/gamergatehq/ - #GamerGate and #NotYourShield

>>301253

The old ways of getting free review copies ahead of the public was too cozy as it is with publishers.

If they're serious about their journalistic ethics, they'll shrug about being black listed, and carry on.

But they're fucking drama queens, and insist that review copies are a right, it isn't.

>>301253

It's both.

The publisher control is a legitimate problem. It's becoming a bit less so since a lot of popular youtubers don't do day 1 stuff, but industry control of the press is a legit issue.

But what Kotaku did was unethical, and to face consequences is just.

Kotaku said wasn't interested in journalistic ethics so its not a journalist site also IGN is shit don't go there they aren't journalists either.

Sounds like aGGro damage control to me. "Bu-bu-but this is bad ethics!" Get fucked, Shitoku!

It's common fucking sense, it's what it is.

No gaming company is under any sort of obligation to provide any gaming news outlet with free shit. In point of fact, if they didn't as a general rule, why, we might just have a games' press worth a singular rancid shit.

In short - as usual - fuck Kotaku.

>>301272

This.

Neither side is totally blameless, but in this case Kotaku was given sensitive information and instead of acting in a trustworthy, ethical manner simply traded it for clicks.

I'm not a fan of either Ubisoft or Bethesda, but they're well within their rights to not talk to Kotaku due to breach of trust.

And someone should explain (assuming they can find enough single-syllable words to string together to do the job) to the fuckheads at Kotaku and Polygon that what Bethesda and Ubisoft are doing by not talking to them ISN'T unethical, but what Kotaku and Polygon did to get on their ignore lists IS.

Freedom of the press simply means that the government can't restrict it, it don't mean you HAVE to talk to them.

The fact is this: If a company wants to ignore an outlet, there is no recourse.

What is the alternative? Force them to send things to the outlet? legally demand them to provide free copies to the press?

It is the company's decision to do that. It is their decision to ignore an outlet that has repeatedly and openly done them harm.

>>301328

>>301303

Fairly certain that post isn't arguing for the giving outlets access, but rather saying that this sort of access control being so important to outlets is what's wrong in the first place - the reason why blacklisting is such a bad thing is because press outlets have become reliant on this access and have given publishers too much power over them.

>>301272

It's this. Big name game developers have been using the gaming press as advertising agencies for years, often times to sell lackluster games on an unsuspecting public.

But Kotaku has openly stated that they don't give a shit about ethics. So whatever the reason is behind their blacklisting, I can't say they didn't earn it.

>>301304

>I'm not a fan of either Ubisoft or Bethesda, but they're well within their rights to not talk to Kotaku due to breach of trust.

>And someone should explain (assuming they can find enough single-syllable words to string together to do the job) to the fuckheads at Kotaku and Polygon that what Bethesda and Ubisoft are doing by not talking to them ISN'T unethical, but what Kotaku and Polygon did to get on their ignore lists IS.

This. It's not even blacklisting. It's just ignoring someone whose, as PA put it, 'business model is 'Start shit'.'

Kotaku is still entirely free to purchase those company's games, and review them, and say whatever they want about them. Those companies just aren't going to foot the bill anymore so Kotaku can be total jackasses about it. That's not blacklisting, that's the usual response to someone asking for free shit, using that free shit to mock you, and then asking for more free shit.

Imagine if a food critic routinely said you were problematic because your kitchen staff doesn't have enough females on it to satisfy them, or that your ketchup bottles resembled phallic imagery and that's what they write an entire article on you about, ignoring the attention and care you put into your food for something stupidly inane and off-topic. And then they asked you for free entrees. You're not going to put up with that shit, you're going to tell them they can buy their own fucking meals.

Besides, how many games do both those publisher's put out a year? It's not like it's an absurd amount that would break the bank for a website that boasts millions of viewers, right?

**Or is Kotaku finally starting to realize it has turned into a glorified blog, and they're having trouble dealing with the big adults treating them as such nowadays?"

There is no smug in any of my folders that can represent what I feel about this right now.

>>301253

I'm inclined to agree with Totalbiscuit on the matter. The summary of his argument:

- Publishers are shitty for withholding this access, but the publishers aren't in the wrong for doing so in this case

- Journalists are shitty for feeling entitled, but they're not wrong that this is a problem

- Ultimately, this is a loss for the consumer because that's one less opinion in the sea

- In order to remove power from the publishers, the consumer needs to change their buying behavior so that these types of tactics aren't rewarded in sales, i.e. they simply wait to buy games causing buggy or otherwise junk games to bear the weight of their quality.

Really, nobody is blameless here and nobody is acting in an unjustified way.

>>301421

that answer of his is good for a generic site that didnt do anything wrong.

>one less opinion in the sea

a set of dysfunctional screaming retards with nothing meaningful to say got their traps shut.

shit flinging apes got their hands tied behind their backs.

object if they did not deserve it.

>>301424

I'm inclined to agree that any opinion at Kotaku is generally worthless [to me], but they do occasionally highlight information that a consumer might use in purchasing decisions. I care more about the principle than the specific outlet involved though and as such, I'm inclined to agree with his assessment.

Even if nobody reads Kotaku or uses anything from them to inform their purchasing behavior, the fact that they have the choice to is an improvement regardless of how I feel about the outlet.

It's amazing that journalists feels that being involved in preview early access pr excercises is necessary for their jobs. I doubt that the publishers have banned their pr departments from answering basic questions or blocked their ip address so they can't even dl screenshots.

In fact, i could say a journos opinion is worth more when they are independent of the pr game.

whys is thiat blacklist?

they will no longer receive copies of the game

so now they have to wai as much as the average gamer in dorder to publish their stupid review calling the game sexist.

bottom line: the review will be the same it will just come later

>>301330

>this sort of access control being so important to outlets is what's wrong in the first place

It's not the publisher's fault if these sites choose to base their entire business around "muh exclusive reviews".

"Games Journalists" dug their own grave when they decided to opt for the easy route of game reviews, instead of performing ACTUAL journalism.

A publisher has some power, but they can't stop anyone from reviewing the game once it's out.

Its very overentitled of them to think they are blacklisted, because they are essentially crying over the fact that they are no longer getting special treatment over lesser known outlets

I don't view it as unfair, as I can see the reasoning behind the decision. Hypothetically, if I was a publisher I want to do what I can do to appease my target audience so they continue to buy and use my product. This is the reason I give these advance copies to Game Journos as they do my job for me for a few games and advertising by giving you guys a taste if the game and getting it out there, game journalism is advertising after all, like all the critics are. However, if a publication is isolating and alienating my target audience from my product through their behaviour and practices then fuck them, I'll go through those who aren't. I need you to buy my product, you as customers need to be satisfied with my product, in all aspects (reviews, advertising, game etc.) and the vessel I do it through is determined by you the customers choices. The problem is the Steven Totillo, Ben Kuchera and Leigh Alexanders forget that in the relationship between them, the publisher and the customer, they are the weakest, their bread and butter depends on pleasing both, keeping you gys clicking and reading and happy in order to attract my advertising revenue. Piss off the customer so they dont read the publication, start bagging my product and polluting it with politics and I'll take my money and product elsewhere.

This is what has happened, it's the free market and Kotaku, and Gawker, have fucked themselves out of it. Stop being moral fags and let people suffer the consequences of their shitty decisions, the ones in the wrong are Kotaku and they deserve the blacklist.

They weren't blacklisted, though.

Saging for disinfo

>>301553

>But his defense of Kotaku is a fucking straw man.

And then you proceed to describe something that isn't a strawman at all.

Incidentally, you go on to make a straw man out of him with "while fucking saying your in the right to blacklist devs."

He never said that. You have constructed a straw man that's easy to dismiss.

Also, your other bitching is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

>>301253

Publishers have always had control over prerelease info of their product. The journalist's role is supposed to be to dig for information on their own, but video journo's are too fucking used to getting handouts. If you're going to whine about being blacklisted, then I'm afraid you've missed the basic reality that it was always their prerogative to decide who they were going to tell about upcoming products. Journos never had a "right" to demand publishers to tell them about upcoming products. Obviously if you burn the publisher, the publisher ditches you. Kotaku is simply throwing a fit like a spoiled child.

The publisher is not supposed to be beholden to the journo and the journo is not supposed to be beholden to the publisher. All of them are supposed to be beholden to the consumer.

Am I missing something? How is Kotaku being black listed?

They're not being sent review copeis or being invited to prerelease stuff I get it. But don't you just need a copy of a game to review it? If you cannot bring enough views based on your reviews to actually pay for what you're reviewing then you're kind of a fuck up.

As for not being invited to corperate sponsored powwows that gives you more legitimacy. It shows you're not being bought off.

If Kotaku cannot survive if companies don't give them free games that's a damned shame. I work too and I have work expenses that I wish were as cheap as new video games. I'm a trucker I'll go through 80+ gallons of diesel a day.

Publishers have the right to decide who gets free reviews of their copies particularly if that outlet is a scummy backstabbing snake only interested in clickbaits and sharp practices.

Let the fucks go out an buy the game then review it rather than wait for a free copy from publishers they recently shit on.

>>303063

>Learn what a strawman is

>Describes something that isn't a strawman at all

I think you might want to do some reflection.

Here, let me help you since you're not likely to actually take the 5 seconds. And no, this isn't rape because you don't want to learn.

>A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.

I listened to that entire 35-minute thing and I do not recall hearing something like "I am in the right to blacklist developers." I also notice that you annotate your worthless bitching point with a timecode but lack one for this assertion. If he did not say this, it is a strawman and you have constructed a strawman.

>My argument is that you can't take kotaku as just another games journalist without taking into consideration about what Kotaku has done to deserve their blacklist.

Why? Just because it pisses you off, doesn't mean anybody else must give a shit. This is a garbage argument.

>The meat and potatoes of the argument against Kotaku is that Kotaku is no different than the National Enquirer for their shit ethics in anything they write or do.

Whose argument? If you mean the publisher's argument, you have no evidence. If you mean gamers' argument, you only have evidence of yourself. This is a garbage assertion.

>So there is no fucking proof that the vidya leaks are the only reason kotaku has been blacklisted other than to even fucking believe in a kotaku journalist in the first place.

The second half of this is garbage and makes no sense in context. And there's no proof that it's not only the leaks. There's no proof that it's broader Kotaku that caused the blacklisting. What is your point? Totalbiscuit was simply putting forward his opinion and interpretation of it. Nowhere did I say he was right, nowhere did I agree. I think it's as reasonable an interpretation as any. We're not getting proof.

>TB defends Kotaku saying no media should be blacklisted. While fucking having the listeners completely ignore Kotakus shit history in general.

This is not a strawman argument. Read the fucking description above over and over until you understand how retarded you are. It is your opinion that this is logically connected and it's a dumb opinion because you are wrong. These two things are not logically linked.

>Which is a fucking egotistical train of thought

I don't care whether it is or not and it's not relevant to this. Make sure to bring up his identity as an overbearing Internet personality some more so we know your opinions, you posturing faggot.

>>303204

How adorable.

There is no fucking way you listened to that video and came to the answers you did. From which I do notice you are moving the fucking goal post.

The point of this threads focus is Kotaku and their situation. From which a good judgement call cannot be made unless you take into consideration about Kotakus history. From which I mentioned before Kotaku should be taken as seriously as the National Enquirer. "The right to blacklist a developer" is not an argument I made. Nor is it one TB made.

What I should of done is made a space between

>potatoes of the ones responsible. That is simple facts checking.

and

>On the flip side of the same subject are journalists blacklisting devs. Why? Because your feelings were hurt?

to let you know I'm now going to a different argument not connected to TB. From which vidya journalists okay blacklisting devs or companies. But heaven forbid the vidya media get's blacklisted, even though it's technically not a blacklist.

Also do you just live under a fucking rock when it comes to journalists creating bullshit?

http://archive.is/ZNW7n

http://archive.is/4F017

You cannot make an argument like TB did about why it's bad for media to be "blacklisted" while not taking into account said medias background. From which as I just linked to you here are full of people willing to post click bait and not caring whose life it will ruin. For sure, we don't know what real reason Kotaku got blacklisted. But they are definitely not a media worth defending in any way, shape or form. Not because what they say are factually hurtful. But because they write their opinion pieces as facts instead of an idea. From which the two articles I linked are in no way, shape, or form designed as opinion pieces but as a man on his soap box and wrecking a guys life for clicks.

And why the fuck are you making an argument out of my spoilered text. It was spoilered on purpose because it was a side argument you dumb beta faggot. It obviously had nothing to fucking do with the main topic at hand.

>>303948

>From which I do notice you are moving the fucking goal post.

How? Listen, retard, I only brought up the fact that I agreed with Totalbiscuit and summarized his arguments. You attempted to inject your opinions about Totalbiscuit as though it makes the arguments invalid. I said it's not relevant to this thread. This is not moving the goalpost. There was no goalpost to move. You're simply retarded.

>The point of this threads focus is Kotaku and their situation. From which a good judgement call cannot be made unless you take into consideration about Kotakus history.

This is moving the goalposts. I have refuted your central arguments and instead of saying "oh, you're right," you are now changing the context so that your argument with me is somehow discussion in this more general thread.

>Moving the goalposts (or shifting the goalposts) is a metaphor, derived from association football or other games, that means to change the criterion (goal) of a process or competition while still in progress, in such a way that the new goal offers one side an intentional advantage or disadvantage.

Since I know again you won't take the 5 seconds.

>But heaven forbid the vidya media get's blacklisted, even though it's technically not a blacklist.

Yes, it is.

Oxford:

>1. a list of people or products viewed with suspicion or disapproval.

MW:

>a list of people, organizations, etc., that are disapproved of or that are to be punished or avoided

>a list of persons who are disapproved of or are to be punished or boycotted

>Also do you just live under a fucking rock when it comes to journalists creating bullshit?

How am I in any way arguing that they don't? This is a straw man, my mentally challenged friend.

>You cannot make an argument like TB did about why it's bad for media to be "blacklisted" while not taking into account said medias background.

Riddle me this: Why? Again, just because it personally pisses you off, it doesn't mean that it's automatically logically relevant to the discussion. If you can't tell me why it's logically relevant, you should just give up and accept that it is your personal problem.

>But they are definitely not a media worth defending in any way, shape or form.

That is your opinion and in my opinion, you're a piece of shit. Standing for principles means standing for them regardless of who is involved. The principle involved is that we hold consumer benefit to be important. IF THIS IS TRUE, it doesn't matter if I agree with Kotaku et al. It doesn't matter if I disagree with them. I think they're pieces of shit. But the consumer benefits by having them as a choice.

I finally cracked and made generic youtube commentary videos because of this whole kotaku thing, which I'll shill now to the left of this post.

TL;DR - kotaku a shit, blacklisting isn't nearly as bad as the system that permits it

Basically what

>>301421

says is ALMOST right, but the response to "everyone is responding as expected to incentives, you cant blame them" is to burn the fucking system to the ground and create new incentives. This is important!

>>307139

You are both an immense faggot and an immense retard.

>When I say your strawmaning I am specifically talking about you agreeing with total biscuit that a medias history should not matter and a company should have to give them information of any kind.

You still don't understand what a strawman is. Stop using that word. You're not using it correctly.

It is not a misrepresentation of an argument else to suggest that a media's history is irrelevant to the ideas at hand. It might be missing the point, it might be stupid, it might be myriad other things, but it is not a strawman. No matter how many times you repeat bullshit, it's still bullshit.

Further, you have again set up your own strawman. Nobody is arguing that the publisher should be obligated to give them information. It is a misrepresentation of the argument to suggest such, making it a strawman. You have made this up.

>Now if you paid attention recently

None of this is remotely relevant to anything. You have an astounding level of stupidity that apparently prevents you from discussing the ideas removed from the context. This is your problem, not anybody else's.

I don't care if it's hypocrisy or not, it's not relevant to a discussion of the relationships between publishers, the media, and the consumer should and shouldn't be.

>Nor is the description you gave anywhere near as close as what Kotaku was trying to sell the definition as and you know this

I don't know this because I don't know what the hell you're talking about. It's a blacklist. That's a fact. It doesn't matter if they deserve it or not. You were categorically wrong.

>Kotaku was selling Blacklist as if Beth and Ubi completely shut off any and all communication and kept Kotaku from getting any products those to companies sell. Which is the definition most people go by when Blacklisting is involved.

So if I'm reading this correctly, you think your own argument is full of shit because you're stating here that the definition most people go by when blacklisting is involved is what Kotaku is selling as the definition of blacklisting.

>By your definition racism itself can be seen as blacklisting through GG doubting mainstream media. From which is true according by definition, but it isn't what Kotaku was aiming for.

I'm not sure what kind of disjointed reasoning this is. "GG" doesn't do anything. It's not an entity, you retard. But we'll be charitable and assume that you mean "people using the hashtag." It's true that what people using the hashtag have done is blacklisted some of the gaming press. However, this has no inherent relationship to racism. The burden is on you to substantiate such a claim.

>What you are saying is that as consumers we should "Trust" a company like kotaku with information.

Listen, you strawmanning faggot, you have made this up and attributed it to me. That is not what I'm saying and that you continue to push this dumb idea reveals your immense confirmation bias. None of that other crap you prattle on about is relevant.

I can't make it any more clear than I already have, so I guess I'll just quote myself.

>IF THIS IS TRUE, it doesn't matter if I agree with Kotaku et al. It doesn't matter if I disagree with them. I think they're pieces of shit. But the consumer benefits by having them as a choice.

>I am thinking about the consumer when I say a company like kotaku should not be trusted anymore.

No, you're not. You're a propagandist or a solipsist. You believe they shouldn't be trusted, therefore nobody else should trust them or they should cease to exist because they provide no value to you personally.

You are thinking about yourself.

>Now come back to me on why Kotaku should be "Trusted" with anything?

I don't personally trust them with anything and I would probably advise against trusting them as well, but this is an irrelevant framing of the discussion. This is moving the goalposts. You have decided that the discussion is no longer about the opinion you took issue with - the discussion is now about whether they should be trusted or not.

I don't need to address it. You are the retard.

>>307635

Spot the SJW shill here.

>>301449

Exactly, nothing can stop Kotaku from publishing reviews or news, they just have to work for it like actual journalists instead of being handled info to reprint.

No publication is entitled to free information from the entities on which it reports—that's why investigative journalism is a thing.

The only reason a blacklist is threatening to kill Kotaku is because without towing the line to get complementary early copies or press junkets so they can break news about games, they have to rely on reviews.

And for a publication to sustain itself on reviews, it must be a trusted publication, one that can speak to and for its audience. Kotaku has never been trusted, and hates gamers with a passion.

>defending unethical journalists

>denouncing devs who boycott them

I'm not sure if this is a well-thought out shill move or a new frontier of mental retardation.

>>307639

That's a most logical rebuttal.

>>307830

I'll assume you're referring to me. First, how am I defending unethical publishers? When you say "publishers," do you mean the games press or game publishers? Did you mean unethical media?

>denouncing devs who boycott them

You… wot? We're talking about publishers, not developers. Do you understand that publishers are usually not developers themselves and developers are usually not publishers - at least in the types of games that the press usually covers?

Regardless, how am I denouncing publishers?

That's also a top quality rebuttal.

Let's make it really simple for you, since I think you need it: We're talking about what should and shouldn't be the relationship between the media, the publisher, and the consumer.