Kotaku Makes Everyone Look Like Assholes

[ForumBot 0.8 beta]

Kotaku Makes Everyone Look Like Assholes



"I hope no one deals with them anymore. When you ask someone not to post something that isn't controversial, you expect that tiny bit of respect." - Anonymous Lead Designer

This hurts to write. My hands are shaking. I can't remember the exact time I read Crecente's post on Kotaku. Sometime this afternoon (March 1st, 2007), I read something that - in any normal situation - would make blood burst from my eyes. Today, one of the most popular gaming blogs on the internet confused integrity and honesty with investigative journalism. Michael McWhertor published a (not quite) rumor about something. You can find out what this something is on nearly every site on the internet, including this one - just a few posts down. In posting, Michael set in motion a series of emails and newsposts that have left - in my eyes - a stain on the entire gaming industry. It hurt the fans, the developers, the publishers, and most importantly - independent gaming sites. And who's pointing it out? I guess I will.

» Read More

[LK]

Bravo.  I was worried about which side was right, but when you went into greater detail about this, it certainly cleared things up.

[Yegolev]

I just wish Schild would tell us what he really thinks, without sugar-coating it.

Seriously, good job.  Some of us gamers are not high-school hooligans that shoot rubber bands at the teacher just for a laugh from the class.

[Bokonon]

While I understand that the "Integrity" argument is largely BS, at the same time, I'm glad that they did this. Your entire thesis, schild, it seems, is that if we don't republish press releases from the game companies, then "news" sites will be forced to, uh, republish press releases? Only this time the editors/writers of these sites won't get to be the cool kid knowing stuff ahead of time. As a reader, I'm not sure I care about the difference?

What is the actual damage to me from this?

What can I say about F13?  It's really my favorite website in the entire universe!  I love the irreverent banter and sly wit these keyboard jockeys produce.  And I especially love the staff, they're AWESOME.

[Strazos]

No exclusive infos, no dialogue, no access.

Also no respect, but that doesn't directly affect the readership.

[Hoax]

I'm hoping this is the next SWG:NGE thread...   

[Roac]

I don't see it as nearly that big a deal.  Sony should have kept their damn mouths shut if they don't want info to get out.  If there is something you don't want people to know, don't tell them.  Not anybody; you're not doing anyone favors by leaking info that the person has to keep quiet.  If any conversation begins "I could get in trouble for telling you this, but..." you are wrong to open your mouth.

If someone at Kotaku found out about it, and assuming trade secret laws or the like aren't being violated, they can post whatever they like.  That doesn't mean they should, and posting things that Sony doesn't like is sure to spoil their relationship.  That's their bridge to burn.  They burned it.  Sony should only work with them to the absolute minimum extent possible to keep up appearances.  No one else should ever speak to them again, unless they wish to be treated similarly.  There's a reason journalists don't burn sources.

This doesn't, or shouldn't, affect anyone but Kotoku.  It isn't like the gaming industry is going to stop dealing with PR issues.  Hopefully they'll be smarter about PR stuff, but it'll hardly just go away.  All that happened was Sony being stupid, Kotaku being an ass, and hopefully getting the cold shoulder from now on.  And the world moves on.

[AcidCat]

While I understand that the "Integrity" argument is largely BS, at the same time, I'm glad that they did this. Your entire thesis, schild, it seems, is that if we don't republish press releases from the game companies, then "news" sites will be forced to, uh, republish press releases? Only this time the editors/writers of these sites won't get to be the cool kid knowing stuff ahead of time. As a reader, I'm not sure I care about the difference?

I'm thinking along these lines.

"News I found out months ago (nay, years ago for some companies) that still isn't released to the public. But I'm not going to. Because that tiny bit of trust... that tiny bit of respect that companies expect me to give them is what keeps that dialogue between us and them going."

So... you're concerned that you personally might not get "juicy secrets" ahead of time ... that you're not going to TELL any of the readers .. you're just going to know them and feel happy you know something we don't? And you'll let us know, when the companies want you to let us know ... right? So you're just a  ... middleman protecting your position?

Maybe there's just something I'm not getting?

[Bokonon]

No exclusive infos, no dialogue, no access.

Also no respect, but that doesn't directly affect the readership.

The "exclusives" doesn't matter as much in a web-connected world of free news dissemination. If 1up gets an exclusive, I'll probably get the gist of it somewhere else [EDIT: seeing as I rarely visit 1up]. Only if I'm a super-fanboy is it going to annoy me that I get get the exact wording of the info from the developer/publisher/manufacturer.

What can I say about F13?  It's really my favorite website in the entire universe!  I love the irreverent banter and sly wit these keyboard jockeys produce.  And I especially love the staff, they're AWESOME.

[Sauced]

(clap clap clap)

[Nebu]

Well written Schild.  I appreciated the article and it spoke for many of us here. 

A question I ponder: Have you considered that the "sooper sekrit" information that's leaked by development houses is done so on purpose.  The development houses are becoming increasingly market-savvy and may be selectively leaking tidbits to generate some press hype.  I know that when I've worked with private sector entities, that truly secret information was just that, secret.  If information is being told to known press agents, I suspect that it's a plant and the fervor that follows is just a marketing device used by those that planted the information to begin with.  I'm wondering if this information was handed to Kotaku for the sole purpose of knowing it would be spread early.  If it were truly to be withheld, then the companies involved would have witheld it. 

[Brolan]

While I understand that the "Integrity" argument is largely BS, at the same time, I'm glad that they did this. Your entire thesis, schild, it seems, is that if we don't republish press releases from the game companies, then "news" sites will be forced to, uh, republish press releases? Only this time the editors/writers of these sites won't get to be the cool kid knowing stuff ahead of time. As a reader, I'm not sure I care about the difference?

I'm thinking along these lines.

"News I found out months ago (nay, years ago for some companies) that still isn't released to the public. But I'm not going to. Because that tiny bit of trust... that tiny bit of respect that companies expect me to give them is what keeps that dialogue between us and them going."

So... you're concerned that you personally might not get "juicy secrets" ahead of time ... that you're not going to TELL any of the readers .. you're just going to know them and feel happy you know something we don't? And you'll let us know, when the companies want you to let us know ... right? So you're just a  ... middleman protecting your position?

Maybe there's just something I'm not getting?

It seems like Schild is pissed because Kotaku is threatening the apparently cozy relationship between game sites and developers.  Should game sites have a cozy relationship with developers?  Or should they be like the mad-dog reporters in the White House press room?  This relationship should be explored further.

[Llava]

Thing is, game developers don't have to have contact with the fans.

The reason they do is largely because of the efforts of game sites.

Now this, of course, doesn't go for everyone, but in the cases where it does go it can greatly improve the design of games, making them worth the money we spent.

The job of game sites isn't to tell you news.  It's to get feedback on that news.

But if the companies in question feel that it's costing them more to associate with these sites than it would to just run without the feedback (or to assemble focus groups and get skewed feedback), then that's what they'll do because they're in the business of making money.

Personally, I like being able to speak my opinion and feeling that, with support, it could sway the direction of a game I enjoy but could enjoy more.  It's not exactly common, but it happens.

I'd rather avoid having all the forums here become about as important and relevant as the Politics forum.

The point is that it's very easy for developers to stop listening and start telling us what we want- which is apparently more Madden.  Shit like this just adds weight to that line of thought.  The problem with that is that it leaves a lot of us out in the cold.

[Stephen Zepp]

As a Game Developer and sometimes "let your personal networks know about this ahead of time so they can be ready" information release type person, I fully and 100% back Schild's position.

I'll give an example:

I just posted today that GGE has gone public beta, and is open to anyone and everyone. A couple of months ago, I offered Schild a private invite during the closed beta so that he could check it out as he saw fit, see if it was something he wanted to write a review about, or something that he could do additional background research on to be ready for when it went public.

I asked him to keep this on background, and not leak the information yet, mostly because of two things:

--our infrastructure wasn't in place to handle mass public usage yet. While not a few communities already had access, and there was no lack of information on Google regarding GGE, the team asked that no additional communities be added quite yet because they weren't ready. F13, being a pretty large community of non-game developers (who we were focusing on at that time) would have possibly flooded us, so we didn't want it publically mentioned yet.

--we had a scheduled "public release date", and that's when we wanted it released. Many marketing relationships actually have contractual agreements that certain sites get "first release permission", and had Schild released the info here, it may have caused GG some issues with our marketing partners.

Schild respected my request. I have no idea if he actually did check out GGE ahead of time, and that doesn't matter---I gave him some "insider info" that really wasn't all that inside, and he respected the source's request for information protection as any good journalist would. I'll fully admit, my concepts of "journalist ethics" derives from movies and books, but hell, it's been working for me so far!

Kudos to you Schild, the writeup to me described a very important level of trust that game developers and their employees need to be able to give out advance information, and I feel you very accurately described a blatent misuse of that trust by Kotaku. Sony in my opinion did exactly what they should have, Kotaku ignored it, and Sony followed up on their position.

[Llava]

Then pussied out and said, "Okay, but seriously this time, don't do it again. K?  "

[Bokonon]

I still don't see how this specific incident anything but a "sucks to be Kotaku" deal though. If someone screws you over, by all means cut them off. The issue in question here still doesn't affect me as a reader, except, ironically, in a positive light, since I got to know about this new feature a week before I normally would have. I'm very laissez faire when it comes to my information sources. schild telling me ages ago about GGE would have been beneficial to me, as a reader, simply from a "I know more than I did yesterday" POV. The fact that schild can have a 10,000 word opinion on it the day of, instead of a 5,000 one a couple days later doesn't matter insofar as news/information is concerned.

What can I say about F13?  It's really my favorite website in the entire universe!  I love the irreverent banter and sly wit these keyboard jockeys produce.  And I especially love the staff, they're AWESOME.

[Llava]

This hurts you because it contributes to the idea that game companies need to hide their information so that their market strategies are not blown by overzealous nerds who happen to have the ears of other nerds.

While this one incident won't likely cause a lot of perceivable change, it needs to be decried for the stupidity it is because further incidents would exacerbate the issue exponentially.

You like getting information, companies like to control the release of information.  People screwing with companies means that they will become ever more controlling about what information is released and when, perhaps to their detriment, perhaps to yours.

[Bokonon]

Honestly, since I'm on the "companies are over secretive" side (though I don't necessarily fault with for that) all I'd lose is the time wasted going to any gamin news site that didn't have a decent forum community. Since they already decide when they want info out, they'll find another way to get it out when they want it. Like big conferences like the GDC. It's a zero sum game, IMO.

What can I say about F13?  It's really my favorite website in the entire universe!  I love the irreverent banter and sly wit these keyboard jockeys produce.  And I especially love the staff, they're AWESOME.

[Furiously]

So - in summary... "Trust was betrayed. Don't put every gaming site in the same barrel."

I'll agree - this isn't a "news" industy, it's an "entertainment" industry, they should have shown some restraint.

[Bokonon]

So - in summary... "Trust was betrayed. Don't put every gaming site in the same barrel."

I'll agree - this isn't a "news" industy, it's an "entertainment" industry, they should have shown some restraint.

I'll agree with that.

What can I say about F13?  It's really my favorite website in the entire universe!  I love the irreverent banter and sly wit these keyboard jockeys produce.  And I especially love the staff, they're AWESOME.

[Furiously]

Just also wanted to add - Sony should have shown some balls and kicked them to the curb.... This sends a VERY BAD message to other sites.

[stray]

Catch 22. Sony's PR has been SHIT lately. The frothing retards of gamedom would make a mountain out of a molehill for them blackballing Kotaku. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

This is the same crowd that has turned the slightest statements by Sony into derisive memes. Case in Point.

[Furiously]

That's because they are screwing up.

[stray]

I won't get into that, but the main point is, a lot of gamers tend to be sensationalist when it comes to these things.

[Phildo]

Catch 22. Sony's PR has been SHIT lately. The frothing retards of gamedom would make a mountain out of a molehill for them blackballing Kotaku. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

This is the same crowd that has turned the slightest statements by Sony into derisive memes. Case in Point.

The simple fact is that the name of the company shouldn't matter at all.  Yes, they're damned if they do, but they're damnder if they don't.  What is the worst that happens if they blackball Kotaku?  Is the bad PR any worse than the bad PR they suffer now that they've knuckled under?  Not only are they derided for making a bad decision, but now we'll always be able to remember them as the giant mega-corporation that gave in to the demands of a blog.  There's a reason the US government doesn't negotiate with terorrists, and there's a reason that once a corporation makes a decision, it needs to man up and abide by it.

[Kail]

I'm not seeing why this is a big, shocking deal.  Sony is a company, and it's their business to get people to buy their product.  To let people know about said product, they employ sites like Kotaku for cheap publicity.  Kotaku is a company, and it's their business to get people to read their site.  To do this, they posted some limp PS3 feature thing that nobody really cares about, but that Sony doesn't want them to post (yet).  Scandalous, I guess?  I mean, they're just a gaming news page; they print stories about games.  This "sacred trust" stuff seems more than a little bit hyperbolic.  Sony can blackball Kotaku or not, I don't really think it's that big of a deal.  The whole role of sites like Kotaku is just to spread Sony's PR around for them; to tell people that don't visit sony.com that there's some new feature or game or whatever that maybe you might want to please give us money to be able to use.  If Sony tells them to take off, I don't care.  In the unlikely event that Sony tells the entire gaming journalism industry that this incident has forever damaged their trust, or whatever, so what?  Sony will either find some other way to get their message out, (and then Kotaku et al. will just grab their news from that source) or they'll give up and go out of business (mmm hmm...).  And that's the worst possible outcome I can see; it assumes the whole "this hurts the entire industry" thing turns out to be actually true and not just some "THE SKY IS FLALLING" kind of hyperbole, in which case this has pretty much zero impact on anyone whose name is not Crecente.

[schild]

There are 2 faces that journalists have to put on with gaming companies. The friendly face and the journo face You hear a whold lot of things when you're having a drink in friend mode. But the moment journo face comes on, you don't hear that information again, and if you do, you don't ask about posting it. The things I heard on the balcony at the SOE party in Austin, for example, aren't going to get repeated. What's said over a beer stays over a beer. You never have to be explicitly told not to post something. Kotaku, on the other hand, was explicitly told not to post something - something that honestly wouldn't change their traffic in the long run - and was shocked when Sony got mad.

Goddamn amateurs.

Edit: Kail, it's not a _big_ deal. It's a bothersome thing. And everyone needs to know that Kotaku can't be trusted. But everyone else can. I'm not talking about a sacred trust between PR people and journalists. I'm talking about the sacred trust between the QA guy you become friends with at a bar, or the loose lipped lead designer who has drinks with you. Those people expect you not to fuck around with information you're give, and in turn PR people LET you come to events and such.

[stray]

To do this, they posted some limp PS3 feature thing that nobody really cares about, but that Sony doesn't want them to post (yet).

As for the rumor (I mean the truth?), I think the news actually is pretty interesting. Sounds like Sony is planning some sort of Habbo/MySpace/YouTube 3D avatar portal thing with a Trophy Room/360 Achievement system. Hardly something I'd qualify as a feature "nobody cares about" (though I might not personally). It won't be easy to tell if that's really the case until GDC rolls around though.

[schild]

Oh, people care about it. It's just not earth shattering enough to steal thunder from a company that you probably have friends at.

[Dundee]

Kotaku mongered:
We just received a very interesting tip that, while juicy and quite believable, we're labeling as rumor for now.

F13.net reported:
Michael McWhertor published a (not quite) rumor about something.

I'm curious what you mean by not quite.

[schild]

It wasn't a rumor the moment NeoGAF posted the patent stuff. I wrote my article after that.

[Moorgard]

Really well-written piece.

As someone who started out on one side of the Industry Wall and then moved to the other, I know the thrill of having inside info and the responsibility of not throwing it around. I also know how tough it can be to give your trust to someone and hope that they don't take advantage of it.

As much as a hungry public likes to hear rumors and gossip and secrets, sometimes it just comes down to respecting relationships you have with other human beings.

[Margalis]

Yeah Schild that post was awesome.

Posting the private emails? These guys think they just discovered that Iraq doesn't have WMD?

There is hope. Outside of the Digg/Gawker echo-chamber I've seen a lot of people side with Sony. Too bad Sony caved. I hope they didn't cave at all and just conveniently forget to send out invites to Kotaku from now on.

The worst part of caving is they make themselves look wrong and Kotaku look right - and Kotaku immediately took the opportunity to gloat and pay a backhanded compliment by saying Sony was man enough to make nice. "You fucked up - good job apologizing!" What clowns.

Edit: Even I have exclusive info now and then. It never even occurs to me to break trust and spill the beans.

[Evangolis]

I ran into one of my oldest friends at AGC, and we got together for burgers.  While we ate, we talked about his current gig, which is a CR post for a game and a company that I won't mention.  He told me what he really thought and felt.  And that's all any of you will ever hear about that conversation.

Which doesn't mean I won't think about what he had to say any time I address CR issues.  I'd love to be able to quote sections of what he said in a game design thread.  He's a bright man whom I trust; his thoughts matter to me.  But he trusts me, and that matters too.

OTOH, it is bothersome that so much of the news is an old boys' club, whether it is about world changing politics or something like this.  But, regardless of the bigger picture, trust matters, and there should be a very good reason for violating it.

On this particular matter, the impression I had, from reading the Kotaku piece, was that this was something they found out about without SONY being involved.  If that wasn't the case, then maybe Kotaku has broken trust with their readers as well.

[schild]

I would not be surprised if the leaked information they got came from Sony or someone directly related to Sony. I get the bulk of my information from people in companies when the company has no clue those people are talking.