Gaming News

kunst nugget

Zero-Cool wrote: »

So Telltale are retweeting about a messaging app coming to Android and iOS this August. Interesting thing is, the app is from E-Corp which is the evil corporate company from the tv show Mr. Robot. What the feck is going on!

https://twitter.com/ecorpmessaging/status/763069801799352320

Oh, I really hope they don't make a game based on Mr. Robot. That sounds like it would be really naff.

Penn

Oh ffs they're hardly taking on another franchise are they?

maximoose

Dear Telltale

Stop taking on new projects, fix your ****ty engine.

Thanks



(Mr Robot game sounds kinda cool though)

Notorious

Robert ninja wrote: »

Journos jumping ship from Gawker's Kotaku

Just as a follow-up, Patrick Klepek from the article above, is now reporting with Vice Games. I didn't even know that was a thing.

Robert ninja

@Notorious Yep, from one click-bait to the next.

Here's some highlights I noticed recently,


EA's Manveer is outwardly racist

Nintendo takes down Nintendo Power from Internet Archive

Sony issues copyright strikes against YouTubers for discussing No Man's Sky

Jonathan Daniel thinks game journos don't like games very much

Amy Hennig to deliver PAX WEST 2016 keynote
Archive

Polygon help-wanted post reveals reviewers don't choose their own scores

Manabu Daishima Passes Away
Archive

johnny_ultimate

Robert, please link directly to articles rather than archive links. We all know you think game journalists are the devil incarnate, but it's still pretty crappy to be copying their content directly like that (and against the charter as well). Just don't link to them in the first place if you don't want to support them. If you're linking to the articles, you clearly must think it's interesting or worthwhile anyway

K.O.Kiki

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Robert, please link directly to articles rather than archive links. We all know you think game journalists are the devil incarnate, but it's still pretty crappy to be copying their content directly like that (and against the charter as well). Just don't link to them in the first place if you don't want to support them. If you're linking to the articles, you clearly must think it's interesting or worthwhile anyway

Au contraire; using Archive links has become necessary because online journalists will retract/rewrite their articles at the drop of a hat without proper disclosure.

The archives have become a tool to hold them accountable to their original words.

Would you be against using GoogleCache versions of sites? Because that's all these are.

Varik

Personally hate Polygon, but would probably prefer it's scoring system.

You write a review and then the score is based on the review's content.

Notorious

Varik wrote: »

Personally hate Polygon, but would probably prefer it's scoring system.

You write a review and then the score is based on the review's content.

I know Kotaku get an awful lot of stick, but I like their "should you play this game" method of scoring a game. Just a brief list of positives and negatives, no numbers.

At the end of the day, a review is just an opinion. Very few reviewers (especially games reviews), are subjective and unbiased.

gizmo

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

Au contraire; using Archive links has become necessary because online journalists will retract/rewrite their articles at the drop of a hat without proper disclosure.

The archives have become a tool to hold them accountable to their original words.

Would you be against using GoogleCache versions of sites? Because that's all these are.

Which would be completely fine if one of the primary reasons people used Archive in this context did so for that reason. Instead it's now become more commonly used when dealing with particular websites which some folk don't like, to put it mildly. This pattern is fairly blatantly obvious when you look at the reddit-based source most of these stories are collated on.

What makes it even worse is that many of the sites which people are happy to link directly are just as guilty of the same kind of journalistic malpractice as those other sites they rail against but they get a pass simply because they tend to, at best, agree with them and at worst, pander directly to them.


Anyway, with the imminent release of the next Deus Ex game and the System Shock remake around the corner, Gamasutra have been reposting their 10 seminal game postmortems every developer should read article from last year on the Twitters. If anyone hasn't read the articles within from the developers in question already, I highly recommend doing so, there's some pretty cool information in there on some of the best (or at least most intriguing) games made in the last decade or two.

kunst nugget

I love how how one of the topics on Heat Street is 'CULTURE WARS'

Dun dun duuuuuuuuuuuuunnnnn!!!

pleasant Co.

gizmo wrote: »

Which would be completely fine if one of the primary reasons people used Archive in this context did so for that reason

If the result is the same why does the intent really matter? It's ok to do something for one reason but if you do it for a different reason it's not cool though both actions lead to the same result, that's a personal issue of your own really.

johnny_ultimate

Have no issue with people using cached links if the story has been changed or indeed deleted (well, there's potentially legal problems in the case of straight up libel, but that's thankfully rare). In those circumstances, there is often legitimate justification for sharing archived links.

Different story when the only intention is to deny particular websites ad revenue or traffic, through copies of live, unaltered stories That's just plain old copyright theft I'm afraid, with none of the value attached to documenting content that has for whatever reason been swept under the rug. When it's clear that posters have no problem linking to some sites without cached links, then the reasons are obviously not motivated by simple posterity.

gizmo

pleasant Co. wrote: »

If the result is the same why does the intent really matter? It's ok to do something for one reason but if you do it for a different reason it's not cool though both actions lead to the same result, that's a personal issue of your own really.

Well yes, it does imo. If you want to archive a link for posterity or because you think it may be changed at a later date for reasons you legitimately disagree with, as K.O.Kiki said, then I don't really see an issue with that.

On the other hand, if you want to archive it because you simply don't like the website and don't want to give them click-through revenue (or pay for it, if you will) but still want to read and link their content then I don't see that as a valid reason.

Links234

pleasant Co. wrote: »

If the result is the same why does the intent really matter? It's ok to do something for one reason but if you do it for a different reason it's not cool though both actions lead to the same result, that's a personal issue of your own really.

I think the nub of the issue is that archive links are solely being presented for sites that a certain internet rage mob dislike, whereas direct links are provided (solely, in the case of a link to Louise Mensch's Heat Streat) and that archive links are presented as an alternative for sites that are shall we say mob-friendly, essentially; "Give clicks to these sites that support my agenda, but don't give clicks to these sites that don't" and it's more that agenda that's the problem than simply the archive links.

Really, I think it's that folks don't want the news thread clogged up with goobergate drama, because threads always take a downturn when that happens.

kunst nugget

Links234 wrote: »

Really, I think it's that folks don't want the news thread clogged up with goobergate drama

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0i58UsNlGs

K.O.Kiki

It's not like Archive.is removes the URL though; it's right there at the top of the page.
Unlike rehosting sites (e.g. 9gag) the source is not obfuscated.
If you feel so strongly that their article deserves the click, you can copy-paste it into your browser.

*edit*
OH NOES, MAN THE DOORS!
THE DREADED GAMERGATE HAS RETURNED! /s

Robert ninja

I actually just didn't archive certain sites because I got lazy half way through making the post. I've never even heard of that site before that article so I have no opinion of it. I also archive everything news related these days because of edits and retractions. I even have archive links for sites I personally disable adblock on so it's not a matter of favouring. I'll be sure to provide archives for everything from now on to be fair.

Kotaku's parent gawker to auction off assets.

Anyone who has issue with archives and wishes to see the link directly are free to do so. Every archive link lists its source URL for user to utilise at their discretion

Shiminay

The point is you are 1) breaking copyright law by linking to the articles (distribution of effectively stolen content), 2) actively damaging the livelihoods of all the people who work for those sites by seeing to it that they get zero compensation for their work - that means the sys admins, the web devs, the product managers, the people who clean the office, etc, not just one journalist.

It's pretty poor form especially when it's borne out of some clear intentions to wave your flag for whatever "cause" you're into.

Links234

More goobergate drivel :rolleyes:

johnny_ultimate

Mod note: Any more links that do not link directly to the stories in question will be snipped. It's against the charter, and very unfair on the sites affected.

Allowances for cached or archived content will of course be made in situations where edits or deletions of stories are themselves newsworthy events.

K.O.Kiki

Shiminay wrote: »

The point is you are 1) breaking copyright law by linking to the articles (distribution of effectively stolen content),

I'm calling bullshít on this one.

Shiminay

You know I'm this site's community manager right? It has made me more of an expert on Irish Copyright law than I ever wanted to be, but them's the breaks. Taking the content from one place, putting it elsewhere is breaking copyright. Full Stop. Sharing it online is distributing stolen copyright. There are zero allowances for "fair use" or "parody" or any of the other protections that Americans have (and that modern day internet users seem to think is the law of the internet, it's not). Neither are there any allowances for common sense where you might grab a bit of an article and post it somewhere else with a link attributing credit.

Sonics2k

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

I'm calling bullshít on this one.

While I personally dislike this whole debate and as many know, have a very mixed opinion on the whole GooberGate crap, I do want to point out that Shiminay is actually spot on. Linking to an archive version and not the original (as well) can be viewed as copyright infringement in written media.

It's daft, but there you go.

AlmightyCushion

Shiminay wrote: »

You know I'm this site's community manager right? It has made me more of an expert on Irish Copyright law than I ever wanted to be, but them's the breaks. Taking the content from one place, putting it elsewhere is breaking copyright. Full Stop. Sharing it online is distributing stolen copyright. There are zero allowances for "fair use" or "parody" or any of the other protections that Americans have (and that modern day internet users seem to think is the law of the internet, it's not). Neither are there any allowances for common sense where you might grab a bit of an article and post it somewhere else with a link attributing credit.

Yeah but so are lots of things. Like my avatar (I just nicked that from a google search) and the PCMR image in your sig. Even ripping a CD you legally purchased to your PC, Phone or MP3 player is copyright infringement and illegal.

super_furry

Notorious wrote: »

Just as a follow-up, Patrick Klepek from the article above, is now reporting with Vice Games. I didn't even know that was a thing.

Austin Walker is setting up the Vice Gaming site and Patrick Klepek has followed him. Both alumni of Giant Bomb and I'm really hoping they start a regular podcast.

Sonics2k

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Yeah but so are lots of things. Like my avatar (I just nicked that from a google search) and the PCMR image in your sig. Even ripping a CD you legally purchased to your PC, Phone or MP3 player is copyright infringement and illegal.

Be fair here AC, neither your profile picture (which is a picture of an Ikea cushion, or the PCMR things are actually copyrighted.

AlmightyCushion

Sonics2k wrote: »

Be fair here AC, neither your profile picture (which is a picture of an Ikea cushion, or the PCMR things are actually copyrighted.

They are copyrighted. Once something is published or produced it's copyrighted. The person who made that PCMR image is the owner of the copyright and using it without their permission is illegal copyright infringement. Same with the image in my avatar.

Kirby

Nono. It's only copyright infringement when other people do it. When I do it, its fine.

Generic Dreadhead

Surely Yahtzee from Zero Punctuation created the PCMR image