Support NeoGAF

[Cyrano]

Let's ask Jeff Gerstmann about his "Kane & Lynch: Dead Men" review and why it got him fired.

I am not saying that reviews should not have ethical practices attributed with them. I'm saying that they are not the same as those of news reporting. Nothing more or less.

 

[Gsak]

I am not saying that reviews should not have ethical practices attributed with them, I'm saying that they are not the same as those of news reporting. Nothing more or less.

Journalism ethics exist for a reason, from news to reviews. They are principles. You forgo one, more will follow. And it's not like we haven't seen that happening in VG press.

 

[xevis]

You honestly believe that the gaming press routinely:

- Fabricates or plagiarizes
- Alters a still or moving image to the point that it changes the accuracy of the image
- Pays for stories and accepts bribes

Really? How many times in recent years have questions arisen about improprieties in the gaming press? The Gestmann sacking, Doritogate, the free-PS4s-for-journalists thing; that's just a few off the top of my head.

The fact is gaming journalists work in an industry heavily dependent on advertising dollars from the very people whose content they cover. They're regularly wooed by AAA publishers and plied with various shiny things, all in the hope of favourable coverage. You know this, Mike.

Even if there is no explicit and organised cash-for-comments arrangement, the behaviour from the gaming press as a whole indicates a certain obsequiousness toward the games industry and toward major publishers in particular. Tons of positive preview coverage for ultimately disappointing games, scores that skew toward the high end and a dearth of serious objective criticism of publishers, creators and the industry at large. There's also a certain tone to much of the writing from major outlets; a tone that indicates, to me anyway, that some of the journalists making this content are more interested in being fans of games rather than critics and thought leaders.

Is it any wonder then, given this kind of atmosphere, that readers and external observers raise questions about objectivity? I'm amazed that you find this surprising.

 

[Cyrano]

Journalism ethics exist for a reason, from news to reviews. They are principles. You forgo one, more will follow. And it's not like we haven't seen that happening in VG press.

Journalism ethics exist for journalistic practices. A review is an opinion piece. Again, I am not stating that there should be no ethics surrounding reviews, but that the standards will inherently be different given that a review is a different practice.

 

[SolidChamp]

I just got here, what's going on?

Would it be a bad time to ask for a recap of just what in the hell is happening here??

This...seems bad.

 

[LordJim]

I just got here, what's going on?

Would it be a bad time to ask for a recap of just what in the hell is happening here??

This...seems bad.

The terrorists won apparently.
I love that people use that line

 

[inpHilltr8r]

I just got here, what's going on?

Would it be a bad time to ask for a recap of just what in the hell is happening here??

This...seems bad.

Thread has been recycled several times at this point.

 

[unbias]

Randy Cohen(has had an ethics column in the New York Times and did a kickstarter for ethics), pretty much covers my feeling on patreon and kickstarter.

So we wrote to Cohen to ask a tangentially related Question of Ethics. Specifically, what are the journalistic ethics of contributing to Kickstarter projects? Can journalists contribute at all or just in areas they don't cover? A real arts-related example: Silent Barn, a Queens loftspace adored for its DIY shows, recently crowdsourced funding after a robbery; if a music journalist who'd likely review a show there at some point contributed out of love for the venue, would that be a clear conflict of interest?

"I think you've got the ethics of journalism issue just right: You can contribute to any worthy cause as long as it's not something you cover," Cohen told us over e-mail. "I think that your music journalist should err on the pristine side and not contribute to this venue. There is no shortage of good to be done in the world, and [he/she'd] best do [his/hers] elsewhere."

Cohen, for his part, also finds himself personally torn about using Kickstarter, specifically the implication that he's asking pals for donations. "There is an ethics of friendship, and I can't shake the queasy feeling that I violate it by sponging off my pals, that I am exploiting our relationship for financial gain, that I am a schnorrer," he tells us, much with the self-depreciating ambivalence we've come to expect from the (Original) Ethicist. "And I don't like it. I'd be delighted if my friends spread the word about my project, and if their friends spread it further still, beyond the narrow bounds of my circle of acquaintances. But I wish my friends would not pledge a dime."

I mean, I think he is a pretty good judge on ethics and has a pretty good following among his peers from notable journalist. I dunno if I was in a dilemma about this, going to people like this for advice might not be a bad idea.

 

[Frog-fu]

As I am genuinely not entirely clear, I would like to ask what this thread is about and would and wouldn't be considered on topic.

 

[shadyspace]

Is this a legitimate thing? This shit is not a good look if it is.

 

[Frog-fu]

Is this a legitimate thing? This shit is not a good look if it is.

This is the link I wanted to post but was unsure whether I was allowed to do so in this thread. Perhaps it is deserving of its own thread, I don't know. But I would love to hear what other people think about this.

 

[shadyspace]

This is the link I wanted to post but was unsure whether I was allowed to do so in this thread. Perhaps it is deserving of its own thread, I don't know. But I would love to hear what other people think about this.

I mean, I couldn't even watch the video because of how cringey I knew it would be but the allegations in the screencap linked in the comments are pretty nuts.

 

[SlowRevolution]

Is this a legitimate thing? This shit is not a good look if it is.

"indie-fensible"

 

[Mooreberg]

That is considerably more alarming than the initial controversy. Whereas there did not seem to be any economic gain to publicizing Depression Quest, the IGF fiasco is much more serious. Other developers were cheated out of tens of thousands of dollars.

This whole GDC/IGF/Gamasutra favor for a favor scenario is quite perverse. The people shouting the loudest to shut down these lines of inquiry are the worst actors of all.

 

[Frog-fu]

That is considerably more alarming than the initial controversy. Whereas there did not seem to be any economic gain to publicizing Depression Quest, the IGF fiasco is much more serious. Other developers were cheated out of tens of thousands of dollars.

This whole GDC/IGF/Gamasutra favor for a favor scenario is quite perverse. The people shouting the loudest to shut down these lines of inquiry are the worst actors of all.

It all keeps piling up and I don't even know what to expect next. Just to think this began with a sex scandal, that led to outrage over unethical journalism, which has now brought us to this. I don't even know how that happened or who or what to believe. For now I'm content to sit on the sidelines and watch.

 

[JMargaris]

K! Here's my issues:

Ok, set course for reasonable discussion, warp factor 9.

- it punishes smaller creators for seeking alternative avenues for their games by making it a situation where they either must give their work away to writers -or- accept that nobody from a site that has a similar policy in place will play their work.

Now, not everyone on Patreon uses it the same way, but if person y makes a game and it's only available there, it will never be written about - again, unless they give it away. (Which, of course, people have argued for years is ALSO a distasteful practice :/ )

First, "punishes" is not the right word because it implies that this action is punitive. This is not a small distinction because that sort of thinking colors the entire debate. It doesn't punish people for using Patreon, it simply makes their use of Patreon not effective in this narrow case. Patreon is something larger publishers don't use to begin with, and if they do use it they are covered by the policy as well.

If you tell baseball players they can't use corked bats you aren't punishing players who spent time corking their bats.

Second, creators give their work away to writers all the time. That's how you get writers to talk about your games - you give them codes or free copies!

Third, no game should be available only on Patreon. It's easy to get onto iOS or Android. It's not to get onto consoles. On PC there is Steam, plenty of smaller outfits, web-based places like Kongregate. You can also just set up a webpage with a basic store yourself.

Patreon isn't a gaming platform, it doesn't have a unique gaming OS. There's no such thing as a game that can only be made available through Patreon.

I'm sensitive to the argument for Patreon when it applies to writing, because there aren't a lot of good ways to sell short-form writing to consumers. But there are plenty of ways to sell games to consumers. Even tiny games. (Bundle them)

Anyone who is "selling" their games on Patreon can sell them a half-dozen other ways as well.

So now someone at Kotaku can't "buy" a game on Patreon for $2? Then just set up a web store and sell the game for $2 instead.

- it encourages support of traditional or somewhat traditional developers and publishers instead. There's nothing stopping a Kotaku writer from buying four life-size Link statues and still writing about a new Zelda game, or even (and possibly more likely) something like the Symphony of the Goddesses that toured.

There's nothing stopping that same Kotaku writer from buying a Zelda scarf I sell on Etsy, or buying my Zelda ripoff game I sell on Desura. (Jason covered the rest of this)

- it all happened so quickly and with very little time to discuss.

Kotaku people discussed it among themselves.

Kotaku could have said "we're thinking of revising our Patreon policy as follows, what do you think?", but it's very strange to leave ethics up to a vote. If Kotaku thought this was an ethical problem the best thing is to act immediately.

Now in theory I sort of agree that there could be a healthy discussion around this, maybe good arguments are exchanged and Kotaku takes them into account when revising the policy. In reality I think people are stamping their feet on Twitter and writing polemical screeds, and that a debate period wouldn't have accomplished much. It says something that your post is more intelligent and less ranty than 95% of the criticism of this policy.


There's also the practical matter that this Kotaku change realistically effects nobody. Like 3 people are each making $5 less a month. In the time people have taken to complain about this they could literally scour a parking lot for change and make that money back.

So it's a gesture that avoids conflict of interest while realistically barely effecting anyone negatively. The main downside is that it looks like Kotaku is aligning with woman-hating terrorists, but it only looks like that if you look through the with us or against us lens.

 

[Syriel]

Or maybe it's clear that ethics are never about black and white or right and wron, and that every professional publication, from the New York Times to TMZ, has to decide for themselves what standards they feel most comfortable adhering to.

I'll never forget the words of my journalism professor with regards to ethics.

"Perception is reality."

He implored upon us that when you work in journalism, it's not just the facts that matter. It doesn't matter how innocent an action may be. If it can be perceived as an ethical breach by your readers, it will be treated as one.

These (apparently stringent) "journalistic principles" you speak of don't just magically apply themselves to every industry in a tidy and simple way. Every publication has to look at its subject matter, target market, realistic revenue streams, and the realities of the power structures/hierarchies in the industry it covers. Then it's up to the EiC (and potentially other staff) to internally debate how those principles apply.

There are no short cuts or catch-all approaches here. Ethics are a malleable and complex problem to 'solve', with publications needing to each consider how its content is perceived by readers and what are their expectations in regards to impartiality?

Which is exactly why it bothers me when editors from one publication criticises another. It's not a brotherhood - in fact it's incredibly presumptuous to think you're aware of the culture and ethos behind the decision or assume your jobs are remotely similar.

"Journalistic Principles," straight from the horse's mouth (aka the SPJ). Anyone who works as a professional journalist knows this.

The SPJ Code of Ethics is voluntarily embraced by thousands of journalists, regardless of place or platform, and is widely used in newsrooms and classrooms as a guide for ethical behavior. The code is intended not as a set of "rules" but as a resource for ethical decision-making. It is not — nor can it be under the First Amendment — legally enforceable.

Preamble

Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice.

Seek Truth and
Report It

Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.

Journalists should:

— Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
— Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.
— Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability.
— Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.
— Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
— Never distort the content of news photos or video. Image enhancement for technical clarity is always permissible. Label montages and photo illustrations.
— Avoid misleading re-enactments or staged news events. If re-enactment is necessary to tell a story, label it.
— Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story
— Never plagiarize.
— Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience boldly, even when it is unpopular to do so.
— Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.
— Avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status.
— Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
— Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.
— Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
— Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two.
— Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public's business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection.
Minimize Harm

Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.

Journalists should:

— Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.
— Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief.
— Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.
— Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy.
— Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.
— Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects or victims of sex crimes.
— Be judicious about naming criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges.
— Balance a criminal suspect’s fair trial rights with the public’s right to be informed.
Act Independently

Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know.

Journalists should:

—Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
— Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
— Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.
— Disclose unavoidable conflicts.
— Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.
— Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.
— Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; avoid bidding for news.
Be Accountable

Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other.

Journalists should:

— Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct.
— Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media.
— Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.
— Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.
— Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.

http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

You would be crazy to believe they do not,
There is plenty of evidence to support all of the above.

Giving a guaranteed score above 9 for an early review basically is a bribe and its common practice, leads to monetary gain for both the reviewer in website traffic and game publisher in positive hype and sales.

I don't know of any respectable outlets that would even entertain such an idea.

If you want ethics violations, you should be looking at mobile review sites that CHARGE developers for review coverage.

 

[rjcc]

You would be crazy to believe they do not,
There is plenty of evidence to support all of the above.

Giving a guaranteed score above 9 for an early review basically is a bribe and its common practice, leads to monetary gain for both the reviewer in website traffic and game publisher in positive hype and sales.

I love these threads. You read the funniest things. GAMES JOURNALISM.

 

[Tomeru]

I wonder how the whole gaming-journalism industry would look like if they had to buy the games like the regular gamers. That would be interesting.

I wouldn't say that every review is a bribe, but there are reviews that give off the feel of unjustified score. Opinions huh...

 

[Squidofman]

I wonder how the whole gaming-journalism industry would look like if they had to buy the games like the regular gamers. That would be interesting.

I wouldn't say that every review is a bribe, but there are reviews that give off the feel of unjustified score. Opinions huh...

Given the amount most are paid, you wouldn't read many reviews at all.

 

[Syriel]

I wonder how the whole gaming-journalism industry would look like if they had to buy the games like the regular gamers. That would be interesting.

I wouldn't say that every review is a bribe, but there are reviews that give off the feel of unjustified score. Opinions huh...

Wouldn't make that much of a difference for outlets. They would just do what they do when a review copy doesn't show up...and go buy it.

It's not like every writer on staff somewhere gets a copy of every single game.

 

[The Adder]

Is this a legitimate thing? This shit is not a good look if it is.

Idiots need to learn how to make a point without giving their opposition ammo to use in order to discard out of hand whatever they said without addressing any relevant facts contained within. That opening alone, were I inclined to, I could easily use to turn anyone against them, and I'm not even a professional.

 

[Infernal Monkey]

I wonder how the whole gaming-journalism industry would look like if they had to buy the games like the regular gamers. That would be interesting.

I wouldn't say that every review is a bribe, but there are reviews that give off the feel of unjustified score. Opinions huh...

Heh. I used to write for an Australian video game site, and one of my favourite moments is still when I got an unpleasant email from EA about my Need for Speed: Undercover review on Wii. They requested the review copy back and put the site on their blacklist as a result. We were never sent a single EA game - or even press releases - ever again.

I imagine a more popular site would have been given more leeway, but yeah.

 

[unbias]

I wonder how the whole gaming-journalism industry would look like if they had to buy the games like the regular gamers. That would be interesting.

I wouldn't say that every review is a bribe, but there are reviews that give off the feel of unjustified score. Opinions huh...

As long as everyone gives free coppies to the press, the problem isnt one of integrity, but of value. They can give you an idea of quality, but what they lose is, I think, the ability to give you a reliable opinion on value. But this is one of the hard parts of product reviews in general. Besides that, I'd go through the code of ethics Syriel just posted, compare it to the press sites you go to(all of them, not just games) you vist and see if they match up. If they don't match up, then you either need to stop going to them, or not assume they are journalists or people who dont care about the connotations that come with it.

Idiots need to learn how to make a point without giving their opposition ammo to use in order to discard out of hand whatever they said without addressing any relevant facts contained within. That opening alone, were I inclined to, I could easily use to turn anyone against them, and I'm not even a professional.

I agree, that shit is cringe worthy.

 

[Squidofman]

Heh. I used to write for an Australian video game site, and one of my favourite moments is still when I got an unpleasant email from EA about my Need for Speed: Undercover review on Wii. They requested the review copy back and put the site on their blacklist as a result. We were never sent a single EA game - or even press releases - ever again.

I imagine a more popular site would have been given more leeway, but yeah.

Prob worth pointing out here (as someone who has worked with both US and AU PR) that most of the shit that goes on in Australia just would not fly in the US.

 

[Infernal Monkey]

Prob worth pointing out here (as someone who has worked with both US and AU PR) that most of the shit that goes on in Australia just would not fly in the US.

Haha, yep. That's what made it even more surprising!

 

[JABEE]

Randy Cohen(has had an ethics column in the New York Times and did a kickstarter for ethics), pretty much covers my feeling on patreon and kickstarter.



I mean, I think he is a pretty good judge on ethics and has a pretty good following among his peers from notable journalist. I dunno if I was in a dilemma about this, going to people like this for advice might not be a bad idea.

I agree with this, for the most part. I think journalists should err on the side of caution when making donations to sites like Patreon and Kickstarter. I think the optimal policy would be to ban these kinds of donations for news reporters and critics who write previews and reviews. I think pushing someone that you like should come from a natural place too.

You can write articles about a KickStarter without acting like you're selling 1940s war bonds. There should be an editorial policy of writing about these interesting things without turning news articles without making them read like hard sells or overtly promotional. This should go for podcasts too.

 

[unbias]

I agree with this, for the most part. I think journalists should err on the side of caution when making donations to sites like Patreon and Kickstarter. I think the optimal policy would be to ban these kinds of donations for news reporters and critics who write previews and reviews. I think pushing someone that you like should come from a natural place too.

You can write articles about a KickStarter without acting like you're selling 1940s war bonds. There should be an editorial policy of writing about these interesting things without turning news articles without making them read like hard sells or overtly promotional. This should go for podcasts too.

The problem is they said no patreon and said yes to kickstarter, when what they should have done is, imo, no donations to the industry you cover, period, but you can still use those websites. I mean if they want to financially support a good cause, they should still be allowed to, but there are plenty of good causes you should give money too that have nothing to do with games. Video games are not more important then anything else, and just because you work in the industry doesn't mean you have to value that industry more then another good cause.

 

[JABEE]

Prob worth pointing out here (as someone who has worked with both US and AU PR) that most of the shit that goes on in Australia just would not fly in the US.

Not necessarily true. Even pretty big outlets have been blacklisted by major publishers. EGM was blacklisted by SCEA San Diego and Ubisoft right before the magazine died for publishing negative reviews for MLB 07 The Show for PS3 and the first Assassin's Creed. Jim Sterling has talked about being blacklisted by Konami.

All publishers need gaming outlets less and less. Official blogs, YouTube, paid streamers etc are the way of the future. The more power they wield the less influence the independent press will have.

The same thing is happening in sports journalism. Leagues like the NHL still care about the press and internet blogs, because they are desperate for anything that will boost their attendance levels. The NFL is a whole different situation. They exert more control, they don't rely or really need the gate, because they are always sold out. They also have corporate partners and their own news team to push out content and promote their game. Unless you're a big guy, you're going to have a tougher time getting access.

 

[JABEE]

The problem is they said no patreon and said yes to kickstarter, when what they should have done is, imo, no donations to the industry you cover, period, but you can still use those websites. I mean if they want to financially support a good cause, they should still be allowed to, but there are plenty of good causes you should give money too that have nothing to do with games. Video games are not more important then anything else, and just because you work in the industry doesn't mean you have to value that industry more then another good cause.

I really don't think there is a point to thinking about what is a more noble use of donation funds. The restrictions and justification really only needs to extend to what these donations and relationships mean for a writer providing content to your site, and whether or not, they are exposing themselves to unnecessary conflicts of interest.

I don't think you should directly fund the products of people you will realistically cover on your beat. I think the idea of being someone's "donor" or "backer" is too close of a relationship to hold for someone that wishes to be a member of the independent press.

 

[unbias]

I really don't think there is a point to thinking about what is a more noble use of donation funds. The restrictions and justification really only needs to extend to what these donations and relationships mean for a writer providing content to your site, and whether or not, they are exposing themselves to unnecessary conflicts of interest.

I don't think you should directly fund the products of people you will realistically cover on your beat. I think the idea of being someone's "donor" or "backer" is too close of a relationship to hold for someone that wishes to be a member of the independent press.

I agree about the most noble sentiment, but seems some people think that not being able to donate to them is unfair or what not. I'm only trying to make the point, like Cohen said, there is no shortage of good projects to financially support.

 

[timetokill]

Good lord it seems impossible to keep up with any of this shit.

I read this: http://www.cinemablend.com/games/GamerGate-Everyone-Hates-Each-Other-I-Really-Tired-67039.html

Is that a decent summary, for people in the know?

 

[Deitus]

Good lord it seems impossible to keep up with any of this shit.

I read this: http://www.cinemablend.com/games/GamerGate-Everyone-Hates-Each-Other-I-Really-Tired-67039.html

Is that a decent summary, for people in the know?

Yeah, that's a pretty good overview of the situation. It's fairly light on details, but at this point the details barely matter.

A controversy, and the questionable handling thereof led to a situation where gamers and the games media have declared war on each other. A lot of stuff happened in between of course (much of it missing from that article), including quite a bit of harassment, but now here we are. There are plenty of moderate voices in the middle trying to discuss rationally, but the only thing that gets any attention are hateful individuals on both side shouting insults and generally acting like dicks on twitter.

 

[Sneds]

By the way, one of the best videos I've seen on the matter. Calm, reasonable and logical. This is the way to do it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TV6XZwd43vY&feature=player_detailpage

You can't be serious. That video has a transparent agenda: "sensationalist press", "myspgynistic boogeyman".

 

[WeylandxYutani]

Good lord it seems impossible to keep up with any of this shit.

I read this: http://www.cinemablend.com/games/GamerGate-Everyone-Hates-Each-Other-I-Really-Tired-67039.html

Is that a decent summary, for people in the know?

Good find. Toplines the general situation. Can everybody please stop taking sides and trying to kick eachother in the metaphorical crotch?

 

[BrassDragon]

Good lord it seems impossible to keep up with any of this shit.

I read this: http://www.cinemablend.com/games/GamerGate-Everyone-Hates-Each-Other-I-Really-Tired-67039.html

Is that a decent summary, for people in the know?

This summary is one of the better I've read so far. Thanks for sharing. I found this part particularly apt:

As messy as this whole controversy is, there's a humorous symmetry to it. The whole thing all started with an angry breakup blog from an ex-boyfriend. Now gamers and journalists are both writing breakup letters of their own. Each is declaring that they're over the other.

 

[robovanburen]

Good lord it seems impossible to keep up with any of this shit.

That's pretty much how I feel. What makes it hard to follow is that there aren't any central actors to follow. The thing began with that relationship drama but everyone involved there has said their piece and moved on. Now it's all just tweets, pictures of tweets to prove misogyny or corruption, and the occasional editorial from the peanut gallery.

In the absence of any other kind of event (e.g. another angry ex-boyfriend jumps in), it seems like this thing's going to burn out just in time for everyone to go play Destiny.

 

[Vlade]

That's pretty much how I feel. What makes it hard to follow is that there aren't any central actors to follow. The thing began with that relationship drama but everyone involved there has said their piece and moved on. Now it's all just tweets, pictures of tweets to prove misogyny or corruption, and the occasional editorial from the peanut gallery.

In the absence of any other kind of event (e.g. another angry ex-boyfriend jumps in), it seems like this thing's going to burn out just in time for everyone to go play Destiny.

I'm pretty sure there were no central players because there was no story. just a pile of anonomous angst seeking a focus. That would also explain why the post mortems are way more about the types of reactions rather than events or people.

 

[marrec]

I'm pretty sure there were no central players because there was no story. just a pile of anonomous angst seeking a focus. That would also explain why the post mortems are way more about the types of reactions rather than events or people.

Pretty much exactly. There's nothing that actually happened and so there's nothing beyond vague accusations and compiled 4chan images which makes all of this seem like some conspiracy nut is trying to 'connect the dots' in games journalism.

I can't seem to find a concrete accusation of wrong-doing. Just people posting an obtuse image and saying "I don't know if this is true or not but, if it is, gaming is dead".

 

[Gsak]

You can't be serious. That video has a transparent agenda: "sensationalist press", "myspgynistic boogeyman".

I'm afraid you totally missed the video's point.

 

[Gsak]

Is this a legitimate thing? This shit is not a good look if it is.

Indeed, maybe deserving it's own thread also? More and more shady stuff being revealed every day.

 

[jordisok]

Matt Lees' post is a very interesting read.
Choice quote:

When the community you’ve worked so hard to serve choose to stand beside a group of manipulative misogynists rather than entertain the idea that you might not actually be corrupt, how do you think this makes people feel?

 

[Sneds]

I'm afraid you totally missed the video's point.

No, I got it. It's just a bad video with a clearly bias perspective.

 

[Curufinwe]

No, I got it. It's just a bad video with a clearly bias perspective.

Biased perspective, not bias perspective.

 

[Gsak]

No, I got it. It's just a bad video with a clearly bias perspective.

Would you care to elaborate?

 

[Sneds]

Would you care to elaborate?

I started to rewatch the video to give you some specific examples but gave up after a few minutes because practically every single sentence is imbued with bias. If you can't notice it then I don't know what to say. The entire way the video frames the topic is that the press are sensationalist.

 

[Gsak]

I started to rewatch the video to give you some specific examples but gave up after a few minutes because practically every single sentence is imbued with bias. If you can't notice it then I don't know what to say. The entire way the video frames the topic is that the press are sensationalist.

I don't think that all the press is sensationalist. But let's not deny that part of it does not shy away from such practices. Plus, the video encourages people to engage in conversation and actually be calm, polite and respectful while doing it. I see no harm there.

 

[Ponn]

Matt Lees' post is a very interesting read.
Choice quote:

This is actually a very good example of the hand waiving tactics by game bloggers that irks people. First they claim corruption doesn't exist because "Well I haven't actually experienced so it must not exist" Completely ignoring previous FACTUAL evidence of such happening (Doritosgate, Gerstmann gate) and not even taking into consideration the possibility that being in the industry you have been groomed to be oblivious to it. I'm positive you can ask each and every member of congress if they were corrupt and they would say no.

And then the follow ups are waived off even worse. "Well what about more transparency to help alleviate the need for suspicion" Nahhh...i just said I never experienced corruption so what you want me to keep a book or something, geez...just trust me.
.
.
. *boggle*
.
.
And then to automatically invalidate anyone dissenting against them and their tactics and finally being fed up with it by painting them as siding with misogynists or bigots. Wow.


Somebody started to hit the nail on the head last night, sorry I forgot, I think maybe Cyrano? About how there is a difference between Journalism and gaming reviews. I may be expanding on it in a way they didn't intend but i thought that was a very apt distinction to make and why I really dislike calling them game "journalist" Journalism calls for a certain level of impartiality at a core because the reader has to put their trust in you, your sources and what you say. I mean I could cite certain news articles for a paper but would I feel comfortable enough citing freaking IGN? Reviews are going to be naturally opinionated for gaming and unfortunately we have to accept that they are going to be tainted with the implication of review copies, ad revenue, free flatscreens from Sony or pissed off they didn't get free PS4's.

When they start delving into further opinion pieces though, especially when they could be doing real impartial investigative work like finding out why Amazon and Nintendo don't get along, what is up with EA's unprecedented partnership with Nintendo or you know, actually investigating these allegations continually brought up about corruption with at least some evidence to warrant looking into. The answer is always the same, we don't feel its worth our time. Now heres another piece on why you gamers are so shitty and resolution doesn't really matter this gen. And they will fight to the end like Gies and Kuchera to never admit they were wrong.

 

[daegan]

Third, no game should be available only on Patreon. It's easy to get onto iOS or Android. It's not to get onto consoles. On PC there is Steam, plenty of smaller outfits, web-based places like Kongregate. You can also just set up a webpage with a basic store yourself.

Patreon isn't a gaming platform, it doesn't have a unique gaming OS. There's no such thing as a game that can only be made available through Patreon.

I'm sensitive to the argument for Patreon when it applies to writing, because there aren't a lot of good ways to sell short-form writing to consumers. But there are plenty of ways to sell games to consumers. Even tiny games. (Bundle them)

Anyone who is "selling" their games on Patreon can sell them a half-dozen other ways as well.

So now someone at Kotaku can't "buy" a game on Patreon for $2? Then just set up a web store and sell the game for $2 instead.

I don't think anyone else should be telling a developer how to make their game available; and if they want to go this route, ok. I agree that it is probably not the best financial plan to go only on Patreon but it is important that someone doesn't feel like they CAN'T.

Giving review codes to writers in hopes of getting press coverage is a standard practice, not a distasteful one. Many of us would love to cover and support as many indies and Patreon-created games as possible, but there are so many games out there that any obstacle in the way of playing one given title will lead to us just playing something else.


Because a Kotaku writer would never have to cover harassment allegations involving Link. A Kotaku writer would not have to disclose that he/she once went to a Symphony of the Goddesses concert in order to cover a scandal that happened there. These things do not lead to potential conflicts of interest or appearance of impropriety.


Really, we should have just had a policy like that all along.

I wholeheartedly agree that review copies/codes are completely necessary; I was more pointing out that it has been controversial in the past to the point that some outlets even disclose when a game was obtained from the pub/dev vs purchased. (Edit: this is a silly thing to do, IMO.)

And yeah - I think having some kind of policy for this type of thing is going to be a standard for outlets soon, and I'm glad that Kotaku has led the way on that, regardless of how I feel about it.

 

[Sneds]

I don't think that all the press is sensationalist. But let's not deny that part of it does not shy away from such practices. Plus, the video encourages people to engage in conversation and actually be calm, polite and respectful while doing it. I see no harm there.

If you repeatedly use the blanket phrase 'the sensationalist press' then you're suggesting that none of the concerns journalists have raised are valid. That isn't a good way to begin shared understanding or dialogue. Secondly, I do think that this emphasis on people being 'calm, polite and respectful' can be problematic. It's hard to stay polite when people are accusing you of being fixated on a 'misogynistic boogeyman'. I'm more interested in the content of people's arguments rather than if they're polite or not.