Support NeoGAF

[Syriel]

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.

Statements like that on email have no legal weight whatsoever. As long as nothing directly illegal was done (say hacking an email server) to get access to the email, it is free and clear to use.

And your statement about "responsible journalists" is laughable. Journalists do not just publish the company line and/or wait for permission. No, a journalist won't publish every single bit of information (the SPJ has some excellent ethical guidelines), but a journalist is never beholden to the whims of a company.

Eh...forums and YT/Twitch celebs can help suss out views and opinions of games and systems after the fact, but there is a larger amount of bias in both and most of the time we wouldn't get the kinds of articles detailing the process of both successful and failed projects in the industry. This includes any negative or positive stories out of the industry and those working in it.

Not allowing legit sites to do any kind of serious reporting and leaving it up to those who aren't paid to do some legwork or online celebs who are both beholden to their viewers and sponsors means we might as well not have any hard news in gaming. Publishers and game creators shouldn't be granted some sort of immunity because they hold the keys to the industry.

To be clear, and I say this as someone with plenty of experience on the media side, no company can prevent "serious reporting" by refusing to speak with a journalist. That is a fallacy.

Anyone who studies journalism, or trains to be a journalist, learns that from the very start. You have to chase the story. You don't expect it to be handed to you on a silver platter (and if it is, you should be asking why).

Eh... I mean I'm not sure how one is supposed to react to something like this. I'm glad Kotaku is breaking news without worrying about the publisher's approval. Good for them.

On the other hand, if a publisher doesn't want to play ball with Kotaku, they have every right to make that choice and I'm not going to get mad about it. Kotaku doesn't have some special right to access. They're not a victim here.

Both statements in this post are correct.

 

[Exile20]

Anything that hurts Gawker is cool with me.

Too many posters in this thread are like this guy. The point of the article isn't about them. It is what publishers are doing but continue to concentrate on Kotaku instead of the issue at hand.

 

[NormalFish]

Bro your on a specialized forum for gaming enthusiasts where the majority of posters don't know anything about the hobby they love so much and your shocked these same people don't know anything about journalism?

Not to mention some people get so emotionally invested they defend multi-million dollar corporations like they're childhood friends.

 

[Acerac]

Can you point to where I said that? No? You'll do well in today's journalism.

Publish what you want. They're going to keep on keeping on. Which is exactly what they should be doing. Their job. But sooner or later, your access may get cut off because of what you wrote. If you're not okay with that, you're a shitty journalist.

All I'm saying is, if this is because of their leaks and those leaks cost the publishers a lot of money? Then it's no surprise they got cut off. It certainly hasn't stopped Kotaku from covering their games because THEY know they need to do so because the games are new, hot and they need to make money.

I misunderstood. I thought you said Kotaku was the one doing it wrong when you were laying down a much broader criticism of the industry.

*Shrug*

Given the shape of the thread it was a fairly easy mistake to make. No need to be too haughty over somebody seeing what you said and thinking you were one of the mindless bashers.

 

[codhand]

A couple of things worry me in this thread. Some folks seem to have zero idea what journalism entails. It is not just regurgitating press releases at the whim of corporate entities. If Kotaku - or any site that deigns itself a "journalism " site - gets verifiable or sourced information, they will usually run it.

There are some news embargos that happen in every form of press, but they're usually either for stories still developing necessary facts or between two friendly parties, like a reporter that works closely with a government agency. But they're not a matter of course like they are in the video game industry.

It is not against some nebulous set of laws, morals or ethics for reporters to report facts. It is very much the exact reason why journalism as a field exists and it's exactly why in America the 4th estate is constitutionally protected. We, as readers, shouldn't be beholden to what information corporations drip feed us.

We should expect this behavior, no fuck it, we should be demanding this behavior from any person who claims they are a "journalist." Your personal feelings on Kotaku as a site are wholly irrelevant. So is the fact that any reporter can work around a blacklisting. Those aren't the issues here.

Yes, it's just video games and not breaking, world-shaking news. But we can't have it both ways, folks. You either want gaming journalism to grow the hell up - in which case, this is exactly what you're asking for, or you're content with the status quo set in years past.

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.

once again, gaf-hop on the right side of history.

 

[PdotMichael]

I don't see how companies should be forced to work with people who are just plain leaking everything to get hits and ad money.
Trust is something that goes both ways.

It isn't like the listed leaks are anything than trivial nonsense, basically the video games version of some secret pictures of celebs.

 

[YianGaruga]

I would recommend that a lot of the people posting in this thread actually read the entire article instead of just the excerpt. Specifically this part:

Some will think about all of this only in terms of numbers, focusing on the hundreds of thousands of pageviews we’ve gotten for our stories about leaked game announcements. Those stories have indeed done well. They are nevertheless a small part of what we do, and not something to which we devote much journalistic energy. I prefer to marshal our reporting to tell readers things they’ll otherwise never know or that they need to know sooner—the underpowered nature of upcoming hardware, the plight of fired game developers, the reason a high-profile game was released in rough shape.

At times, though, we’ll stumble on information about a new, unannounced game or, more often, will find some unsolicited information in our inbox. The news value to such leaks is often exceedingly obvious in what it says about the state of a game, a franchise, a console or a company. In such moments, it is nearly unfathomable to me that a reporter would sit on true information about what’s really happening in gaming, that we would refrain from telling our readers something because it would mess with a company’s marketing plan.

Too many big game publishers cling to an irrational expectation of secrecy and are rankled when the press shows them how unrealistic they’re being. There will always be a clash between independent reporters and those seek to control information, but many of these companies appear to believe that it is actually possible in 2015 for hundreds of people to work dozens of months on a video game and for no information about the project to seep out. They appear to believe that the general public will not find out about these games until their marketing plans say it’s time. They operate with the assumption that the press will not upend these plans, and should the press defy their assumption, they bring down the hammer. We make our own judgments about what information best serves the news value of a story, and what our readers would prefer not to know—which is why, for example, we omitted key plot details from the Fallout 4 scripts that were leaked to us. We keep covering these companies’ games, of course. Readers expect that. Millions of people still read our stories about them. The companies just leave themselves a little more out of the equation.

Most people only read the thread title lol

don't even bother

 

[JoduanER2]

The article says otherwise:

You weren't cut off for your harsh reviews or revealing some terrible secret about working conditions or such.
You were cut off for publishing leaks about upcoming games. That's not "real reporting" that's just posting information that was obtained by questionable means (breaking NDAs and such) for the sole purpose of getting more views. It didn't reveal anything that would improve the gaming industry, it's just for clicks.
Leaking pre-release game information is not serving your readers - that's what reviews and critiques are. These kind of leaks are just serving yourself.

No. Responsible journalists decide what should and what shouldn't be published based on the importance and content of the leaked information. A responsible journalist doesn't just publish every piece of secret information that falls into his hands.
If you got a leak about something bad or revolutionary happening in the games industry - of course you should publish it without the company's permission. But this is not even remotely the case here.
So please explain to me what was the ethical justification in publishing those specific leaks. What was so important in those leaks that you had to publish them despite knowing that it shouldn't be public yet.
Not all leaks are equal and the ones mentioned in the article aren't some groundbreaking reveals. You just decided to screw over those publishers for more viewers. That's absolutely fine - it's your choice. But don't come crying later when those publishers no longer want to cooperate with you.
If it was about blacklisting for bad reviews (like Jim Sterling) or revealing some horrible working conditions than I would agree with you. But it's not.

This guy/girl know whats up.

 

[UnemployedVillain]

What do people propose is the best recourse for companies to do in the face of leaks? I'm genuinely curious to see if the response isn't simply "Deal with it. Shit happens.".

I'm just trying to understand what you imagine a publisher should do when, they reveal to you information early on a regular basis and allow you to criticize them with no recourse, when you get information that one of its employees illegal sends you and you expose it. Like, should they be expected to ignore it? Take it as a likelihood of being in a public facing industry? Disregard it and continue trusting you with other information?

Maybe it's because I'm not in journalism, but I'm legit confused what the expected reaction should be

 

[thabiz]

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.

Bravo.

This industry and it's fans are off its collective fucking rocker. I have never seen people bend over and take it like the gaming industry. It's fucking pathetic and I'm ashamed I even visit this board some days.

 

[silvermember]

The article says otherwise:

You weren't cut off for your harsh reviews or revealing some terrible secret about working conditions or such.
You were cut off for publishing leaks about upcoming games. That's not "real reporting" that's just posting information that was obtained by questionable means (breaking NDAs and such) for the sole purpose of getting more views. It didn't reveal anything that would improve the gaming industry, it's just for clicks.
Leaking pre-release game information is not serving your readers - that's what reviews and critiques are. These kind of leaks are just serving yourself.

No. Responsible journalists decide what should and what shouldn't be published based on the importance and content of the leaked information. A responsible journalist doesn't just publish every piece of secret information that falls into his hands.
If you got a leak about something bad or revolutionary happening in the games industry - of course you should publish it without the company's permission. But this is not even remotely the case here.
So please explain to me what was the ethical justification in publishing those specific leaks. What was so important in those leaks that you had to publish them despite knowing that it shouldn't be public yet.
Not all leaks are equal and the ones mentioned in the article aren't some groundbreaking reveals. You just decided to screw over those publishers for more viewers. That's absolutely fine - it's your choice. But don't come crying later when those publishers no longer want to cooperate with you.
If it was about blacklisting for bad reviews (like Jim Sterling) or revealing some horrible working conditions than I would agree with you. But it's not.

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.

This guy/girl know whats up.

He/she doesn't and you definitely do not. It would be nice to write up your own opinion instead of simply piggybacking on another's.

 

[dLMN8R]

The article says otherwise:

You weren't cut off for your harsh reviews or revealing some terrible secret about working conditions or such.
You were cut off for publishing leaks about upcoming games. That's not "real reporting" that's just posting information that was obtained by questionable means (breaking NDAs and such) for the sole purpose of getting more views. It didn't reveal anything that would improve the gaming industry, it's just for clicks.
Leaking pre-release game information is not serving your readers - that's what reviews and critiques are. These kind of leaks are just serving yourself.

No. Responsible journalists decide what should and what shouldn't be published based on the importance and content of the leaked information. A responsible journalist doesn't just publish every piece of secret information that falls into his hands.
If you got a leak about something bad or revolutionary happening in the games industry - of course you should publish it without the company's permission. But this is not even remotely the case here.
So please explain to me what was the ethical justification in publishing those specific leaks. What was so important in those leaks that you had to publish them despite knowing that it shouldn't be public yet.
Not all leaks are equal and the ones mentioned in the article aren't some groundbreaking reveals. You just decided to screw over those publishers for more viewers. That's absolutely fine - it's your choice. But don't come crying later when those publishers no longer want to cooperate with you.
If it was about blacklisting for bad reviews (like Jim Sterling) or revealing some horrible working conditions than I would agree with you. But it's not.

I think a new game announcement is pretty important. I'm a reader. So it serves me. And it's cool to find out the existence of something before it's officially announced.

I work for Microsoft. I'm bummed when the existence and details of a product I'm working on or know about get leaked. It can wreck a lot of work by Marketing and PR or misrepresent the product due to incomplete or inaccurate information.

But it's not the prerogative of the journalist to consider my feelings. It's up to the employees to respect their employer's wishes and not fuck up the marketing plan.


Jason is being a responsible journalist by telling his readers about something his readers will be interested in. It's not his responsibility to respect Bethesda's marketing and PR teams.

When an employee is a piece of shit,

(and let's be perfectly clear here, any employee who deliberately and maliciously leaks information about upcoming product announcements is a really awful piece of shit with no regard for their coworker's hard work, and is just an egotistic self-serving fame-starved person who is probably missing something important from their lives)

and wants to ruin a lot of his coworker's work, he or she will find a way to do it regardless of outlet. If he or she didn't leak it to Kotaku, it would've gone to somewhere else. And then Jason would have been an idiot for squandering what could have been a major financial boon to his site and a major interest of his readers.

Let the employers deal with the employees, and let Jason and Kotaku do their job.

 

[heyf00L]

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.

 

[Gaiaknight]

Josh Thomas of the Bitblock got blacklisted by Nintendo recently

 

[FonkyByNature]

http://kotaku.com/5888677/how-i-achieved-greatness-on-a-sonic-the-hedgehog-themed-bed

Holly shit at this article !!! Like WTF man...

 

[Kimawolf]

In forums, I tend to immediately assume that people with Kotaku-related problems have Gamergate sympathies.

I find I'm doing it with developers, too.

(Not that this is a shock, given that one of the developers is responsible for this protagonist, who looks like a bro taking up too much room on a subway.)

No points for you.

Anyhow welcome to the world of journalism in a hobby ybay isn't quite big enough to support a truly independent media. One day it'll be as big as sports and you can do exposés on companies without bring blacklisted.

 

[ALLseeingEYE]

what the fuck. You are not allowed to criticise the game in professional manner?

Since when has Kotaku been a bastion of professionalism and integrety? They are owned by Gawker afterall. I like Totillo, but he has a history of posting articles using anonymous, unverifiable and questionable sources, and thier blog style can be a pure shitfest at times. There are some good writers on the site at times, (I like Schrier), but I'm not surprised a site with such low integrety would get blacklisted. If anything it should be expected.

 

[Death Penalty]

The article says otherwise:

You weren't cut off for your harsh reviews or revealing some terrible secret about working conditions or such.
You were cut off for publishing leaks about upcoming games. That's not "real reporting" that's just posting information that was obtained by questionable means (breaking NDAs and such) for the sole purpose of getting more views. It didn't reveal anything that would improve the gaming industry, it's just for clicks.
Leaking pre-release game information is not serving your readers - that's what reviews and critiques are. These kind of leaks are just serving yourself.

No. Responsible journalists decide what should and what shouldn't be published based on the importance and content of the leaked information. A responsible journalist doesn't just publish every piece of secret information that falls into his hands.
If you got a leak about something bad or revolutionary happening in the games industry - of course you should publish it without the company's permission. But this is not even remotely the case here.
So please explain to me what was the ethical justification in publishing those specific leaks. What was so important in those leaks that you had to publish them despite knowing that it shouldn't be public yet.
Not all leaks are equal and the ones mentioned in the article aren't some groundbreaking reveals. You just decided to screw over those publishers for more viewers. That's absolutely fine - it's your choice. But don't come crying later when those publishers no longer want to cooperate with you.
If it was about blacklisting for bad reviews (like Jim Sterling) or revealing some horrible working conditions than I would agree with you. But it's not.

This is an amazing post and I wholeheartedly agree with it. This being the case, I have no sympathy for Kotaku and understand the decisions of these publishers to blacklist them. Why should these companies be obligated to provide anything to a website that operates this way? They've done nothing that isn't perfectly fair, a working relationship should be voluntary and mutually beneficial.

That said, I'm sure Kotaku will do just fine regardless. There's just no moral high ground here for them.

 

[Backflip]

The site I work for, Gameblog.fr (the second biggest website in France) has been blacklisted by Ubisoft for the last two years. We are not invited to press events anymore, we don't get interview opportunities, we don't get review copies until games have been released (sometimes we don't get anything at all) and it looks like we don't get press releases anymore (it's funny because we were talking about it yesterday at the office).

All of that because some of our sources told us Ubisoft's plans for the Assassin's Creed IP (our situation is quite similar to Kotaku's). It should be noter that Ubisoft tried to pressure my editor in chief into revealing who gave him all that information. But he protected his sources' indentity.

 

[PdotMichael]

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.

Well, blacklisting Kotaku would be a first step.

 

[daveo42]

The article says otherwise:

You weren't cut off for your harsh reviews or revealing some terrible secret about working conditions or such.
You were cut off for publishing leaks about upcoming games. That's not "real reporting" that's just posting information that was obtained by questionable means (breaking NDAs and such) for the sole purpose of getting more views. It didn't reveal anything that would improve the gaming industry, it's just for clicks.
Leaking pre-release game information is not serving your readers - that's what reviews and critiques are. These kind of leaks are just serving yourself.

No. Responsible journalists decide what should and what shouldn't be published based on the importance and content of the leaked information. A responsible journalist doesn't just publish every piece of secret information that falls into his hands.
If you got a leak about something bad or revolutionary happening in the games industry - of course you should publish it without the company's permission. But this is not even remotely the case here.
So please explain to me what was the ethical justification in publishing those specific leaks. What was so important in those leaks that you had to publish them despite knowing that it shouldn't be public yet.
Not all leaks are equal and the ones mentioned in the article aren't some groundbreaking reveals. You just decided to screw over those publishers for more viewers. That's absolutely fine - it's your choice. But don't come crying later when those publishers no longer want to cooperate with you.
If it was about blacklisting for bad reviews (like Jim Sterling) or revealing some horrible working conditions than I would agree with you. But it's not.

I don't get the reason why reporting verified leaks is bad or not newsworthy. Part of journalism is determining if a story is actually newsworthy. Will readers/viewers care about this? That's usually the first and biggest question that comes up. If they do get their hands on a leaked game, should they roll over and not publish the content because publishers might be mad or it'll generate hits on their site? No, because, newsflash everyone, views mean money for all websites and without views or some other way of making money, the site goes under.

I don't agree with some of the stuff they do post, but it's not their fault for releasing leaked game info that's been vetted. It's newsworthy for the industry they report in and it's the company's fault for letting info slip on their game.

 

[Stallion Dan]

There is nothing wrong with a company blacklisting you. It however does show that the current system for video game "journalism" in which companies and "journalist" works is not healthy for US, the consumer. Just imagine if every news was simply a copy and paste of the press release, written by the government.

Well I think there is a major difference between journalism and being a game critic, problem is too many sites think they are both.

A site doing previews, reviews, personal impressions etc that rely on publishers feeding them information and early gameplay videos/demos really should not be linked with a site who is out to expose these same companies for shitty practices. It's biting the hand that feeds them. A major conflict of interest.

 

[Steez]

I don't read Kotaku cause 75% of the site is trash from Ashcraft. I still think this is an incredibly stupid move. Nobody expects you to praise Kotaku into heavens for this. I certainly won't.

A whole lotta people ITT do, though. With just as straight of a face as Schreier's when he typed up this gem.

Because we do real reporting and refuse to act as publishers' marketing arms.

 

[killroy87]

I would recommend that a lot of the people posting in this thread actually read the entire article instead of just the excerpt. Specifically this part:

Some will think about all of this only in terms of numbers, focusing on the hundreds of thousands of pageviews we’ve gotten for our stories about leaked game announcements. Those stories have indeed done well. They are nevertheless a small part of what we do, and not something to which we devote much journalistic energy. I prefer to marshal our reporting to tell readers things they’ll otherwise never know or that they need to know sooner—the underpowered nature of upcoming hardware, the plight of fired game developers, the reason a high-profile game was released in rough shape.

But the two examples given in the same article for your blacklisting were for game leaks, so that's kind of what the discussion has to revolve around. You didn't get blacklisted for uncovering terrible work conditions.

 

[Interficium]

I'm ashamed I even visit this board some days.

Not as ashamed as you should be for your casual homophobia but ok.

Please go back to 4chan with that shit.

 

[Gaogaogao]

I feel like this has happened before. grow up publishers.

 

[NormalFish]

Well, blacklisting Kotaku would be a first step.

I didn't know denying a company keys stops your employees from being loose lipped.

 

[jschreier]

But the two examples given in the same article for your blacklisting were for game leaks, so that's kind of what the discussion has to revolve around. You didn't get blacklisted for uncovering terrible work conditions.

There were more than two stories involved here, as anyone who actually reads the article will find out.

 

[TheExecutive]

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

What? Why wouldn't an independent firm leak information that they think would be valuable to their constituents? You clearly haven't thought that comment out.

 

[Markitron]

The article says otherwise:

You weren't cut off for your harsh reviews or revealing some terrible secret about working conditions or such.
You were cut off for publishing leaks about upcoming games. That's not "real reporting" that's just posting information that was obtained by questionable means (breaking NDAs and such) for the sole purpose of getting more views. It didn't reveal anything that would improve the gaming industry, it's just for clicks.
Leaking pre-release game information is not serving your readers - that's what reviews and critiques are. These kind of leaks are just serving yourself.

No. Responsible journalists decide what should and what shouldn't be published based on the importance and content of the leaked information. A responsible journalist doesn't just publish every piece of secret information that falls into his hands.
If you got a leak about something bad or revolutionary happening in the games industry - of course you should publish it without the company's permission. But this is not even remotely the case here.
So please explain to me what was the ethical justification in publishing those specific leaks. What was so important in those leaks that you had to publish them despite knowing that it shouldn't be public yet.
Not all leaks are equal and the ones mentioned in the article aren't some groundbreaking reveals. You just decided to screw over those publishers for more viewers. That's absolutely fine - it's your choice. But don't come crying later when those publishers no longer want to cooperate with you.
If it was about blacklisting for bad reviews (like Jim Sterling) or revealing some horrible working conditions than I would agree with you. But it's not.

Pretty much my thoughts, but said much better. The article seemed really self-congratulatory to me.

 

[Uthred]

Cause blacklisting is a form of censorship. Trying to mold the message in such a way that you have control over and not allowing for dissenting opinions is a form of censoring. It's not institutional censorship or classically defined but it sure is in the same spirit and people should not want companies to act this way.

Bullshit. Not everything is "censorship". The publishers are in no way "not allowing for dissenting opinions" they clearly have no control over what Kotaku do or do not publish. It's an exercise in PR not censorship. Really what "blacklisting" amounts to is that it ends the previously beneficial relationship between the two parties. No business has any obligation to provide a media outlet with access or with pre-release copies, if the PR arm of the business feels that allowing the media outlet this access is harmful to their image theyre entirely within their rights to withdraw it.

Considering the amount of bitching about the unfairly cushy treatment games journalists get from publishers people this is a step in the right direction. All games media outlets should be "blacklisted" as then it removes the bizarre dynamic between the publisher and the journalists.

I feel like this has happened before. grow up publishers.

Not to single you out but responses along this line keep popping up. Why do you feel that any media outlet is entitled to special treatment from a publisher?

 

[Stallion Dan]

I don't get the reason why reporting verified leaks is bad or not newsworthy. Part of journalism is determining if a story is actually newsworthy. Will readers/viewers care about this? That's usually the first and biggest question that comes up.

That is like saying there is no difference between a gossip magazine and an actual news report.

One has information that is worthwhile to know, the other is to just make money.

 

[Gentleman Jack]

What do people propose is the best recourse for companies to do in the face of leaks? I'm genuinely curious to see if the response isn't simply "Deal with it. Shit happens.".

What other recourse do you expect them to take but the ones already taken by companies? It's not like they risk much doing any of the following:

Clamping down Blizzard/Nintendo style. These companies run extremely tight ships and probably owe a lot to employee loyalty to keep something like, say, Starcraft II under wraps despite a lengthy period of large teams working on it.

Just deal with it. EA probably wasn't hurt by the Titanfall leaks, if their crowing about sales are any indication.

Blacklist. This is the path Ubi/Bethesda have chosen. Again, it probably won't impact their bottom line even a little bit. If PS3 Skyrim didn't, nothing will.

I'm just trying to understand what you imagine a publisher should do when, they reveal to you information early on a regular basis and allow you to criticize them with no recourse

What? What??

 

[Maztorre]

The article says otherwise:

You weren't cut off for your harsh reviews or revealing some terrible secret about working conditions or such.
You were cut off for publishing leaks about upcoming games. That's not "real reporting" that's just posting information that was obtained by questionable means (breaking NDAs and such) for the sole purpose of getting more views. It didn't reveal anything that would improve the gaming industry, it's just for clicks.
Leaking pre-release game information is not serving your readers - that's what reviews and critiques are. These kind of leaks are just serving yourself.

No. Responsible journalists decide what should and what shouldn't be published based on the importance and content of the leaked information. A responsible journalist doesn't just publish every piece of secret information that falls into his hands.
If you got a leak about something bad or revolutionary happening in the games industry - of course you should publish it without the company's permission. But this is not even remotely the case here.
So please explain to me what was the ethical justification in publishing those specific leaks. What was so important in those leaks that you had to publish them despite knowing that it shouldn't be public yet.
Not all leaks are equal and the ones mentioned in the article aren't some groundbreaking reveals. You just decided to screw over those publishers for more viewers. That's absolutely fine - it's your choice. But don't come crying later when those publishers no longer want to cooperate with you.
If it was about blacklisting for bad reviews (like Jim Sterling) or revealing some horrible working conditions than I would agree with you. But it's not.

Not one thing you wrote matters. The press is free to report on this kind of information as it sees fit, they do not have to pass some kind of "worthiness" test before publishing. The only unethical action that has taken place here is Bethesda/Ubisoft's childish attempts to punish those in the press who report on their products outside of their sanctioned messaging. Information leaking to the press is a fact of life for any public-facing company, they can either choose to accept that and move on, or get rightfully called out when they throw their toys out of the pram.

 

[nikos]

Bethesda continues to have the worst business practices in the industry.

 

[Acerac]

Hey Schreier,

If Kotaku is staffed with REAL HARD-HITTIN' GAMES JOURNALISTS like you have consistently tried to portray yourselves as the last couple years, why even bitch about "blacklists?"

Isn't the whole cozy, buddy-buddy relationship between publishers and journalists exactly the thing you're trying to rally against? Why are you bothered AT ALL by being blacklisted if you're "investigative journalists"?

You... don't understand why this is a problem?

It seems your hate for Kotaku blinds you.

 

[His Majesty]

It's not the media's job to suppress leaks or decide what should or shouldn't be published.

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.

 

[Gbraga]

It sucks that blacklisting is their default response to when the press says stuff they don't like, but another interesting story it tells is that a much higher percentage of the press should be blacklisted, then. But they're not, because they choose review copies of games over a real story. Not all of them, of course, I'm aware there are probably many of them who wouldn't choose the publisher if given the choice, but just never had any story to write that would piss them off.

Kinda hard to do real journalism if two of the biggest players on the videogame market to refuse to give any sort of comment for any sort of story you might be writing (including those about them).

Well, yeah, journalism is hard. I'm not saying I would do it with my hands tied, I don't think I'd ever be able to write stuff as good as jschreiers articles. I've actually been interested in writing about games before, but gave up on that thought quickly because I can't write for shit.

But look. Did they need to consult Ubisoft for comments before running the leaks? Why is it so important now to get their input before running a story? Schreier himself said they're managing just fine.

They'll most likely realize that not commenting is actually making their image worse, since they're losing the chance to spin shit positively in usual PR manner. Kotaku can even make it look worse to people unaware of the blacklisting, by always adding "Bethesda/Ubisoft refused to comment", which just makes them look shady, no matter the issue.

"No comment," or no response at all, is actually standard fare in most journalism. Journalists get ignored and denied way more often than they get full access. That's standard fare.

Exactly.

 

[capitalCORN]

Bullshit. Not everything is "censorship". The publishers are in no way "not allowing for dissenting opinions" they clearly have no control over what Kotaku do or do not publish. It's an exercise in PR not censorship. Really what "blacklisting" amounts to is that it ends the previously beneficial relationship between the two parties. No business has any obligation to provide a media outlet with access or with pre-release copies, if the PR arm of the business feels that allowing the media outlet this access is harmful to their image theyre entirely within their rights to withdraw it.

Considering the amount of bitching about the unfairly cushy treatment games journalists get from publishers people this is a step in the right direction. All games media outlets should be "blacklisted" as then it removes the bizarre dynamic between the publisher and the journalists.

You do realize the alternative they want is worse than the reality now, right?

 

[scitek]

I don't know about the doubling down thing. Jim Sterling is practically a spokesperson for Konami now.

 

[Takuan]

Seems like an apt response, really. If this was over bad reviews that'd be shitty, but it's over leaks that directly sabotage their plans. It'd be nice if they weren't blacklisted, but I can't blame publishers for doing it.

 

[fvng]

Has anyone checked to see if Kotaku has been bashing their last two years of releases for what might be retaliatory reasons? I would love to see if there are reviews on Ubi or Bethesda games where the gripes were irrational or unreasonable.

 

[Tigress]

lol, how is it so? I would imagine that Kotaku got the leaked information from an insider at the company, and that insider wouldn't give two shits about the blacklisting... considering they were a leaker in the first place. That doesn't make any sense. If anything, being blacklisted might just make Kotaku go "oh yeah, well fuck you then" to the company even more (not that I'm saying they'd be that petty, but they sure as hell won't go "oh noes we're blacklisted now, let me hesitate before leaking shit or not...").

Alright, you gotta point. But my biggest point is I don't think it's something I'd call the publisher evil for or think they should be booed. Though you pointed out it's probably stupid on their part.

 

[thabiz]

Not as ashamed as you should be for your casual homophobia but ok.

Please go back to 4chan with that shit.

Sorry please point out my casual homophobia?

 

[Mivey]

Well, blacklisting Kotaku would be a first step.

How does that ensure they will never publish a leak again?

Mafia tactics would work better:

 

[lantus]

This instantly reminded me of 5-6 years ago with the same thing happening to 1UP. I believe that was also Ubisoft wasn't it? Man just goes to show you how things don't change that often as far as journalism is handled in this industry.

 

[Novel Mike]

In this information age the reason for publishers to try and force this total control aspect that they desire is completely unreasonable. You know what the biggest surpise to me about Fallout 4 was? That it was coming out a mere 6 months after it was announced. It didn't matter I already knew it was set in Boston before the trailer ever came out or any of the story details what mattered was that the release date was so close that is much more reasonable to want to control then the fact that a game exists or not.

But instead most of the publishers in our industry want nothing to slip out even though it CONSTANTLY DOES, hell even the biggest reveals of Shenmue, FF7 remake, and Last Guardian were leaked right before Sony's conference began but many of us didn't believe it because there are always rumors about that, it didn't hurt for those to get leaked in fact if anything it added to the hype.

 

[L Thammy]

Not as ashamed as you should be for your casual homophobia but ok.

Please go back to 4chan with that shit.

Is this a response to "bend over backwards"? Are gay people the only ones that can have anal sex?

 

[DrROBschiz]

What other recourse do you expect them to take but the ones already taken by companies? It's not like they risk much doing any of the following:

Clamping down Blizzard/Nintendo style. These companies run extremely tight ships and probably owe a lot to employee loyalty to keep something like, say, Starcraft II under wraps despite a lengthy period of large teams working on it.

Just deal with it. EA probably wasn't hurt by the Titanfall leaks, if their crowing about sales are any indication.

Blacklist. This is the path Ubi/Bethesda have chosen. Again, it probably won't impact their bottom line even a little bit. If PS3 Skyrim didn't, nothing will.



What? What??

Yup

Games journalism is somewhat inconsequential in many examples.

Not all. Its clear certain things go viral and consumer voices matter.... that said... like many forms of entertainment lots of things are quickly forgotten as we move on the the next big thing

 

[heyf00L]

Well, blacklisting Kotaku would be a first step.

Oh yeah, I agree with that too. It's also not the dev/publisher's job to supply content to the media. They can blacklist whomever they want for whatever reason.

There's no real blame here or right/wrong. If Kotaku wants to publish things that piss off publishers, that's fine as long as they realize those publishers won't be their friends anymore. Don't complain when that happens (this is the only wrong thing I see).

If the publishers stop sending Kotaku material, that's fine, just don't complain when Kotaku doesn't promote your games (which they didn't, Kotaku started this).