-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Kotaku has been blacklisted by Bethesda Softworks and Ubisoft
- Thread starter Nirolak
- Start date
Mushroomer25
Member
The point of this move is clearly intended to silence future leaks. If IGN learns ahead of time that Rainbow Six is fucked - they'll be more hesitant now knowing that Ubisoft is completely willing to blacklist them for unapproved coverage.
I don't think it was wrong for Kotaku to post leaked information.
I don't think it's wrong for the companies whose info was published to be radio silent to Kotaku. I think it's dumb that they won't answer questions or speak to them, but I don't see it as any sort of ethical or moral failure.
I'm glad Kotaku posts this stuff when they get it though. I like knowing things, and Kotaku isn't obligated to go along w/ the marketing timeline. If anything, the fact that they're 'blacklisted' lets me know what I'm reading is actually credible, and not just regurgitated press releases.
I don't think it's wrong for the companies whose info was published to be radio silent to Kotaku. I think it's dumb that they won't answer questions or speak to them, but I don't see it as any sort of ethical or moral failure.
I'm glad Kotaku posts this stuff when they get it though. I like knowing things, and Kotaku isn't obligated to go along w/ the marketing timeline. If anything, the fact that they're 'blacklisted' lets me know what I'm reading is actually credible, and not just regurgitated press releases.
Posting leaked screenshots is not journalism. Schreier writes some great stuff, but other than that? Come on, Kotaku. You pay Mike Fahey to make amateur videos on toys for children.
The product providers give you their stuff to get coverage. If you derail their marketing plan, they're going to pull the plug. Whatever high and mighty stance you want to take after that is up to you, but using the tone of "we tell the truth!" when you're talking about leaking a video game of all things is ridiculous.
The product providers give you their stuff to get coverage. If you derail their marketing plan, they're going to pull the plug. Whatever high and mighty stance you want to take after that is up to you, but using the tone of "we tell the truth!" when you're talking about leaking a video game of all things is ridiculous.
I dont see how the publishers are being "shitty", I also dont see whether its responsible journalism or not has to do with anything. Though being informative has next to nothing to do with responsible journalism, the former is a matter of content and the latter is a matter of ethics. While there's frequently an overlap there's no correlation.
CG trailers are good at communicating the underlying "theme" and message that the game is trying to go for. And I don't necessarily mean "story." Really they're good at illustrating a concept, so that later, they can show how the gameplay backs up that concept.
Example: overwatch reveal trailer shows the tone, theme, character and more by showing the concepts. It says "a competition with varied and storied characters." It has some "gameplay elements" but they are greatly exaggerated or toned down for the sake of the trailer.
Immediately after that, they will then show how the gameplay feeds into this concept. One might ask "why can't they do all this in one trailer?" Doing so would just be information overload, that's the reason why they split it up into two, so you can digest one. The combination of the two trailers ultimately lead the consumers to thoroughly and accurstley decide what type of product it is, which leads to purchases because the people that like that type of product will buy it, and allows people who don't like it to not, and quickly be in their merry way and not complain with things like "this is nothing like what they said it would be"
Why would they not complain? Because the CG trailer and gameplay trailer were both honest depictions of the game.
Imagine then just showing the gameplay trailer and not the CG trailer. I think it would still get a good reception, but not as feverent, because the CG trailers shows an underlying reason why this game is compelling that controller movements can't communicate as well
PetulantChild
Banned
Can you blame them? If only they would do the same thing to hellholes like Rock Paper Shotgun.
UnemployedVillain
Member
They weren't blacklisted for reporting negative rumblings about a game in development though. They were blacklisted, according to them, for revealing a game before the publisher wanted it to be
Croatoan
They/Them A-10 Warthog
Why is there so much secrecy in this industry? If you ask me leaks seem to get hype machines started pretty well.
I will never understand why what devs are working on is treated like the list of CIA operatives doing field work abroad. Knowing game A is being made by dev B and has plot C hurts nobody.
I will never understand why what devs are working on is treated like the list of CIA operatives doing field work abroad. Knowing game A is being made by dev B and has plot C hurts nobody.
igordennis
Member
The Victory thing is not news to me, you had posted that here on gaf before but wow at that bethesda thing.
It's in the public's best interest that companies answer inquiries about their products - specially those from vehicles that are prone to end up getting blackmailed due to serving their public more than the companies themselves (AKA their job).
If a company is ignoring questions from a specific website, they're effectively ignoring their own consumers. It's unprofessional, petty and, yes, unethical.
It's within their legal rights, sure - but that doesn't make them right.
Mechanized
Member
Some of the responses in this thread are really embarrassing. The hate for Kotaku is strong for some reason.
Losing access to early copies for reviews is shitty, as a business they need to be competitive, but at the same time they get to offer a different perspective on those properties so it does give them a competitive edge in that sense.
Losing access to early copies for reviews is shitty, as a business they need to be competitive, but at the same time they get to offer a different perspective on those properties so it does give them a competitive edge in that sense.
But obviously reviewing games is a huge part of games journalism. I mean, just look at it. This sort of thing is actually pretty standard for an enthusiast press. The main thing consumers want out of this sort of journalism is to know about new stuff as soon as possible. In a vacuum, this gives companies a lot of power over the press because they can control which press outlets can actually deliver the content that consumers of journalism want. A lot of the serious journalism type stuff these press outlets do would not be nearly as profitable (and I'd guess not at all profitable in most cases) without that. Having access to preview events, getting review copies, etc., is all really helpful for being a significant player in video games journalism.
Sure, it's just video games. But that applies to the publishers too. I mean, I kind of get not caring if video game journalists can afford to be actual journalists with luxuries like integrity, but I think then you've got to equally not care if Ubisoft's precious marketing plans work out exactly as intended. And I don't think that justifies telling other people not to care.
MisterR
Member
I'll give you credit for one thing. You were self aware enough you name yourself correctly on the forum.
Soyongdori
Member
I just don't like their kotaku east shitty posts.
You know good for them for having this to use as a brag but man the shit article to good article ratio in that site is of. I recommend hiring a editor (someone reviews your article before you post it) so we don't get as many terrible articles.
But what would we do without 400 posts each week on cosplay, toys, GIFs and "amazing!" concept art?
Interficium
Banned
Let me simplify it even more:
Kotaku
We want clicks.
Bethesda/Ubi
We want to sell copies.
Kotaku is totally within their rights to publish whatever the fuck they want within the limits of the law, including leaked shit, to garner clicks which generate revenue for them.
Publishers are totally within their rights to not work directly, or have buddy-buddy preferential "relationships" with outlets that they believe have damaged their ability to sell copies of games which generate revenue for them.
The difference is that Kotaku is trying to paint the publisher's right to not work with people they don't believe will have a benefit to them as somehow "strong-arming," "blacklisting," and "hampering independent journalism."
Like you said, BOTH parties are ACTING IN THEIR OWN INTERESTS, no matter how hard Kotaku tries to wrap themselves of the flag of "we serve the gamers/the public."
Nintendo do it as well. All publishers do.
Quantifying hurt is tough here, but it certainly can do some damage. Look at SF5, revealing the characters slowly keeps up interest in the game and brings a lot of attention. Once stuff gets leaked, it blows up for a few days and then goes away (just compare SF5 threads preleak and post).
Sometimes it doesn't have anything to do with hurting the sales, but it could just be something the pub/dev want to do. Plan a big announcement for the game that gets leaked, well then the big announcement kind of loses its impact.
I know I am bringing up SF5 too much, but Ono also seems to be pretty sad the leaked happened. He seems to genuinely love the build up and the trolling.
DrROBschiz
Member
The nefarious consequence being that someone might buy a game they might otherwise have not bought?
Hmmmmm..... I dunno man...
Big deal to an enthusiast... a disappointment and an easily returned product for the regular person
This is not how even "entertainment news" works in the real world. The wider entertainment press do not get blacklisted by entertainment companies for reporting news that does not coincide with their marketing plans. The entertainment industry at large simply accepts that if a leak happens, the first journalistic entity that gets access to that leaked information will of course publish it, since if they don't the next guy inevitably will and reap the rewards. This is a fact of life when you have a free press.
The rest of your post is nonsense that tries to downplay the work of others' who should seemingly know their place in "gutter" journalism and fall in line. Any journalist, in any field, would publish this kind of information without hesitation.
There only parties at fault are Bethesda/Ubisoft. This is yet another petty overreaction from an industry that by now is so used to having a symbiotic relationship with the press that they believe they can police individual publications to keep the others in line.
Felix Lighter
Member
This is exactly it. I'm blown away by the people that are apparently cool with publisher blacklists. That Kotaku's concern should be to the publishers they cover if they want access. The people questioning why Kotaku would even report on their blacklisting. This is an appeal to the consumer to push back against this type of thing to prevent publishers from attempting to control the message by only granting access to the publications they feel will give them the best coverage. The consumer /reader is the one that is to keep these companies in check and so many people don't want to hear about it or worse yet, love the idea.
Have to laugh at the "quit defending these major corporations" folks when everyone involved is part of a major corporation. And the major corporation Kotaku is a part of (Gawker), is bottom of the barrel, when it comes to journalistic integrity.
Oh no, their PR and Marketing department is affecting our advertising and sales department. Quick, to the bat-mobile.
Oh no, their PR and Marketing department is affecting our advertising and sales department. Quick, to the bat-mobile.
Acerac
Banned
You know good for them for having this to use as a brag but man the shit article to good article ratio in that site is of. I recommend hiring a editor (someone reviews your article before you post it) so we don't get as many terrible articles
You could use an editor for your post... -_-
NaDannMaGoGo
Member
Good on you Kotaku. The less incestuous this relationship between you so called games journalists and the videogame publishers gets the more legitimate you appear in my eyes.
This. I'm going to agree with this... when they're leaking plot details and stuff before the game. If they aren't playing ball with the publishers, why should the publishers play ball with them? You're ruining their marketing campaign (not by giving it bad press, but by leaking images before hand)
Writing articles about how a game production was doomed or talking about devs being treated unfairly (that still go against what a publisher wants) is totally fair game.
On one hand I'll click those Kotaku articles, but on the other hand, I am totally fine with publishers not being happy with them and not giving them early access. (sigh, I guess they'll just have to wait like the rest of us)
mikekennyb
Member
Agreed
DrROBschiz
Member
Maybe the tepid response is due to a reasonable apathy to the said consequences
Not by us.. not enthusiasts of course
Because if not then any story that paints them in a bad light (ie bad working conditions, employee fired without cause, etc), the story will still be published but by refusing to even read e-mails from them, they won't get to put their side of the story across and thus will look worse than if they had put their side across.
PeskyToaster
Member
You know, I've always wondered about the weird secrecy the video game industry has compared to other entertainment industries. They lock shit down pretty tight. I mean Fallout 4 was announced like 6 months ago. Have you ever heard of a movie doing that? Box office numbers are pretty open as well as TV show ratings but we have to stealthily leak video game sales numbers and people could get fired over it. What the hell is that about? I'll stand behind good reporting any day since Kotaku seems to be the only site that actually reports stuff instead of parroting PR releases and GAF threads. Quite the turnaround from the past I have to say. It's a difficult stigma to get away from but I think Kotaku does the 'realest' journalism in the entire gaming press, a term used extremely loosely for most outlets. The industry needs to smell some of it's own bullshit.
I'll slightly alter a quote and say a room full of journalist and game industry members should be uncomfortable because the journalists should have pissed off more than a few of them.
I'll slightly alter a quote and say a room full of journalist and game industry members should be uncomfortable because the journalists should have pissed off more than a few of them.
Ubisoft and Bethesda's stockholders aren't in it for the public's best interest. They're in it to make money.
Of course it's petty. I just don't expect corporations worth hundreds of millions of dollars to put the public interest as their number 1 priority. Kotaku is doing good work, both in reporting the leaks, and reporting on the current relationship with said companies.
Uncalled for. I have no horse in this race. I'm not even looking at it from a freedom of the press/journalism point of view. I'm simply looking at what I know when it comes to publishing confidential materials and why it's not ok. And since you like to mock and post sarcastic responses when you have literally nothing to back any of it up, here:
"[T]he term 'trade secret' means all forms and types of financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information, including patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, procedures, programs, or codes, whether tangible or intangible, and whether or how stored, compiled, or memorialized physically, electronically, graphically, photographically, or in writing if
"(A) the owner therefore has taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret, and
"(B) the information derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable through proper means by, the public[.]"
What more could you want?
GatticusFinch
Member
This isn't government news. It's not like Kotaku has subpoena power or can fire off FOIA requests to Ubisoft to demand information about Assassins Creed. If they want Ubi or whoever to be free flowing with those stories, they have to play ball with Ubi because they are the gate keeper. If they don't care about Ubi giving them access, they can run with the leaks. That's just the nature of the beast and that's the game that both sides are playing. There is no "good guy" or "bad guy" here. Both sides did what they wanted to do and the fact that they have been "blackballed" is just the cost of publishing the leak.
People keep throwing the word "journalism" around, but let's call it like is--this is consumer/entertainment news. That's a very different animal than investigating the government where you can force them to turn over documents. This isn't a journalism issue, this is a PR issue. Kotaku wants the clicks, the publisher wants to control the media campaign, and they butted heads. Can't fault either of them for doing what they did.
DrROBschiz
Member
Different industries set their own terms on whats important to their business and product?
Who knows. Any Marketing experts in here?
Do I get paid to write on gaf genius?
Sorry, but I don't think you read my updated post... there's cases where I agree that publishers shouldn't play ball (like leaking a script 2 years in advance) but where I side with Kotaku not wanting to play ball (like a bad review or exposing poor working conditions)
Prophet Steve
Member
Because it is penalizing them for doing what they need to do for staying competitive, which is finding news.
You don't see any possible negatives to publishers giving preferential treatment to all the outlets that only publish what they want them to publish? Hell, it sounds almost like a bribe that way.
No, but that doesn't mean you couldn't use an editor.
Helps when you aren't making stupid claims while the article is made by the editor-in-chief who posts in this very thread.
I don't see any issue with this if the websites have posted stuff that isn't all that great for publishers then they aren't going to be treated as partners.
I'm not personally sure of any news articles that would cause this but I think they leaked Unity very early in production?
Also for a publisher it might be trying to protect there employees to some degree as such large websites can have a cult following and overly negative news stories/rumours/misinformation could lead to attacks on there social media platforms.
Don't get me wrong, the press should be able to post whatever they see fit but you can't really blame the publishers if they don't want to deal with certain websites that have been somewhat backstabbing there trade? Kotaku/Polygon can still run all the gaming related stories they want about those publishers they just aren't granted access to the inner workings.
I'm not personally sure of any news articles that would cause this but I think they leaked Unity very early in production?
Also for a publisher it might be trying to protect there employees to some degree as such large websites can have a cult following and overly negative news stories/rumours/misinformation could lead to attacks on there social media platforms.
Don't get me wrong, the press should be able to post whatever they see fit but you can't really blame the publishers if they don't want to deal with certain websites that have been somewhat backstabbing there trade? Kotaku/Polygon can still run all the gaming related stories they want about those publishers they just aren't granted access to the inner workings.
Also to people going on and on about how "no early reviews" etc.
Would you be okay with that for every outlet? Or would you be one of the people asking "WTF? WHY NO EARLY REVIEWS? Something must be wrong with the game" etc?
Answer honestly because I'm sure a lot of people here would be annoyed if no one got any early reviews up.
My point was blacklisting them means they won't even play ball when it could affect them negatively ie giving a comment to a story that could make them look much worse if they don't comment as opposed to commenting on it.
Also yeah, you updated after I posted that lol.
(for the record, I wish there would be less leaks overall but I'm not going to begrudge Kotaku for doing their jobs)
Would you be okay with that for every outlet? Or would you be one of the people asking "WTF? WHY NO EARLY REVIEWS? Something must be wrong with the game" etc?
Answer honestly because I'm sure a lot of people here would be annoyed if no one got any early reviews up.
My point was blacklisting them means they won't even play ball when it could affect them negatively ie giving a comment to a story that could make them look much worse if they don't comment as opposed to commenting on it.
Also yeah, you updated after I posted that lol.
(for the record, I wish there would be less leaks overall but I'm not going to begrudge Kotaku for doing their jobs)
GillianSeed79
Member
Ironically, if anything, this makes the present day Abstergo is a video game publisher stuff in Black Flag even more meta, you know the story about a shadowy illuminati organization run by Templars, the main villains in Ubisoft's annualized franchise going on like 8 years, who want to stamp out free will and control human thought and actions.
For a company whose main annualized product seems to champion freedom and free will, they certainly do seem to act behind the scenes more like the fictional Templars than their protagonists.
For a company whose main annualized product seems to champion freedom and free will, they certainly do seem to act behind the scenes more like the fictional Templars than their protagonists.
I agree, and I'm personally not telling anyone not to care. But there's a flip side to that as well, it's sort of silly to put people down for not caring.
I don't think game publishers or game journalists are really my ally as a conumer personaly. Nor do I care about how quickly I find out about "Stuff." In fact as I stated I think that's part of the problem (for me), the most useful reviews to me are ones that often come out weeks later.
Dr. Zoidberg
Member
Apple is one of the biggest blacklisters of all. They have blacklisted mags, sites, and individuals over all sorts of petty things and have done so since the 80's. No huge outcry. In fact, the blacklisted people are, in most cases, still buying and using Apple products to this day. You can still cover Apple products without being given early review samples and being invited to special events.
<giggle>
DrROBschiz
Member
On principle yeah
In reality though... seems like the the volume of outlets is so huge and robust that is mostly inconsequential
They will never have full control. There is no realistic worse case scenario here. Its alot like Apples futile attempts to control the info that gets out.. and they blacklist people too.
Entertainment reporting is pretty luxurious