Support NeoGAF

[Brazil]

One of the most frustrating things about being a journalist is that every single person and their mom have opinions about journalism despite not knowing or understanding anything about the profession and their role in a society or in an industry.

This thread is a horror parade. The number of people making themselves look bad in here is astonishing.

 

[ito007]

One of the most frustrating things about being a journalist is that every single person and their mom have opinions about journalism despite not knowing or understanding anything about the profession and their role in a society or in an industry.

This thread is a horror parade. The number of people making themselves look bad in here is astonishing.

Exactly. Also, people don't really know how marketing works, so this is doubly horrific

 

[riotous]

One of the most frustrating things about being a journalist is that every single person and their mom have opinions about journalism despite not knowing or understanding anything about the profession and their role in a society or in an industry.

This thread is a horror parade. The number of people making themselves look bad in here is astonishing.

Shouldn't this have citations?

 

[Coxy100]

Strongly disagree. Their features are really good and no one else in the mainstream games media has reported as much as them on working conditions, failed projects, and so on.

If anything, more sites should be like Kotaku with the way they've been running things.

Fully agree with you - kotatu give us proper reporting - not just previews and reviews and the odd bit of news.

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

So Bethesda blacklisted Kotaku because they published the Fallout 4 casting documents?

 

[MisterR]

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

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

A lot of people on here don't even seem to understand the concept of journalism.

 

[L Thammy]

I honestly dont know where to begin.

Well I'll be back in a few hours, you should have some to go ask your friends how to support your idea.

 

[Steez]

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

This is what you said though: "But the article makes it clear that the blacklists happened specifically after leaking the existence of games and not after the investigative pieces like about Doom's troubled development."

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

I'm aware that a series of negative articles could've lead to the blacklist, but the timing is just too curious. Especially because Kotaku gave Bethesda multiple chances to pull the plug. But they didn't. Not until the Fallout leak.

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

White-knight is a strong word, but yes? Of course? Then it would be a different and much clearer situation.

As it stands now, I'm just rolling with my gut feeling.

 

[Chû Totoro]

Ironically the one time it's actually about ethics in video game journalism people act like it's not.

One of the best post I've ever read here.

POTY for me ^^

 

[Brazil]

Shouldn't this have citations?

Consider it an editorial.

 

[Fjordson]

If this is over leaks then it's not really that surprising to me. I mean it's sort of a dick move and I don't agree with it, but these companies are obsessed with secrecy, unrealistically so at times.

If this is over negative reviews or something like that though, that's a whole other level of fucked up.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

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

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

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

I mean, Fallout 4 did alright I suppose, and that's despite knowing for years in advance that it would star a voiced protagonist (a male military veteran with a wife and baby son, from 200 years ago, being the focus) in the Commonwealth dealing with synths.

Whatever problems AC games face, I doubt "we knew it'd be in London/Paris/whatever a year ago" was one of them.


Hell, movies commonly have their entire scripts or at least synopses posted a long time in advance; I know a 100% accurate synopsis of Star Wars has been bouncing around for months now.

 

[Tecnniqe]

This thread is jaw dropping

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

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

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

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

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

I don't read much "games media" or any "media" stuff in most cases, as there's usually a 'agenda' behind it, but i really do like, and enjoy, the posts like on Destiny and such that you listed.

 

[Stuart444]

A lot of people on here don't even seem to understand the concept of journalism.

Many on here don't understand game development, budgets, process, etc. Why would you think they would understand journalism?

 

[Azuran]

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

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

But don't you see dude, they leak SURPRISES and deserve everything that's coming to them! Fuck ethics in journalism just because people didn't want to know Assasin's Creed 24 is taking place in Atlantis.

 

[MisterR]

Ironically the one time it's actually about ethics in video game journalism people act like it's not.

Damn straight. Great post.

 

[James Scott]

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

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

I don't like leaks, not game reveals. Why would I hate game reveals? I like games.
As for why I don't like leaks, it takes away from the excitement of reveals.
Take Cloud vs Ryu in Smash. Ryu was leaked and I didn't care much about him when he came out. Cloud was an excellent reveal which wasn't spoiled beforehand.
This is why I don't like leaks, not necessarily whether it's morally wrong to post them or whatever.

 

[Mushroomer25]

Uh...

Like the new Star Wars?

Fun fact, that whole story was essentially just taking advantage of conjecture. The film isn't screening for a few critics award boards (since they were a few weeks out from release) . They're still doing advance screenings for reviewers.

 

[SmoothRunningGun]

Pubs are under no obligation to give them early copies of their games. They probably determined the relationship did more harm than good.

 

[firelogic]

We were in a similar situation with one of those publishers for the past year, and it appears we just got a soft blacklisting from another major publisher. Typically what it does is make you double down on digging into them, coming away with a Fuck It attitude and rarely does it have the desired impact from publishers.



So you don't want there to be anything remotely resembling journalism for video games

You equate some kind of real life scandal/atrocity to informing gamers about an as of yet unannounced videogame? There's nothing stopping Kotaku from buying the game themselves and slamming it six ways from sunday. They're just not getting early review copies. You bite the hand that feeds you and you suffer. No surprise there.

 

[stufte]

One of the most frustrating things about being a journalist is that every single person and their mom have opinions about journalism despite not knowing or understanding anything about the profession and their role in a society or in an industry.

This thread is a horror parade. The number of people making themselves look bad in here is astonishing.

I think that's how it works for pretty much any profession. I feel that way as a game dev, especially reading through neoGAF from time to time.

 

[Cat Party]

Keep up the good work, Schreier & co.

 

[Megatron]

Bingo



Entertainment Journalism VS Politcal journalism?

You gonna make this comparison?

Why would there be a difference? Journalists are journalists. They are all prifessionals who are paid.

 

[tiredheadcrab]

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.

Yeah reading this post and shinobi above has made me reconsider my stance. I do sort of understand where the publishers are coming from.

 

[WanderingWind]

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

You're not communicating your point very well, I'm afraid. "It's also not the dev/publisher's job to supply content to the media." is what you said. Except it literally is. Literally. It is the media relation/PR/PA persons job to work with the media. This is why that position exists. This is why it exists in every level of every industry from Bethesda to the White House. Working with the media is very much their job. If there is some other point you were trying to make there, I fail to see it and I also fail to see how that sentence means anything other than what it states. You may have missed some stuff you were thinking but didn't type.

And no, a game publisher can't afford to send review code to every jerk with a Wordpress. That's never been any point of debate.

 

[Gotchaye]

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

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

Sure you can. I feel like the "what did you expect to happen?" position here is talking like the only actors are publishers and journalists. The idea is something like that publishers should only cooperate with journalists to the extent that the journalists give them friendly coverage, and so journalists should give publishers friendly coverage so that they can get access which gets them clicks.

That's not the way that most journalism works. Consumers of journalism and customers/constituents of the people the journalists are covering also matter, here. An important check on companies' or governments' ability to require friendly coverage from journalists is that, most everywhere else, people don't like it when organizations try to punish journalists for inconvenient-but-true reporting. Organizations have an incentive to be somewhat cooperative with journalists even if they don't trust those journalists to give them friendly coverage, just because it hurts those organizations more to be seen to be uncooperative. Or because then the journalists will go out of their way to be unfriendly and this will hurt the organizations more, or whatever - the point is that this sort of feedback depends on people siding with journalists against the uncooperative people they're covering.

I mean, I don't really consume games journalism myself, but it's kind of ridiculous for people who care about games journalism or care about knowing what's going on in the industry to not be annoyed at the publishers involved and supportive of what Kotaku's doing here.

 

[FLEABttn]

The scorn in this thread for Kotaku would be more confusing if not for the histrionics from the past year or so. It's pretty obvious that people aren't mad at the actions so much as they're mad at the actor. Which is fine I guess but ultimately self defeating if you want video game journalism that's more than just pure puff piece marketing nonsense.

 

[Kinyou]

If they blacklisted them because they reported about bad working conditions etc. it would be inexcusable.

If they blacklisted them because they leaked games early it's something I can understand more and was simply the risk Kotaku was taking by revealing games early.

 

[Steez]

But don't you see dude, they leak SURPRISES and deserve everything that's coming to them! Fuck ethics in journalism just because people didn't want to know Assasin's Creed 24 is taking place in Atlantis.

It's like you people purposefully skip all the posts that that are not in favor of Kotaku and longer than 2 sentences.

 

[Nibel]

Please tell me how leaking AC Syndicate internal promo images (aka bullshots) is better than a conference.

Internal promo images?

Earlier this year, we told you about Unity and Rogue before they were announced. Today we can tell you about Victory, thanks to a seven-minute "target gameplay footage" video leaked to Kotaku that demonstrates what Ubisoft's dev team expects from the upcoming Assassin's Creed game. The video is surprisingly slick and could pass for an E3 presentation, and although it may not represent what the final game looks like, the beginning of the video proclaims that it was produced entirely in Anvil, Ubisoft's Assassin's Creed engine. In other words, it wasn't pre-rendered.

http://kotaku.com/next-years-big-assassins-creed-is-set-in-victorian-lond-1665343788
Those images are screengrab from that video which don't look much better or worse than the final game.

Secondly, how does a promotional CG trailer with way less connections to actual gameplay help?

Conferences always have been giant ads with a lot of promo-gibberish-fat around them, and I rather have a good, streamlined press release about new announced games than CG trailers. Hollywood just drops infos on upcoming movies as well even if there is no script page written yet, stop the dumb secrecy and this whole "ruin the surprise" mentality, we are adults and not kids on Christmas.

 

[mikekennyb]

From what I can tell the argument here is:

Kotaku
We are not in business for game publishers, we're here to inform consumers.

Bethesda/Ubi
We are not in business to help game journalists, we're here to sell videogames.

Now certainly helping game journalists at times can lead to selling more games. But if a media outlet has specifically said they don't care about your organization's success, reputation,etc. then it's understandable that said organization is not interested in helping that media outlet with review copies, access to developers, etc. Both parties are acting in their own interests.

 

[Lime]

A lot of people on here don't even seem to understand the concept of journalism.

I thought journalism was just giving my dearly beloved multi-million entertainment product 10/10 so that my self-identification with a product doesn't get exposed to criticism.

Luckily, I don't need journalism anymore, I now got the non-journalist Youtube personalities (aka a bunch of angry white dudes) who promise me that they are not under any influence and that they champion my identity as a Gamer, completely free of all the politics and ideology!

 

[riotous]

A lot of people on here don't even seem to understand the concept of journalism.

I'm a little confused what being sent review copies of videogames even has to do with jouralism though.

Yes it's removing a privelledge; likely done as a response to the site's articles. Petty for sure; but in what normal siutations is a major aspect of a "journalists" job to "review entertainment."?

While the "This isn't political journalism" response can't be used to sweep this entire thing under the rug, it should be taken into acccount what we are talking about here. These journalists aren't being sent marketing materials anymore...

It's the Publishers business to do that, their business to complain, and a gamers business to either care or not care. The world at large is barely affected so I have trouble drumming up any anger towards this.

The fact is I find major review journalism pretty much worthless.. I hate video reviews, and many big sites focus a lot on those.. and I always feel the write ups from smaller sites that I doubt even got a review copy to be the most detailed.

 

[Uthred]

Well I'll be back in a few hours, you should have some to go ask your friends how to support your idea.

If only you hadnt left out the word time. But it's ok inspiration has struck. Describing no longer extending preferential treatment to another business which you feel has betrayed the implicit expectations of your working agreement as "shady" is arguable. Further using that as grounds for baseless speculations about what other segments of the business may or may not do is, stupid, at best.

 

[Mr Fahrenheit]

Publishers don't owe them anything. There's probably loads of news sites and blogs that would love to be able to get previews, review copies, and interviews but don't. They aren't trying to silence them or anything, they're just not inviting them to play ball

 

[Q_A]

I don't like leaks, not game reveals. Why would I hate game reveals? I like games.
As for why I don't like leaks, it takes away from the excitement of reveals.
Take Cloud vs Ryu in Smash. Ryu was leaked and I didn't care much about him when he came out. Cloud was an excellent reveal which wasn't spoiled beforehand.
This is why I don't like leaks, not necessarily whether it's morally wrong to post them or whatever.

Well its a good thing nothing is ever leaked on neogaf regarding games or their mechanics. Case closed!

 

[Skux]

How would leaking Fallout 4 even hurt Bethesda? That game is selling gangbusters, and everyone and their mother knew it was coming eventually anyway.

 

[Lime]

Pubs are under no obligation to give them early copies of their games. They probably determined the relationship did more harm than good.

It's a way of throwing their weight around to pressure Kotaku to dance to their tune.

 

[Soyongdori]

If they blacklisted them because they reported about bad working conditions etc. it would be inexcusable.

If they blacklisted them because they leaked games early it's something I can understand more and was simply the risk Kotaku was taking by revealing games early.

I'm guessing it's the latter.

 

[Pizza]

Kotaku deserves major respect. One of the very few outlets who are actually doing truthful reporting.

So much this. I check kotaku semi-regularly and pick out articles that interest me to read. I also like some authors more than others. Idk, I don't feel the need to pick the site apart because it isn't entirely hard investigative journalism on there 24/7.

I mean, if you see a clickbaity title and it triggers you, don't click it. It's ez.

 

[Ragnorok64]

I've pretty much had Kotaku and Scheier on my personal blacklist since that Dragon's Crown article likening George Kamatani and his work to a middle-schooler. So I know nothing about this leak. What is the actual impact of them being black listed by publishers?

 

[DrROBschiz]

Why would there be a difference? Journalists are journalists. They are all prifessionals who are paid.

One is essential for the public good

the other is kind of a luxury for consumers of electronic goods


For example. If all sports journalists up and quit there would be some significant shake ups in the industry it occupies sure but the impact is concentrated.

If journalists in essential fields quit you could see a drastic problem with dissemination of essential information to the public for serious events

 

[Takuan]

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

It's weird to even feel the need to support one side over the other. Each party did what they were in their rights to do; the general public won't see this or even care.

 

[RoboPlato]

It doesn't surprise me at all which publishers this was. They've been known to pull this from time to time. Kotaku has been doing great lately in my book.

 

[Prophet Steve]

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

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

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

It is punishing them in the sense that all the other outlets do get that treatment.

Also, it is not like those outlets are getting that treatment out of the good of the publishers hearts, there is no business reason for not providing the same thing to Kotaku because they haven't done anything outrageous with that treatment.

What is it that Kotaku did that took them out of the professional relationship status? Because if you would call a journalist publishing news "spitting in someone's face", well, I'd say you need to learn a bit more about journalism. They are merely doing their jobs.

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

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

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

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

I am not going to talk about different "degrees" of journalism. They all need to publish news. You get more of that by investigating for yourself. That is what the entire business about.

No publishers are not required to send them games, that is well within their right and Kotaku isn't demanding them to do so.

However, other outlets do get that treatment. Because they are being well-behaved and they don't try snooping around even when competition gives incentives to do so. What the hell kind of treatment is it to punish every outlet that does investigative journalism and only reward the ones that do so. Even when that is exactly what the job entails?

 

[Morrigan Stark]

The funniest thing is that if the blacklisting is retaliation for the leaks, well... it's as ineffective as it gets. Blacklisting will do nothing to prevent further leaks. On the contrary.

And for all the shitposts like this one:

Well....that sucks but it's Kotaku.

Well, what about this? :

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.

It's still just as disgusting when it's done to other sites, so the whole "fuck Kotaku" thing is misguided at best.

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

The point would be to expose how shitty some publishers are. It's quite informative, and therefore, responsible journalism.

But don't you see dude, they leak SURPRISES and deserve everything that's coming to them! Fuck ethics in journalism just because people didn't want to know Assasin's Creed 24 is taking place in Atlantis.

lmao

 

[kirby_fox]

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 completely disagree with this having studied journalism. Do you know what news is defined as? It's when something is worth reporting. A new product? That's worth reporting. The first thing they taught me in journalism many years ago was "what constitutes news" and the main thing was if the reader would gain knowledge from posting it, and if it was interesting to your readers. A new game being developed is interesting and would gain knowledge!

But no, we should make sure a company who is in it for consumer goods and wants to sell these things to people should be able to do what they need to in order to maximize profits? That's not the job of a journalist.

And when a company then says "Oh you reported on something we didn't want you to, so we're going to ignore you as an outlet and attempt to control you! You don't want to play by our rules, you don't exist!" Well, sounds like that's also newsworthy to see how a company works. To let readers know "Hey, we've been blacklisted because we report on news when we hear it. So that's why we haven't been getting much content from these companies."

This isn't a life or death situation, where reporting that cops are moving in on a suspect could kill a cop. This isn't releasing top secret undercover agent names. This isn't outing a CEO for being gay and cheating on his wife who has never had much spot in the limelight anyways. It's a consumer product for crying out loud.

Ethics to some of you guys is reporting on very little news unless someone wants them to report on it.

 

[Geek]

You equate some kind of real life scandal/atrocity to informing gamers about an as of yet unannounced videogame? There's nothing stopping Kotaku from buying the game themselves and slamming it six ways from sunday. They're just not getting early review copies. You bite the hand that feeds you and you suffer. No surprise there.

To answer the question: No. What the hell are you talking about?

And if you read Stephen's piece, there's more to it than just getting early review copies.

 

[Dr. Zoidberg]

On the one hand, I appreciate Kotaku pursuing real journalism, and publishing things in defiance of the publishers. On the other, Bethesda and Ubisoft have no obligation whatsoever to provide them with any further access if they so choose. I don't particularly see a problem here. More gaming news outlets should be in defiance of the studios, and therefore they would have to source their news from anonymous employees and such. This seems like a healthier relationship than the norm. If gamers want to boycott Bethesda or Ubisoft over this then that's perfectly fine too. I don't care, personally. I'm of the opinion that anything that disrupts the cozy relationship between the two sides is a good thing.

 

[MisterR]

It's like you people purposefully skip all the posts that that are not in favor of Kotaku and longer than 2 sentences.

I've read most of them and I'm not impressed. They mostly have a gross misunderstanding of what journalism is supposed to be.