yourself."

We did not violate any NDAs or embargoes, no.

 

[DarthWalden]

I can see why ubisoft blacklisted kotaku, that article on how terrible it is working at ubisoft only fed into the perception that ubisoft is a sweatshops for games and to be avoided as an employer which is not a great look for a company always looking for new talent which is potentially more damaging then any negative review or leak.

Having known a couple people that work there it's not at all a terrible place to work and they do a great job of keeping there staff busy through the boom/bust cycle of game development. That article painted a much different picture.

Why would ubisoft even want to deal with a media publication that's doing articles like this for clicks?

 

[Adam Tyner]

If these sites want to be considered journalists they honestly shouldn't accept any free games. Real life journalists aren't suppose to accept gifts from these same corporations.

They aren't gifts. Basically every newspaper and media outlet you can name reviews video games, Blu-ray discs, DVDs, CDs, etc. supplied to them at no cost. Movie reviewers rarely pay for tickets. The list goes on and on. (I would put more 'service' oriented things like hotels, restaurant reviews, etc. in a different class. I also agree that journalists shouldn't accept all-expense paid trips to press junkets.)

There are many, many things to criticize about the relationship between game publishers and enthusiast press, and I'm kind of baffled that "...but they don't pay for the games they review!" is at the top of so many GAFfers' lists.

 

[MidBoss]

People are targeting the wrong entity. Seems highly unlikely, if not impossible for a NDA to have been in place when the existence of the stuff being discussed wasn't even known. Consequently it has got to have been the "acquiring information you weren't intended to be privy to" option, meaning Kotaku weren't at fault, the company who failed to keep control of its IP were at fault.

If they don't want the press intruding, they need to put in measures to minimise the likelihood that the press sees anything they don't want them to see. Gaming articles based on leaks are ten a penny - that's not the media's fault, it's the industry's for letting it happen.

Well, it looks like they're trying to do just that.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

We did not violate any NDAs or embargoes, no.

Next question. Did you Swordfish your way into the Bethesda mainframe and decrypt a document entitled SuperSecretFallout4MarketingPlans.docx?

 

[Whompa02]

OK. I got it now. Readers OF Kotaku asked what was up with the lack of an early review for the games mentioned, and a freelancer, who writes for Kotaku but also writes for way bigger publications, got press copies, but not the main staff of Kotaku.

So basically the implication is that Bethesda and Ubisoft don't treat staff of Kotaku as reputable sources of press that give creditable reviews...or something?

Wonder if PR did comprehensive research to see if there was a writing pattern with their respected companies or even competitors with similar software being reviewed poorly on Kotaku.

Either way, it's not as egocentric as I initially thought it was, but as it stands right now, it certainly sets some interesting implications.

 

[Nirolak]

I can see why ubisoft blacklisted kotaku, that article on how terrible it is working at ubisoft only fed into the perception that ubisoft is a sweatshops for games and to be avoided as an employer which is not a great look for a company always looking for new talent which is potentially more damaging then any negative review or leak.

Having known a couple people that work there it's not at all a terrible place to work and they do a great job of keeping there staff busy through the boom/bust cycle of game development. That article painted a much different picture.

Why would ubisoft even want to deal with a media publication that's doing articles like this for clicks?

So, just to step back for a moment, it's not at all unfeasible that a 9000+ employee company has some employees that are treated very well and some that are treated poorly.

Like, we just had a blog post accusing rampant sexism at BioWare Austin, but we've never heard of this type of thing at either BioWare Canada branch, which seems to have a decidedly different reputation, and that's the same studio.

 

[ElNarez]

That is the exact way I saw the article. If these sites want to be considered journalists they honestly shouldn't accept any free games. Real life journalists aren't suppose to accept gifts from these same corporations. However, in the video game industry all these so called "journalists" gladly accept the gifts. Then when they bite the hand that feeds them they go into a hissy fit.

I feel these sites have to choose either go towards the side and become a real journalistic site and stop accepting gifts from the corporations or accept all the gifts and continue being a PR arm for the corporations.

Can't have it both ways. In my opinion.

Journalists getting free items for review/coverage purposes happens literally all the time in pretty much every industry. Hence, reviews and coverage of those items. It's free movie screenings and advance copies of TV shows, it's phones and tablets, it's toys, board games, probably even dog food.

They give that stuff away because getting people to talk about a thing raises its profile and makes it more likely that people will notice it and maybe purchase it. It's how it's been going on forever and ever. We're only making a big deal out of it in games, because the practice, as the medium of games itself, is new and most people, even on GAF (and maybe even especially on GAF) think they know how the industry work, but don't.

 

[Freezing]

it's been two years

it's a news story

Why now? What stopped this from being exposed earlier?

 

[Nirolak]

Why now? What stopped this from being exposed earlier?

They tried to work it out with the publishers first and felt it became clear that it wasn't going to go away like some previous temporary blacklists they've received.

Questions are presumably ramping up more now as well given Fallout 4 had slightly less universal acclaim than previous Bethesda titles and people who love Kotaku's reviews wanted to read it a lot.

Similarly Syndicate had a mixed reception with some notable positivity and negativity. The readers wanted to know why their long term Assassin's Creed fan wasn't the one giving them Kotaku's opinion.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Well, it looks like they're trying to do just that.

Having official channels not commenting does nothing to stop the "leaks", since they did not come from, official channels. It is petty.

 

[Makonero]

Why now? What stopped this from being exposed earlier?

They were trying to open up lines of communication. They decided to open up about it now because people were asking about the late Fallout 4 Review and why Totilo (a massive AssCreed fan) wasn't reviewing Syndicate.

 

[FStop7]

Penny Arcade weighs in, kinda.

Wow. If this malformed analogy is them weighing in, then they should probably weigh back out.

 

[ScatheZombie]

290,000 people have clicked on our Fallout 4 review, FYI.

That's kind of out of context. Is that about what you would have expected for a typical AAA review post or significantly below it?

EDIT: Nevermind, quick search says that's about what you'd expect.

So... I guess that means you don't actually need review copies to remain relevant and successful.

 

[Nirolak]

Okay, I seriously don't get the assertion that this isn't relevant news.

This thread has 1600 posts and 151,651 views.

The Kotaku article has 1291 comments and 245,138 views.

They really do post about other blacklistings too. See this 2012 story on a purported Activision blacklist of a French site followed by comments directly from Activision: http://kotaku.com/5886237/reporter-...e-i-refused-to-pull-call-of-duty-sequel-story

 

[DeepEnigma]

So because they do not work directly for a publishing/PR arm, this means they deserve access to a developer for their own financial gain?

As opposed to financial gain with backdoor deals for exclusive "news stories" reserved for certain sites who play financial ball?

I will take the afformentioned transparency comment I made, especially from a publicly traded company.

The fuck does "solid" mean then? You use that word if the framerate is, you know... "Solid."

He can't be serious. He just can't.

I remember my first time in the world of gaming.

 

[MrJoobJoob]

Why do people shit on Kotaku so much? It's not that bad here on Gaf but on Reddit it's ridiculous... literally every post that even vaguely involves Kotaku, the first comment will be something to the effect of "fuck Kotaku clickbait bullshit" etc. Even now people characterize Kotaku as "whining"

 

[Nirolak]

That's kind of out of context. Is that about what you would have expected for a typical AAA review post or significantly below it?

I went and pulled their recent AAA game reviews.

Black Ops 3: 165,867
Halo 5: 141,790
Destiny (from 2014, so lots of time for clicks): 260,268

At 291,883, Fallout 4 would be well about average.

 

[inky]

Penny Arcade should write the parable of how they started sucking a decade ago and became corporate apologists after all those collaborations and sweet money came in and forgot they were actually part of that group that gave publishers shit for the things they pulled.

 

[jschreier]

That's kind of out of context. Is that about what you would have expected for a typical AAA review post or significantly below it?

I think if we had run this on November 9, the number would be higher, but this is on the high end for review traffic and I'm more than happy with it. Also, more importantly, it's a thorough, smart review that goes way more in depth than it might have if we had to rush it for an embargo.

Another added benefit is that the comments are all intelligent conversations from people who have actually played the game and can weigh in with interesting thoughts instead of "omg I'm so excited for it to come out" or "how could you give it a 7???"

 

[DarthWalden]

So, just to step back for a moment, it's not at all unfeasible that a 9000+ employee company has some employees that are treated very well and some that are treated poorly.

Like, we just had a blog post accusing rampant sexism at BioWare Austin, but we've never heard of this type of thing at either BioWare Canada branch, which seems to have a decidedly different reputation, and that's the same studio.

Thats sort of my point though.

I'm sure with any company with 9000+ employees some are going to get treated poorly or fall through the cracks, it happens everywhere. I'm sure everyone has got a raw deal from there employer at some point.

Nobody would give a shit if this article was about apple employees but because it's about ubisoft it feeds into that narrative that it's a videogame sweatshop and makes it very click worthy articles le. Even though it's a poor representation of the way the entire company runs. This is what people want to read however and that's how kotaku makes there money.

 

[Coolio McAwesome]

We did not violate any NDAs or embargoes, no.

Did you violate any non-legally binding agreements? In other words, did you publish information or content that was relayed to you in good faith with an understanding that you wouldn't publicize it?

 

[Jacksinthe]

It's clear you've approached this as a small indie developer, so let me clarify a few viewpoints that, while you aren't necessarily wrong, are a little skewed (IMO).

The damage caused by leaks to AAA publishing isn't in the potential infringement of IP, it's in marketing deals. When you are gearing up to announce a new product or project, or announce new information about said project, certain outlets, publications or events sign contracts to guarantee they are given first priority of the announcement. This is why some outlets seem to get information first (and others pick up their news) and why some games are announced at one event rather than another. When a leak happens and this announcement is made early, that contract can be voided and incur penalties to the publisher. There is, quite literally, a real dollar amount attached to project announcement leaks. This is also a reason why delays are so costly. One project I worked on lost $8m in marketing because the game needed to be pushed back 6 months. The same thing can happen with a leak.

So it's not just a matter of 'working out an official press release' and blasting to all the publications to get ahead of the leak - those announcements are planned months in advance and wrapped up in a lot of money.

And while you aren't wrong that it is on the publisher/developer to find (and stop) leaks and the leaker - it's obviously far easier thing to suggest (and do) when the number of people aware of your unreleased product is <10 than it is when that number is >2000.

My brain hasn't jumped that far into this, outside of what is in my control. Valid point, my man.

I still think leaks need to be dealt with at the source but your experience does shed light on leaks and show how damaging they can be.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I think if we had run this on November 9, the number would be higher, but this is on the high end for review traffic and I'm more than happy with it. Also, more importantly, it's a thorough, smart review that goes way more in depth than it might have if we had to rush it for an embargo.

Another added benefit is that the comments are all intelligent conversations from people who have actually played the game and can weigh in with interesting thoughts instead of "omg I'm so excited for it to come out" or "how could you give it a 7???"

I have been saying how important this is for decades.

Penny Arcade should write the parable of how they started sucking a decade ago and became corporate apologists after all those collaborations and sweet money came in and forgot they were actually part of that group that gave publishers shit for the things they pulled.

Right on.

 

[Toli08]

Journalists getting free items for review/coverage purposes happens literally all the time in pretty much every industry. Hence, reviews and coverage of those items. It's free movie screenings and advance copies of TV shows, it's phones and tablets, it's toys, board games, probably even dog food.

They give that stuff away because getting people to talk about a thing raises its profile and makes it more likely that people will notice it and maybe purchase it. It's how it's been going on forever and ever. We're only making a big deal out of it in games, because the practice, as the medium of games itself, is new and most people, even on GAF (and maybe even especially on GAF) think they know how the industry work, but don't.

Think you are misunderstanding my point. It's fine to accept these gifts. However, it seems to me like Kotaku wants to be a legit video game journalistic website that covers real issues instead of being a PR website. If that is what they want they should stop accepting all free gifts from every developer/publisher. It is fine to accept the gifts if you wish to be a PR/review website ex.IGN and others in that nature.

 

[v0yce]

I have been saying how important this is for decades.

So cutting the lines between publisher and news sites it good it appears.

Good job Bethesda.

 

[Visceir]

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.

Or to improve Kotaku's bad rep and rebrand themselves.

 

[jschreier]

Did you violate any non-legally binding agreements? In other words, did you publish information or content that was relayed to you in good faith with an understanding that you wouldn't publicize it?

Of course not. Every report cited in Stephen's article is a report based on information from sources who knew they were giving me news to make public.

 

[Otheradam]

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

I wouldn't worry too much about it. the people defending Bethesda are probably 14 year olds behind the screen. I'm not the most favorable of Kotaku, especially towards the end of Crecente's reign but Tortillo seems like he genuinely wants to put out good stuff besides the click bait crap that they have to do.

 

[ElNarez]

Thats sort of my point though.

I'm sure with any company with 9000+ employees some are going to get treated poorly or fall through the cracks, it happens everywhere.

Nobody would give a shit if this article was about apple employees but because it's about ubisoft it feeds into that narrative that it's a videogame sweatshop and makes it very click worthy articles le. Even though it's a poor representation of the way the entire company runs. This is what people want to read however.

"people have it worse somewhere else" is nothing more than a diversion tactic, and not even an original one. Ubisoft's image is not, and should not be, Kotaku's problem. Kotaku has nothing to do with the fact they crank out extremely repetitive games year after year with diminishing returns, while treating some of their employees poorly. It's all on them, and our reaction should not be to think "well, someone somewhere may have it worth so it's not worth talking about this", but instead to demand better.

 

[SubiyaCryolite]

Why do people shit on Kotaku so much? It's not that bad here on Gaf but on Reddit it's ridiculous... literally every post that even vaguely involves Kotaku, the first comment will be something to the effect of "fuck Kotaku clickbait bullshit" etc. Even now people characterize Kotaku as "whining"

"Getting blacklisted by Kotaku is one of the remaining items on my bucket list...... I'm neutral on most things, but not on Kotaku. They're the Fox News of gaming." ~ https://archive.is/ER14n

Turns out Notch isn't much of a fan either. Im not really sure what they did to get on quite a few publishers, developers and readers in generals shit list.

I used to visit the site a lot back in the day. I remember following all of Soul Calibur IVs character announcements on the site. I drifted away when the front page started getting spammed with weird Anime and Japanese content. After a while that content moved over to Japanator but the damage was done. But yeah, whether it be on reddit or most forums in general Kotaku gets a lot of heat.