Analysis: Kotaku, blacklisting, and the independence of the gaming press

Ars Technica:

"As someone who’s written about games for nearly 20 years, I spend a lot of time thinking about the relationship between the press and the larger games industry. But I’ve been doing even more thinking in the wake of a blockbuster article on Kotaku alleging that the site has been effectively blacklisted by two major publishers for more than a year."

[SpiralTear]

Kotaku wants to reap the physical swag and press appearance benefits of being game journalists, but the second their integrity as the press comes under fire and they're told to abide by some kind of code or journalistic rules, they're suddenly "bloggers." They want all of the privilege of journalism without any of the actual accountability of reporting accurately for the benefit of the gaming community. They just want clicks and money.

Until they can quit being hypocrites, why in the world should the gaming community trust them? Spoiler alert: they shouldn't.

[Crimzon]

On the topic of Kotaku being hypocrites, I find it hilarious that they contributed to a blacklist shared between journalists that was uncovered by GamerGate, but when they actually get added to one themselves they cry and whine about it.

[vongruetz]

The problem is with the term "games journalist." Most sites offer little to zero "journalism" and instead repeat press releases or offer opinions/editorials on games. Kotaku consistently offers actual journalism which provides news and stories that are independent of the company's official messaging.

In no other industry or beat do reporters have such a cozy and close relationship with those people they cover without being called out on it. But in games, they need to become buddy-buddy in order to get that early access, which their careers are based on.

[BrianOBlivion]

I walked away from a paid Ars Technica subscription because I was so sick of hearing them spin the same GamerGate lies over and over. They were complicit with Kotaku in the matter, so anything they might have to say regarding the independence and integrity of gaming journalism is worthless.

[Somebody]

"a blockbuster article"

Lol. Try "desperate." As much as Kotaku thinks that it is entitled to free games or preview access to upcoming games, game devs/publishers also have the right to pick which game sites to have such entitlement. Obviously Kotaku have pushed a couple of buttons a bit too far and this is the path that the devs chose to take.

[blackblades]

Sure is a lot of articles on this popping up.

[donwel]

Kotaku dun goofed mate and to be honest this is an opportunity for a lot of anger over kotakus shitty practices and somewhat chequered history to be vented.

[rainslacker]

I think the first bit of the article did a good job of showing the sentiment that's floating around the net with people's thoughts on Kotaku. It's quite telling how far they've fallen in the past ten years.

Other than that, for all it's high preachy ethical talk, about the only thing I think that the article got right was that Kotaku is trying to spin public consensus in it's favor by publishing the article, thus hoping to get Ubi and Bethesda to acquiesce. The only other thing it also got right was that it probably won't work this time.

Since the Sony blacklist, there has been a huge shift on people's thoughts of game sites and their relationship with publishers. I still believe most people are not too comfortable with the cozy relationship that many sites have with publishers, and most are actually against the idea of blacklisting a site because they produce content which is simply negative to the publishers(bad reviews and such). The amount of cynicism that hangs over the gaming presses heads nowadays is probably higher than that for most of the publishers we love to hate. I also believe that many of these sites brought this cynicism upon themselves over the past few years, and it's probably too late to cry foul now when they happen to not get what they think they deserve.

But what I also see nowadays is a lot more people seem to understand that these publishers are the ones who provide us the content, and that there is serious money involved in producing and publishing a game. Because of this, I think a lot of people are more willing to say that sometimes, it's better if these sites took a more cautious approach towards how they report the news.

Reading the two articles listed by Kotaku as the reason for their blacklist, I can see why they would be. The FO4 one gives large portions of the script out within the body of the article, and that's not even something you do for an announced game. If TMZ had a reading of the first few pages of the new Star Wars film months in advance, I'm pretty sure they'd get blacklisted by Disney, and unlike Kotaku, they seem to realize it's just unethical to do so, and in no way is it a service to their readers to handle it in such a fashion.

The AC article released the setting of the game, which in the past for every AC game has always been a secret until the reveal. In a bit of irresponsible journalism, Kotaku ruined what is usually a major part of the reveal of the games in the series, likely costing Ubi lots of money by having to rework it's marketing plans.

Both articles could have been written without releasing such information, and could have been perfectly valid forms of news, but Kotaku just took it one step too far, and went from responsible to self-serving, and that's exactly how you get blacklisted by publishers.

For all the people who want to support Kotaku, I challenge them to go read the original articles and tell me at what point that news was important to know before the publisher wanted you to know it. Sure it's interesting news, but consider it from the publishers viewpoint, and then consider how much money was lost, or how much money was spent on trying to quell the news for it's actual planned marketed release, and ask yourself if knowing that information a few months to a year earlier were worth it? If you say it is, then stop complaining about DLC and MT.

[Imalwaysright]

I couldn't care less if Kotaku or any other website leaks details about a game before the publisher is ready to do so. I Don't give a rats ass if publishers lose money on the process because I respect them as much as I respect the so called gaming "journalists".

I'll say this though: there is such a thing called freedom of the press and Kotaku did what I've seen countless sports, political, financial... in short every type of journalists do.

[rainslacker]

Edit: This comment was meant to be a continuation of the post at 6.2. Hit the wrong reply button for both I guess.

I know in many of my posts I'm coming off as I'm sticking up for the corporations and support publishers 100% and only think that the press is their mouth piece when they see it as convenient. But that's far from the truth. I'd prefer much less coziness between the press and the industry, but I'm realistic enough to understand that it does exist, and it causes problems for the press in reporting the news some times.

In this particular instance though, I found Kotaku's printing of the articles just wrong on so many levels from the viewpoint of a reader, a gamer, and as a developer.

As a reader, yes, the news would be interesting. I can't deny that. But it's not news that needed to be handled in the way it did, and I found the articles(particularly FO4) to be quite disgusting in their presentation.

As a gamer, I find it wrong because I respect the publishers enough to let them handle their own marketing. I respect the presses right to critique or editorialize that information to keep the publishers PR in check.

As a developer, I find what Kotaku did in those two articles just downright disgusting. If I had put 2-4 years of my life into my work, geared up for the excitement that the marketing department could generate with the reveal, only to have all that dashed by some website who happened to come across the info, I would be pretty pissed.

I have been pissed over this very situation before, and at the time, I wasn't even one of the major engineers in the production, but I could see how disheartening it was to everyone, and saw how much turmoil it caused among management and production execs. It's harsh, and it's something people just don't understand, but hey, you got to know the setting of AC:S a few months early so it's all good right?

[rainslacker]

I'm not disputing Kotaku's right to print what they did. I never did. I question whether it was morally or ethically right for them to do so.

You don't give a rat's ass if this information was released? Aren't you one of the people that complains about the DLC and MT on these very forums?

You know what a lot of people gave a rats ass about? The crappy ending of the Mass Effect trilogy. You know why it was crap? because it was rewritten due to a leak. no biggie right, sites have a right to publish this stuff. Granted, that was a forum leak, and can't recall any site actually running the ending, but the principal still stands. These leaks can sometimes be damaging to the company, or worse, have a negative effect on the end product....which can cost even more money.

Freedom of the press is not a catch all to alleviate journalist from the responsibilities of the press for their own unethical behavior. It's a phrase thrown around like Freedom of speech is thrown around by people who don't understand what it really means.

Both freedoms exist, but that doesn't remove all the repercussions of exercising those rights. All it does is remove the ability to be persecuted for exercising them. That is what is happening here. Kotaku exercised it's right, and they suffered the consequences. Bethesda and Ubisoft also exercised their rights to not have any dealings with them. Kotaku as I see it isn't being persecuted due to their running of their stories, but more due to the fact the way they've handled themselves over the past year or so, and this just being a springboard for people to finally vent their frustrations over said actions, and to finally have a solid piece of hypocrisy to cite since Kotaku is rife with it.

What others do is not the issue. I agree with Totillo in this, if other sites had the info, they probably would have run with it too. That doesn't make the way Kotaku ran with the articles any less irresponsible.

People seem to think that the blacklist was due to the fact they ran the stories, but I see very few people actually discussing what was said in those articles which could actually be damaging financially to these companies. You may not care about those damages, and there really is not reason for you to, but those companies do, and they don't have to support sites that damage their company any more than you would want to support someone who is hurting you in some way.

[Imalwaysright]

I blame consumers for the DLC and MT, not the publishers. Publishers are just doing what any normal person would do. If there is demand, provide it and make money in the process. Capitalism 101.

I can't stand publishers because they release broken games on the market. Sure, consumers are also to blame but I find that disrespectful towards me as a consumer.

I have no idea what MT and DLC have to do with this though.

As for Bioware, they sould have stuck with their original vision. How many people that bought the game knew what plans Bioware had for the ending before changing it? I come here every day and I didn't know. 3 or 4 years later and I still don't know.

As for Kotaku they didn't do anything illegal and nothing new in the world of journalism. Perhaps morally and ethically incorrect but that's something that publishers do to us, the consumer, when they release broken games on the market. Like I said, I don't give a rats ass if Ubisoft and Bethesda lost money. Ironically 2 publishers that are known for releasing broken games.

[rainslacker]

Publishers started the MT DLC thing because they needed to increase their profits from rising development costs. Part of the development costs are the marketing campaign, and when they lose money, they pass the costs onto the consumer by releasing things to recoup the money...also capitalism 101...sometimes stripping out content, and other things. So, since you don't seem to care that publishers are losing money due to irresponsible journalism, it's just hypocritical to say you don't care, then complain about MT and DLC. Don't take this comment to mean I think that's the only reason for those things to exist, but it is part of it.

I blame neither the consumer nor the publisher for DLC or MT, because it was just a natural progression, and only criticize when I see it being abused by publishers and taking away from the main game.

You may not stand publishers, and your reasons for it are reasonable and sound, but at the same time, you consume their content, and in doing so, are supporting them. Because of this, you are paying your money to purchase their products, and because of irresponsible journalism, costs are increased, and that gets passed onto the consumer. So that "service to the reader" that Totillo mentions is actually hurting the reader should they be buying the game. It might seem insignificant in the grand scheme of things, but those marginal things add up to big dollars when taken as a whole.

I agree, Bioware should have stuck to their original plans...and even the extended DLC should have been redone to the original. Most people probably didn't know about it, but the director felt it necessary to change the ending. We could argue whether he needed to or not all day long, and we'd probably agree on this topic, but in the end, it was the developer that decided they had to expend the resources to do what they did, and it was all because of the leak which did not even go out tot he mainstream press. On the other hand though, one of the Kotaku article actually does do this...blatently...and had the same thing gone through their minds, it could have delayed the project, or caused it to be a game not as true to the original vision.

Kotaku didn't do anything illegal. Whoever released the documents certainly did unless it was actually a controlled leak...unlikely given the topic of the articles right now. NDA's are serious business. It's considered giving away trade secrets, and it can be felonious if damage can be proven, and it can also result in civil action. More often than not it just results in termination, and it can often be hard for that person to find work in the industry again with that black mark on their record. Basically, breaking NDA is the biggest cardinal sin within the gaming industry.

The last little bit, I have to go back to my original statements, paraphrasing, two wrongs don't make a right. What Kotaku did will not solve the problem of broken games, it only managed to serve Kotaku's page views. They were the only real benefactor from the whole ordeal.

Best way I can hope to get you to see my side is to suggest you take Bethesda and Ubi out of it. Kotaku could do this to any company. Maybe even a publisher you actually respect. I'm sure there is at least one you think do OK. Had it been them, would you be so complacent in saying that publisher deserved it? Would you be as willing to think that it's serving the readers if the affected developer you like actually had to go through some turmoil in development due to the leak?

I'm with you on my thoughts on Bethesda and Ubisoft. They aren't my go to publishers, but still, there are just things that aren't right to do within the gaming press, because it has an adverse effect on the industry, and ultimately the consumer.

[Imalwaysright]

Hypocritical of me? You must have confused me with someone else. At the risk of sounding like a parrot, I'm going to repeat what I said above: I blame consumers for MT and DLC. Publishers put DLC and MT in their games because gamers buy them. DLC and MT aren't in games because of rising costs. They're not there to break even. They're there simply because it makes them a lot of money.

http://www.dsogaming.com/ne...

Also I absolutely do not give a crap about publishers losing money. Why would I? What do I care if a multi-billion company lost money because Kotaku leaked a few details about a game that will make those companies a few millions or even billions of dollars richer? Why would that bother me as a consumer that just wants to play some games?

"Because of this, you are paying your money to purchase their products, and because of irresponsible journalism, costs are increased, and that gets passed onto the consumer"

Doesn't Fallout 4 cost the same as any other game that is released on the market?

Also, I don't remember saying that leaking a few details about a game would stop publishers from releasing broken games.

[uth11]

They can whine and stamp their feet all they want. "Freedom of the press" doesn't mean they can force people to talk to them or give them free stuff.

The other party (Ubi and Bethesda) also has the rights to not give them access or free stuff.

[Sevir]

I can appreciate Kotaku's content when they inform us of things like "The Destiny Fiasco" or the Demise of the Studio that was working on Phantom Dust, I'm pretty sure, They'll be the ones to break the real story on Konami/Kojima case...

But all the other stuff, leaks on on detailed info of AC:U and Syndicated and comet. Or just leaks on pre released games...? News worthy or not, some integrity should come in and they should decide well let's just wait for the embargo to lift.

Shady practices get treated as is. And in the industry today, the developer and publisher can directly communicate with their consumers... Twitter, Facebook, instagram, Twitch, Youtube, and even Company blogs, and community sites like 4chan and Reddit, they all serve far more effectively. News comes in really thick through those methods and much faster than it would take a media outlet to write an article edit and post. So personally speaking, Bethesda and Ubisoft, Sony, MS, Square, Nintendo, etc, they don't need media journalists AS much as they did back in the day. Consumers get breaking news from their apps connected to these consoles, Twitter, and the many others long before a news reporter can report on it.

Kotaku, will be what it is, they'll write great content about these publishers and they'll thrive, but they should understand that even though they have a responsibility to cover news on games and such, publishers too have a responsibility to keep their content embargoed until it's right.

Both parties aren't wrong with their resolve, but I side with the publisher's on instances on pre reveal leaks of video games.

Companies miss treating developers or cancellations of partnerships resulting into companies going under, that's news that should be reported, because we should rally behind the developers that make our games to feed their families.

[GrimDragon]

As far as journalist integrity goes kotaku is not the first or the last. Gamergate is huge and many of these game journalist are guilty in one way or another of doing less than admirable things for monetary or social gain. This happened not long ago on gamespot as well. The finger pointing is strong in gamergate. This is why iam happy that twitch exist so I can see for myself if a game is good or not instead of relying on so called industry professionals who tend to always have an agenda of some sort. I know bills have to be paid but when you do underhanded things you'll eventually get caught.