Support NeoGAF

[Interficium]

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.

Yeah, but how does this fit into my overly-simplistic black-and-white worldview where publishers are cartoonishly hand-wringing greedy supervillains and Kotaku are the superheroic champions of the poor, downtrodden gamers?

 

[Lime]

Can you blame them? If only they would do the same thing to hellholes like Rock Paper Shotgun.

Hellholes? Why is RPS a hellhole?

 

[Jazz573]

I never understood the Kotaku hate. Unfortunate news.

 

[Prophet Steve]

Can someone tell me what got them blacklisted

There is this nice article in the OP, I recommend reading it.

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

While the volume of outlets is huge, the amount of investigative journalism is relatively low.

And when they are penalized for doing so, the barrier of entrance is much higher. A small outlet can't afford to be blacklisted by publishers as they don't have the resources to make up for it. Which is a problem.

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

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.

*imonmyphonebutThisIsNeoGAF.gif*

Anyways, yall keep pressing, sneaking, and...er...fucking there Kotaku. This is a sign youre doing something right.

 

[Steez]

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

Oh, is that so?

It's fine if Kotaku wants to report about leaks of that nature, but the amount of people patting their back like they just unveiled Kotick's secret slave ring is certainly higher than actual fuck Kotaku shitposts.

 

[JABEE]

Please don't stop leaking things. The media is not supposed to be another arm of these publishers.

 

[Geek]

Can someone tell me what got them blacklisted

Yeah, Stephen Totilo will tell you http://kotaku.com/a-price-of-games-journalism-1743526293

 

[GatticusFinch]

The wider entertainment press do not get blacklisted by entertainment companies for reporting news that does not coincide with their marketing plans.

That's because the wider entertainment press never get their story at all. Have you never heard of something being released without making review copies/screenings/products available? Happens all the time. Some terrible dogshit movie coming out with all the reviewers being given nothing because they are afraid of the response happens every month.

Could you imagine the response if those movie reviewers who never got a review screening of Shitty Movie posted a review based on an illegal torrent or something? Heads would roll.

 

[codhand]

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.

are you suggesting that Apple blacklisting publications makes the practice of doing so not a big deal?

 

[Mushroomer25]

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

Still, how is it any different? Ubisoft doesn't want advance information in the public eye, regardless of of it's about a game in development, or one weeks from release. If IGN found out in advance that a Ubisoft game was going to be wildly broken upon release - I see no reason why Ubisoft would be less lenient in their punishment.

 

[DrROBschiz]

Please don't stop leaking things. The media is not supposed to be another arm of these publishers.

Its never going to stop

Its entertainment media

Kotaku wasnt the shining light amongst the drones in the industry. No offense to them

 

[Vintage]

I'm with you, Kotaku.

 

[a916]

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.

I do. Which is why I see merit in both sides. I couldn't possibly tell what side is "more right" than the other.

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)

I honestly can't say either way... like the person above me posted, this is more about PR than hard hitting journalism. I absolutely hate that part of "journalism" these days, the, I got a giant spoiler/leak, and I'm going to break it because who cares if I ruin the experience for everyone! It doesn't really benefit anyone.

 

[Rudiano]

If you're going to leak shit then its expected. Weren't they the one who leaked Assassin's Creed Victory (now Syndicate)?

 

[Head.spawn]

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 proactively pursuing people to undermine their professional business contracts, leakibg sensitive information and then publishing said information would fit that description pretty well, from a publishers perspective.

"Merely doing their jobs"

And the publishers job is to present their content in the best light possible, why would you aid a specific company that undermines that intent? They can still review games, still find interesting stories without regurtitated PR laced handout sheets. They had no PR aid to post damming info, they shouldn't rely on it to post regular pieces.

If anyone claims they can't see the publishers perspective in this, they're simply covering their ears and playing dumb.

Regular Kotaku reader here btw.

 

[balohna]

If this is about negative impressions or painting the companies in an unfavourable light, then fuck the publishers.

If this is about stuff like:

"Here, leaked news that was exposed through literal unlawful means. It's about a video game, so it's important!"

...then meh.

 

[DrROBschiz]

There is this nice article in the OP, I recommend reading it.



While the volume of outlets is huge, the amount of investigative journalism is relatively low.

And when they are penalized for doing so, the barrier of entrance is much higher. A small outlet can't afford to be blacklisted by publishers as they don't have the resources to make up for it. Which is a problem.

That might just be because the demand for said journalism is low

Probably because product reviews are more than adequate to inform a buyers decision in a mass market sense

Only those in deep truly care about digging deeper

 

[Stuart444]

If you're going to leak shit then its expected. Weren't they the one who leaked Assassin's Creed Victory (now Syndicate)?

If you read the article, you would see they actually say that yes they did leak that.

 

[JoseLopez]

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.

Am I not allowed to mock kotaku in his presence? Idk if this dude was in power then but can a site with an article called "creepiest fruit in China" be taken seriously? No it can't

 

[Gotchaye]

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.

I feel like this doesn't address what I was saying. Sure, the stakes are low - it's just video games. But some people care about this stuff! And the question is, basically, whether they want video games journalism to be just an extension of publishers' marketing departments or whether they want it to be independent. People who care about this stuff should be annoyed at efforts by publishers to control coverage like this. The whole point is that you don't have to take this fatalistic "that's just the nature of the beast" position here - consumers have some ability to determine how publishers respond.

 

[Nostremitus]

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



No, publishers look like a fairly rational business who made the decision that they no longer wanted to extend preferential treatment to another business that they felt had broken faith with them. Thats how working relationships between business' work, there's nothing "childish" about it. People assigning emotions such as "spite" or "childishness" to a business decision strikes me as bizarre, though par for the course I suppose.

Taking your ball and going home is inherently childish. If you have a leak, fix it. Don't blame the press who are just doing their job by reporting it.

Also, as journalists they report on the behaviors of publishers. Considering these blacklistings have been in effect so long as they have shows that Kotaku actually withheld reporting on it while trying to professionally mend the relationships. At a point when it becomes clear that the publishers attempt to punish a news outlet for reporting their shortcomings, that's when it should be reported. The public deserves to know how the companies they finance through game purchases behave.

And yes, leaks are a publisher's shortcoming. If the publisher didn't have a leak, no info would get out. Any news outlet the refuses to print news because it may upset the game publisher is a shill who is nothing more than a marketing firm.

 

[Prophet Steve]

I do. Which is why I see merit in both sides. I couldn't possibly tell what side is "more right" than the other.



I honestly can't say either way... like the person above me posted, this is more about PR than hard hitting journalism. I absolutely hate that part of "journalism" these days, the, I got a giant spoiler/leak, and I'm going to break it because who cares if I ruin the experience for everyone! It doesn't really benefit anyone.

I don't see what is not right about Kotaku's side. They haven't gone against any agreements with the publisher. They are also doing what outlets should be doing which is finding news.

Meanwhile publishers are punishing them for doing so.

If you're going to leak shit then its expected. Weren't they the one who leaked Assassin's Creed Victory (now Syndicate)?

Yeah, that is in the article.

 

[Boke1879]

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.

This is essentially what it is. Unfortunate news but this is the game they both play

 

[Cynar]

To be clear, we've been blacklisted by both companies. Because we do real reporting and refuse to act as publishers' marketing arms. If anyone has any questions, let me know.

That's cute. Like what was said, nothing of value was lost.

 

[WanderingWind]

I'd say proactively pursuing people to undermine their professional business contracts, leakibg sensitive information and then publishing said information would fit that description pretty well, from a publishers perspective.

"Merely doing their jobs"

And the publishers job is to present their content in the best light possible, why would you aid a specific company that undermines that intent? They can still review games, still find interesting stories without regurtitated PR laced handout sheets. They had no PR aid to post damming info, they shouldn't rely on it to post regular pieces.

If anyone claims they can't see the publishers perspective in this, they're simply covering their ears and playing dumb.

I can also see why any corporation would want to utterly control its own messaging. That doesn't make it right, or worth defending. I don't see a single person who doesn't get why a publisher would want to have games media as just an extension of their public relations reach. Of course they would. It serves their best interests.

It doesn't serve ours, as consumers.

 

[Rudiano]

If you read the article, you would see they actually say that yes they did leak that.

Didn't read their essays of butthurt. Gaf OP was enough

 

[xJavonta]

To be clear, we've been blacklisted by both companies. Because we do real reporting and refuse to act as publishers' marketing arms. If anyone has any questions, let me know.

you do. the rest of the staff, not so much (or at all, honestly lol)

edit: tbh, i haven't been much to kotaku these days. in the past, the 'articles' have been massive piles of shit with clickbait headlines. honestly buzzfeed tier trash.

edit 2: oh shit, patrick klepek is at kotaku now?? might have to start reading.

 

[Stuart444]

Didn't read their essays of butthurt. Gaf OP was enough

If it was enough, you would not have needed to ask for confirmation.

 

[Wednesday]

Gawker sites should be blacklisted from everything tbh.

 

[zackmorris]

Ok, well know that we heard what Kotaku has to say, I would be curious to see the real reason. Many journalists and websites are given access to information on the good will that the information will be kept private until the devs want it to be public. If Kotaku has ever made any of that info public, than good they should be blacklisted.

I like some of their writing, but that article where they wrote about someone who snuck into a studio and looked at an unannounced game was just disgusting on their part and makes me question what they might have done to those devs to deserve this "blacklist".

 

[Ninja Scooter]

Didn't read their essays of butthurt. Gaf OP was enough

We have the industry we deserve when you get responses like this.

 

[Leonsito]

I'm with Kotaku on this one.

 

[Dangansona]

Kotaku is interesting because they have all the awful articles that have lead to people here hating their website, but then they also have people like Jason, Stephen, and Patrick who actually at this point write some of the best and most important articles in the industry.

In any case, leaking scripts is not cool of Kotaku. But everything else they have done mentioned in this article is absolutely necessary and blacklisting them is a bad move by the publishers, and I have no idea why the publishers are being defended.

 

[ReginaldXIV]

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.

Gawker and Kotaku can be separate entities despite one owning the other. But you're correct about Gawker being a shit hole.

 

[Courage]

Didn't read their essays of butthurt. Gaf OP was enough

Gawker sites should be blacklisted from everything tbh.

 

[Devilgunman]

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.

This is how I understand it. I also understand what Jason tried to convey. However, you're in a business that relies heavily on these big publishers. You need these publishers or someone associated with them to feed you info so you can generate contents for the readers. On the other hand, publishers also need the media for their marketing. When your work jeopardizes this relationship, of course they're going to dump you, since you're not the only gaming website out there. I see no reason why there should be an article about this. To paint these publishers as a villain? You choose to be in this business. You're either buy into this relationship or you're out.

 

[DrROBschiz]

Kotaku is interesting because they have all the awful articles that have lead to people here hating their website, but then they also have people like Jason, Stephen, and Patrick who actually at this point write some of the best and most important articles in the industry.

In any case, leaking scripts is not cool of Kotaku. But everything else they have done mentioned in this article is absolutely necessary and blacklisting them is a bad move by the publishers, and I have no idea why the publishers are being defended.

The shame is that such effort serves only a small and specific demand

 

[jschreier]

This is how I understand it. I also understand what Jason tried to convey. However, you're in a business that relies heavily on these big publishers. You need these publishers or someone associated with them to feed you info so you can generate contents for the readers.

No we don't, as has been clear for the past two years.

 

[JoseLopez]

So basically the kotaku hounds smelled a scoop and posted it then Bethesda and Ubi got tired of them fucking their plans up.

 

[Geek]

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

I mean, it's in Totilo's article, in case you missed it.

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

 

[Nostremitus]

This is how I understand it. I also understand what Jason tried to convey. However, you're in a business that relies heavily on these big publishers. You need these publishers or someone associated with them to feed you info so you can generate contents for the readers. On the other hand, publishers also need the media for their marketing. When your work jeopardizes this relationship, of course they're going to dump you, since you're not the only gaming website out there. I see no reason why there should be an article about this. To paint these publishers as a villain? You choose to be in this business. You're either buy into this relationship or you're out.

So... Everyone should be shills?

 

[DrROBschiz]

We have the industry we deserve when you get responses like this.

An Awesome and robust one?

Perspective folks. I know its hard on one of the most hardcore enthusiast sites on the planet

 

[sol740]

The "Fuck yeah, I stand with the big company! Fuck the free press!" attitude some people here seem to have is somewhat concerning.

The confusion of free press with 'unfettered access because I want it' attitude on display in this thread is far more concerning. Why would a business (big or small) deal with an entity if it perceives that entity had injured it previously?

Kotaku can and will report what it pleases, when it pleases. No one is stopping this. They are free. The expectation of a relationship where 'insert big business' answer's Kotaku's questions or responds to them in any manner is laughable. If their lack of a response, or their position offends you, don't buy their games.

Publisher/Developer can choose to have whatever relationship with whomever it pleases, including 'no relationship', and they are under no commitment to provide otherwise. If this incenses you, don't buy their games.

This has absolutely nothing to do with journalistic integrity, stop pretending it does. Publisher/Developer aren't in business to provide you with honest, hard-hitting, exposés on the inner workings of the game industry.

 

[Jazz573]

 

[anaron]

Kotaku has been great for a while now.

fuck these publishers

 

[JoseLopez]

Didn't kotaku like blackmail a dev over a scoop and didn't a dude from kotaku get salty over someone doing what they got trouble from.

 

[Prophet Steve]

I'd say proactively pursuing people to undermine their professional business contracts, leakibg sensitive information and then publishing said information would fit that description pretty well, from a publishers perspective.

"Merely doing their jobs"

And the publishers job is to present their content in the best light possible, why would you aid a specific company that undermines that intent? They can still review games, still find interesting stories without regurtitated PR laced handout sheets. They had no PR aid to post damming info, they shouldn't rely on it to post regular pieces.

If anyone claims they can't see the publishers perspective in this, they're simply covering their ears and playing dumb.

Regular Kotaku reader here btw.

So how do you expect journalists to get their news otherwise? Because then it means you can't post any news about a company unless it is spoon-fed to you. They are a business that is providing news to readers. To stay competitive they need to find more news and that is part of how they do it. Penalizing them for that as publishers is unwarranted and they are promoting any outlet that does do what they tell them to do.

Meanwhile the PR they get send is completely independent of that. It does not have any relationship to that news and it doesn't effect future coverage on their products.

That might just be because the demand for said journalism is low

Probably because product reviews are more than adequate to inform a buyers decision in a mass market sense

Only those in deep truly care about digging deeper

No matter whether it is popular or not, discouraging investigative journalism sounds like a very bad idea to me.

Am I not allowed to mock kotaku in his presence? Idk if this dude was in power then but can a site with an article called "creepiest fruit in China" be taken seriously? No it can't

Let's just say there is a case of "The pot calling the kettle black."

 

[hipbabboom]

But... if you were blacklisted years ago... why write the article now or is Kotaku pushing their own "really late" meme?

 

[Z3M0G]

wtf wrong Kotaku thread