Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Gaming News
Options
Comments
-
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,458 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 28169
Robert ninja wrote: »It is. Primarily it's corruption and secondarily conflict of interest. A lot of it is cronyism. Kotaku have a long list of that.
Once again, no REVIEWS as per original complaint
Fully agree in the case of Hernandez particularly the disclosures should have been there in the first place. I also feel Stephen Totilo acted clearly and concisevely in addressing the concerns and ensuring they wouldn't repeat in the future. Personally I'm not anywhere near as concerned about a writer supporting a developer on Pateron then I would be if it was the other way around, but hey it has since been added to the site's ethics policy that it can't happen anyway
Anyway, I expect a certain amount of 'cronyism' when it comes to the space around areas such as experimental games and queer games, because the size of the communities are tiny and the list of people writing about them probably barely amounts to one or two names in some cases. Having somebody in the community reporting and talking about these games in a high-profile space is in many ways actually important for those of us who want to hear about them (we exist, would you believe!). Full disclosure is necessary, of course, wherever there is a potential conflict. Ultimately I find myself far less indignant about a throwaway blog post about a tiny independent game than I am about the entire game's media agenda being driven by massive corporate influence - which if anything Kotaku has been one of the most vocal outlets in actually addressing.
Anyway, as ever I believe a lot of these complaints boil down to a certain movement's phobia of any games with liberal leanings, but I'm not even going to disappear any further down that rabbit hole because I want to enjoy my weekend
0 -
johnny_ultimate wrote: »Once again, no REVIEWS as per original complaint
Fair enough but their water's already dirty. How much is one expected to trust with a record like this? Remember they only confess and update their articles when people reveal these things along with online evidence. There's no knowing how many other similar incidents have happened but were kept under wraps. They dropped games journos pro when that was exposed. A massive collaberation of journos from multiple outlets to all help each other spin narratives that benefit them (as well as blacklist individuals who didn't play along). This was suspected for a long time but considered tin-foil hattish until the sobering truth. Many Kotaku staff were on that list. Whose to say they didn't just move on to something else? It's not hard for them to simply hide these things especially after the public has made it clear what they're focusing on. Takes no effort to just not send money through patreon and instead somewhere more private. And not liking/following people's messages and profiles on social media and instead conversing on more private channels also takes minimal effort.
A journo writing to promote a lesser-known game with an invesment in it either financially or through friendship with the project staff is not journalism, it's advertising under the guise of journalism. Although some may not view it that way that's why it's important to disclose it so the reader can make their own judgement. And we all know what judgement came about... Kotaku losing a whole lot of ad revenue, unique visitors and respect. They updated their ethics policy mainly because of the relentless backlash from certain movements and communities so the gaming community at large owes respect to these people if nothing else... or to its self since they're often one and the same.
But for Kotaku at least it was too little too late. Looks like it's not gamer's that are dead. They didn't have to be their audience afterall.0 -
-
I've a lot of good will towards Dontnod after Life is Strange and Remember Me. This one I think is an RPG of sorts.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,458 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 28169
Robert ninja wrote: »A journo writing to promote a lesser-known game with an invesment in it either financially or through friendship with the project staff is not journalism, it's advertising under the guise of journalism. Although some may not view it that way that's why it's important to disclose it so the reader can make their own judgement.
A Patreon donation / Kickstarter backing isn't an investment though, it's a donation, as the journalist has nothing to gain other then some good feelings and maybe a game at the end of it. Frankly I don't believe donating to a Patreon is a conflict of interest in any significant way, and think Kotaku went too far in that regard (summed up by Chris Franklin), and reckon they did so to just silence the critics in that regard and remove the illusion of impropriety. And advertising doesn't generally involve paying a person to promote their product :pac: Honestly I think critics should be able to reasonably support game developers they admire, as long as the dynamic isn't reversed too (now that's advertising). Flying, wining and dining a journalist at a special 'review event', for example, is something I'd have a big concern with. As I've said already, I'm totally for disclosures where appropriate (e.g. if the developer and journalist are good friends, as opposed to having interacted a couple of times on social media. "Have spoken to the developer on Twitter and briefly at PAX" is a silly disclosure).They updated their ethics policy mainly because of the relentless backlash from certain movements and communities so the gaming community at large owes respect to these people if nothing else... or to its self since they're often one and the same.
Sadly, any positive outcomes were countered by around a thousand-fold negative onesBut for Kotaku at least it was too little too late. Looks like it's not gamer's that are dead. They didn't have to be their audience afterall.
Well, they're not actually going anywhere! Would be amazed if they didn't find a new home very quickly.Through the Chapter 11 process, we will continue normal operations and maintain that same editorial focus. That means covering E3 next week, reporting about gaming culture in the months to come and, of course, writing the best possible review of Half-Life 3 when it finally comes out.
At some point this year, we and the rest of the sites at our company will be doing what we do under a new owner. That’s a ways off. For now, you can expect us to proceed with business as usual.
Anyway, I know from experience we have fundamental disagreements on this subject, so don't think we're going to find much common ground 0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Deleted User wrote: »I really hope what ever From announce is not an PS exclusive but I have a gut feeling at least one of those might be
It depends on Kadokawa and who they want to publish the new games, Bloodborne was an exclusive as it was done in conjunction with Japan Studio and published by Sony and it is possible they could stay with Sony as the publisher or Kadokawa could publish it themselves, something they have done in the past.
Deep Down if it ever comes out will be a PS exclusive as well as Capcom are working with Japan Studio on it.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18tlnN_EQQc
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement