Journalism and Bias in the Gaming Industry

[Longknife]

 

No.

Yes.

 

:smug:

 

First I'd like to ask who has been charging for patches, because that WOULD have court case written all over it.

It wouldn't, you don't have a leg to stand on legally- though this is peripheral and was used primarily as a hypothetical. But, Paradox used to cancel support for base games when they released paid for expansions, for example, so it definitely has happened, and there is no legal recourse for it.

 

Second, it's not the same because if I were to sell you a product and you buy that product in good faith that it works and functions as intended and advertised then I charge you for a fix, that's essentially scamming. That would get me in trouble, and that's exactly what charging for patches would do. If you're wondering why software developers get away with patching and none of them ever get taken to court over a buggy release, it's because they inevitably fix them via patches, and bugs are somewhat expected with game development. Bethesda making people able to monetize their mods....?

 

Really? That's... startlingly naive, to be frank. Bethesda's base UI is rubbish, they have no incentive to fix it themselves if they can sell an improved UI for $10 a pop; it actively makes it against their interests to fix things like that. As for games always getting fixed- I don't know where to start, that's not even closely related to actual reality (eg Spacebase DF9, dozens upon dozens of Early Access scams etc). Buggy games get abandoned all the time because you don't have legal recourse, Valve excludes Class Action as part of their SSA, makes it near impossible to get refunds and good luck getting anyone to go small claims court or equivalent to get back 20-40$. Their SSA is about the most consumer unfriendly document anywhere- Origin's, for example, is positively benign in comparison, let alone GOG's.

 

Essentially what this is is Bethesda saying "excuse me sir, but your mod seems very popular and we would like to buy the rights [..] instead of trying to take pretentative measures on behalf of the modders to begin with; they're catching problems after they arise, not in advance.

 

Read their EULA- they claim ownership of all mods anyway, they aren't 'asking' or 'buying' anything. That clause is legally dubious, to say the least, so they aren't trying to enforce it actively- since they would lose, it's mostly a hedge against similarity/ derivative based copyright claims- but it is there. And it opens the way to them compelling people to sell mods, or trying to outright seize them, or forcing mods to go workshop only. It is, quite simply, an abysmal idea practically even if the basic idea that modders be rewarded is theoretically a very good one.

 

As for the last, they have an active interest in not catching problems related to charged mods. They don't get cash for free ones or ones hosted on Nexus, after all, only for those monetised on Workshop. And again, what legal recourse is a free mod maker going to take against Valve? Again, that's very naive.

 

But what they're doing is 100% legally sound, and you know why they're strong-arming the deal? Because they know that not you nor anyone else is about to boycott Steam or Bethesda games in response over modders getting only a 25% cut. They've (Valve) been offering 25% as a cut for a long time now for their own games.

 

Lol. You might want to read the general gaming forum some time, I don't use steam at all and never will. But plenty of people who do use it are very upset about this.

 

It's a case where I understand the frustration, but there's absolutely nothing wrong or illegal being done here, and I definitely do not believe we'll see a successful boycott of Valve or Bethesda, so I see no purpose in wasting time on this.

Well, you're not arbiter of what is relevant or not and it is clear that many do consider it relevant. There will be plenty of illegal stuff and plenty of unethical stuff done there, people are already monetising other people's mods which is copyright infringement, with Valve and Bethesda benefitting. Steam's support is rubbish and their curation is rubbish, those are the two things that are essential for this system to work, plus it's a further attempt to put even more of PC gaming behind steam's walled garden. Plus, the two parties that have contributed least to the mod by far get more of a cut than the person who actually made it.

 

I couldn't care less if something is successful or if other people boycott or not. You can only do what you can do, don't do anything though and you'll always fail. Apathy is Death, to quote a famous computer game.

 

 

 

Oi where to start here....

 

The EULA is more within the context that you are not within your right to attempt to commercialize your mods yourself without their permission. It is not claiming that Bethesda is legally within their right to take some guy's mod and release it as their own right now and profit off his work, because that would be blatantly questionable itself. What the EULA would claim would be irrelevant because a contract itself can be illegal and hold no value. So I promise you, what the EULA is merely expressing is that if I release a quest mod right now, I am NOT within my right to make my own website where I commercially sell and profit off of that mod, and if I attempt to do so, they can shut me down and take all my profits immediately. There is a reason modders have only ever requested donations.

   What's going on with modding now is that Bethesda would also be overstepping their boundaries if they blatantly ripped someone's mod work and released it as their content and profited off it. So what happens? Bethesda negotiates contracts with the modders where the already limited rights that modders hold over their mods are being bought out entirely by Bethesda, with the payment being 25% royalty fees for the creator.

 

 

  Bethesda's Base UI for Skyrim is not a case of false advertising. If I say I'm going to sell you a new car engine, then it's assumed that it works of course unless I explicitly state otherwise that it's missing a part or that it is unreliable in some way. You CANNOT go to court and claim Bethesda falsely advertised Skyrim as having this incredible, bug-free UI, because that never happened. What you are naming are merely your own qualms and issues with the products you've purchased, but by no means are they extreme enough to warrant a lawsuit. Extreme enough would be a case where something is blatantly advertised to the public as serving some purpose, and then it clearly doesn't. Your complaints are akin to....if you watch a movie and you think it was a bad movie...have the creators done anything malicious or legally wrong? No, they haven't. At most you can demand your money back, and you'd need a very extreme case for a class-action lawsuit to be possible.

 

  An example of what could spark a lawsuit? The Sims 3 has an expansion called Island Paradise. There are pathing and AI issues with the neighborhood added by this expansion, to the point where that neighborhood suffers from crippling lag that makes it unplayable, and in worst case scenarios, can corrupt the whole game and force a reinstall. The problem? Over half of the new features added by this expansion are tied directly to that neighborhood and cannot be used outside of that neighborhood. The content here was never officially patched.

  I am in awe that EA got away with that and that expansion did not spark mass refunds for all customers, the expansion becoming free for everyone, or some form of legal action. Having said that though...? I would bet you $1,000, easily, that if you own said expansion legally and you file a complaint with EA support demanding your money back for it, they will very quickly bend over backwards to calm you and appeal to your demands the moment you've proven legal ownership. Why? Because they know what's up. Having said that, that would be a case where legal action could accomplish quite a bit. Sometimes the difference between a company being sued or not is as simple as someone attempting, and EA should be counting their blessings on that one.

  As such, the above is also a case where, were EA to release a patch for that expansion and attempt to charge for it? Same exact thing.

 

But you not being satisfied with Skyrim's UI? No, you have no legal claim. This is akin to you not being satisfied with the jokes presented in the latest Adam Sandler movie you paid to watch. It's sad day for you.

 

As for Valve's SSA, two things:

 

1) It does not universally apply to all people and all countries. As stated, a contract itself can be illegal, and sure enough, Section 11 opens up with a big disclaimer that it can be irrelevant depending on the laws of your country.

 

2) It does not mean that you are incapable of making a claim against Valve, it merely means that the method by which you resolve any potential issues will be via Arbitration rather than via the court systems. Why a company would prefer this has various reasons, both innocent and harmless and admittedly self-serving and crappy. (for example, you may have inadvertedly answered my question as to why EA hasn't had a class-action lawsuit against them as for some reason that never occured to me, because binding arbitration could basically demand that each individual contact EA themselves for a refund rather than EA being forced to refund everyone, making it a "slow burn of sorts." Another use of arbitration is to sometimes strongarm people out of attempts as it is possible for it to actually cost MORE than a normal court proceeding, but that does not appear to be the case with Valve as they offer to pay your fees in several instances. Would also like to clarify that typically by and large arbitration is cheaper, I was merely naming that as an example of a way a company might use arbitration to it's advantage, given certain circumstances) It also lists a number of types of claims where the contract and it's obligatory arbitration hold no legal value.

 

 

 

I am not stating there is no cause for concern with things such as Section 11, I'm merely stating that you are exaggerating it's ramnifications. That section is in place to protect the company from getting burned hard on a class-action scale, not to completely absolve you of your rights to complain, protest or demand any refunds or reimbursement.

 

For several of the examples you've named, you'll need to clarify with me what exactly went wrong because I'm unfamiliar with them. As stated though, the Skyrim UI one is a very weak example and not a case where Bethesda has done anything legally wrong. Things begin to be legally sketchy when you explicitly promise a service and it isn't provided, aka false advertisement. Demanding payment for patches is exactly that, more or less.

 

 

 

Finally, I never claimed to be arbiter of what is relevant or not, I'm merely stating that in my opinion, this is not something worth wasting time on because many of the claims being made hold no actual weight. I would suggest that people spend their time on issues that they can actually bring about change for, not on ones where they lament how much the situation shafts them, but the situation is sadly legally sound. Sounds reasonable, no? All I'm saying is I'd prefer to see actual plans to bring about change, but the controversy revolving around the modding is mostly just laments with no actual working plans to do jack about it, and it's pretty debateable to begin with in the sense that Gawker comparatively has all sorts of skeletons in the closet. Valve? Valve has zero, they simply have very bold and aggressive policies that are clearly made to their benefit, but they're 100% legal.

Edited April 25, 2015 by Longknife

[Longknife]

 

They made hundreds of videos about corruption. Do you want them to just repeat the same things over and over? They're still a business, so they have to somehow pay for the whole thing, and if they did that their views would probably drop rapidly. Also, with Wolf-PAC, isn't it a bit silly accusing them of being reactionaries?

 

 

How can you have dialogue with someone that wishes to erase dialogue to begin with? 

Btw, i guess you'd put Wu in the same category, but she did talk Brad Wardell. So maybe it's not as black and white?

 

 

 

Alright then, have a more topical example. Here's a link to the exact portion of the David Pakman interview video where a clip of Cenk is played:

 

https://youtu.be/AhDPFJENqBc?t=22m38s

 

 

Quite frankly, Cenk looks like an absolute ass, and I now understand why Orogun voiced the opinion of TYT that he did.

 

That clip represents exactly what I'm talking about: emotional reactions and stories taking priority over actual discussion and intellectual topics. I understand fully what the guest was trying to say, but Cenk merely shouts her down and acts like an ass. Sadly, this is something that's grown worse over time. Remember, this is the very same guy who started Wolf-Pac. He's intelligent and capable of quite a bit, instead he's making an ass of himself and reminding me of Bill Maher when he's blatantly mocking people, except Cenk is doing it during a guest interview. (and if Maher does this stuff to his guests too? Now would be a great time for a disclaimer that I'm no big fan of Bill Maher)

 

 

 

Also on the subject of Brianna Wu, don't give her too much credit. By her own admission, this is something she did cause she was tired of all the pressure from GamerGate and she did it in hopes of stepping out of their target sights a bit. It wasn't something she did in good faith on her own, but rather something to meet a selfish end and sadly something sparked by a pressure of sorts.

 

As for Wolf-Pac, it's the one reason I haven't hit the unsubscribe button already, and you'll note that again, Wolf-Pac predates the time period that I began to drift away from TYT.

[Zoraptor]

..it's pretty debateable to begin with in the sense that Gawker comparatively has all sorts of skeletons in the closet. Valve? Valve has zero, they simply have very bold and aggressive policies that are clearly made to their benefit, but they're 100% legal.

 

 

I'll leave the rest because there's already a thread on it in the gaming forum, and also because this sentence alone is all I really need to make the point.

 

Ethics is not, itself, about what is legal or not, it's about what is ethical. It isn't actually illegal for Gawker to do the vast majority of the stuff they've been accused of doing either, writing biased stuff, clickbaiting, paid for articles etc it's just crappy practice from crappy people- even their use of unpaid interns has not been proven to be illegal, yet. I don't give a flying asterisk if Valve's SSA is technically legal, it's a massive infringement on purchaser's rights* by a company that is monopolistic and responsible for egregious erosion of the practicalities of what game playing is, and all for the benefit of Valve. I don't use Gawker, and I don't use Steam, but in terms of ethics they're pretty much identical whether you like it or not, indeed as previous Valve is already profiting from the equivalent of a Gawker contributor actively plagiarising others' content- with the proviso that, apparently, Valve has been advising people that is actually OK to do so- which is actively illegal (albeit, you have to challenge them via DMCA, but it's exactly as illegal as piracy is, because it is piracy. Indeed, it's worse than baseline piracy because they profit from it). Sheesh, they've started censoring ratings for the paid mods because they're too low, that's straight out of a Gawkeresque playbook.

 

*as someone from New Zealand software is a product, not just a licence, by law, indeed we have a specific addendum on refunds due to it being covered by our CGA; and unlike the EU one there isn't a legalistic workaround to allow them to refuse refunds based on technicalities because that loophole doesn't exist here. The ethical thing would, of course, be for Valve to honour the spirit of the law- lord knows, they have enough money as it is- but, as it actually is, they ignore the spirit of the law and solely work to and around the letter of it. **** them then.

Edited April 25, 2015 by Zoraptor

[Longknife]

 

..it's pretty debateable to begin with in the sense that Gawker comparatively has all sorts of skeletons in the closet. Valve? Valve has zero, they simply have very bold and aggressive policies that are clearly made to their benefit, but they're 100% legal.

 

 

I'll leave the rest because there's already a thread on it in the gaming forum, and also because this sentence alone is all I really need to make the point.

 

Ethics is not, itself, about what is legal or not, it's about what is ethical. It isn't actually illegal for Gawker to do the vast majority of the stuff they've been accused of doing either, writing biased stuff, clickbaiting, paid for articles etc it's just crappy practice from crappy people- even their use of unpaid interns has not been proven to be illegal, yet. I don't give a flying asterisk if Valve's SSA is technically legal, it's a massive infringement on purchaser's rights* by a company that is monopolistic and responsible for egregious erosion of the practicalities of what game playing is, and all for the benefit of Valve. I don't use Gawker, and I don't use Steam, but in terms of ethics they're pretty much identical whether you like it or not, indeed as previous Valve is already profiting from the equivalent of a Gawker contributor actively plagiarising others' content- with the proviso that, apparently, Valve has been advising people that is actually OK to do so- which is actively illegal (albeit, you have to challenge them via DMCA, but it's exactly as illegal as piracy is, because it is piracy. Indeed, it's worse than baseline piracy because they profit from it). Sheesh, they've started censoring ratings for the paid mods because they're too low, that's straight out of a Gawkeresque playbook.

 

*as someone from New Zealand software is a product, not just a licence, by law, indeed we have a specific addendum on refunds due to it being covered by our CGA; and unlike the EU one there isn't a legalistic workaround to allow them to refuse refunds based on technicalities because that loophole doesn't exist here. The ethical thing would, of course, be for Valve to honour the spirit of the law- lord knows, they have enough money as it is- but, as it actually is, they ignore the spirit of the law and solely work to and around the letter of it. **** them then.

 

 

 

Fair enough points, but I would still argue that the difference is this:

 

I do not expect the average journalist company to act and condone themselves as Gawker does. I do expect such greed and strong-arming from any company ever. The only difference between Valve and a smaller company is that Valve has the tools to strong-arm, smaller companies do not. Therefore, it's not so much an attack on Valve, but an attack on how the business world works in general.

 

Is it a noble goal? Perhaps, but a noble goal with absolutely zero plan will never be nothing more than a pipedream. And that's exactly my point. If I were to look at GamerGate threads and see people suggesting brilliant ideas of how to change Valve's practices or change such practices as a whole? I'd be 100% behind them. But this? Name one idea you've seen thusfar beyond a petition and boycotting. There's no direction and no realistic goal here, and I think we should acknowledge that and cut our losses, OR actually demand those that want to complain about these issues develop working plans to fix them. I for one am suggesting cutting losses because I myself have found myself wanting to come up with plans to fix similar issues in similar situations, but nothing came to mind. I know these practices, I know how they are and I know why they are as they are, but I know of no alternatives to fix the parts I do not like. As such, lamenting the problem day in and day out will do nobody any good, so I reluctantly focus my time elsewhere.

[Zoraptor]

There really isn't any other alternative than some sort of petition/ boycott, the relationship is so skewed that those are basically the only things that can be done, advertisers and the like cannot be brigaded or whatever- the only equivalent would be going after any modders who put their mods up for sale. Which will happen, but won't be something I'd either be comfortable with nor advocate particularly as it's an obvious recipe for abuse.

 

You're a bit harsh on the journalists though, ideally they'd all be crusaders for truth and justice, incorruptible and brave; but then, so would Valve's software engineers as well- ideally. Practically, both Gawker and Valve are companies made up of individuals who want a pay cheque, after all.

[Meshugger]

Drunkposting is sometimes not the best idea.

 

But you guys suck, where did the Pakman interview with Sommers go? I only found the one with Vox Day, which turned out to be a snoozefest when they didn't talk about Gamergate at all. 

 

Nvm, found them:

 

 

Edited April 25, 2015 by Meshugger

[Meshugger]

Has this been posted yet? 

 

http://www.gameinformer.com/blogs/members/b/codenamecrono_blog/archive/2015/04/23/because-honey-badgers-don-39-t-give-a-damn.aspx

[Longknife]

I also wanted to say I'm not quite understanding the "controversy" around Pakman's interview with Sommers.

I've seen GamerGate supporters going after him for a number of things, such as having an agenda, clickbait titles (wtf?), not really discussing GamerGate and a part where a clip is inserted into the video and it's "unclear" it wasn't played for Sommers. The criticism of it not being about GamerGate I find fair; in some ways I wouldn't expect him to know or understand it and her involvement with GamerGate is very limited anyways beyond saying she sympathizes with it, but you could of course argue he's a journalist and could do better with more research. Him having agenda I again find iffy cause while I do get that vibe, it doesn't insert itself into the video. Namely, what I think we're seeing more is his views and experiences coloring his expectations in the interview, but is the interview itself still conducted professionally and fairly? Absolutely, and that's all you can really ask for.

   The clickbait title accusation has me stumped. Accusations the video was not played for Sommers nd we were misled to believe so has me stumped too. Are we watching the same video? At no point did he say "let me play that clip for you now" and directly following her answer he recommends the video to her, making it crystal clear she had not seen it.

 

 

  Again, this is some of my annoyance with Gamergate lately: https://twitter.com/CHSommers/status/591705881793982465

 

The tone is so catty. I mean, you can ask the man to insert a disclaimer, something he did on his own the moment he saw this tweet. Instead there's this attitude of "oh man there's some conspiracy going on here!!!" Not a conspiracy like aliens and tinfoil hats, but like Pakman was purposefully trying to mislead the audience. That's insane. It was clearly an honest mistake and they could've calmly asked for the disclaimer. INSTEAD we see that kind of tone, we see a lot on the gamergate side (Milo, Sargon etc) jumping on board and trashing Pakman, and you know what? GamerGate does look stupid as hell now. Good job guys. Good ****ing job.

 

So frustrating to see this happening over time. GamerGate is becoming too high strung and handling everybody as if they were some hugbox SJW with an agenda and a refusal to hear the other side. Pro-tip: that's not how everyone acts and treated everyone that way makes you come off as looney tunes as the people you're opposing.

[licketysplit]

I also wanted to say I'm not quite understanding the "controversy" around Pakman's interview with Sommers.

 

I've seen GamerGate supporters going after him for a number of things, such as having an agenda, clickbait titles (wtf?), not really discussing GamerGate and a part where a clip is inserted into the video and it's "unclear" it wasn't played for Sommers. The criticism of it not being about GamerGate I find fair; in some ways I wouldn't expect him to know or understand it and her involvement with GamerGate is very limited anyways beyond saying she sympathizes with it, but you could of course argue he's a journalist and could do better with more research. Him having agenda I again find iffy cause while I do get that vibe, it doesn't insert itself into the video. Namely, what I think we're seeing more is his views and experiences coloring his expectations in the interview, but is the interview itself still conducted professionally and fairly? Absolutely, and that's all you can really ask for.

   The clickbait title accusation has me stumped. Accusations the video was not played for Sommers nd we were misled to believe so has me stumped too. Are we watching the same video? At no point did he say "let me play that clip for you now" and directly following her answer he recommends the video to her, making it crystal clear she had not seen it.

 

 

  Again, this is some of my annoyance with Gamergate lately: https://twitter.com/CHSommers/status/591705881793982465

 

The tone is so catty. I mean, you can ask the man to insert a disclaimer, something he did on his own the moment he saw this tweet. Instead there's this attitude of "oh man there's some conspiracy going on here!!!" Not a conspiracy like aliens and tinfoil hats, but like Pakman was purposefully trying to mislead the audience. That's insane. It was clearly an honest mistake and they could've calmly asked for the disclaimer. INSTEAD we see that kind of tone, we see a lot on the gamergate side (Milo, Sargon etc) jumping on board and trashing Pakman, and you know what? GamerGate does look stupid as hell now. Good job guys. Good ****ing job.

 

So frustrating to see this happening over time. GamerGate is becoming too high strung and handling everybody as if they were some hugbox SJW with an agenda and a refusal to hear the other side. Pro-tip: that's not how everyone acts and treated everyone that way makes you come off as looney tunes as the people you're opposing.

 

I've never thought he was the best interviewer really. Maybe it's just his approach that bothers me, and he's not deliberately being antagonistic, but he constantly interrupts and nitpicks over the tiniest points. Others have mentioned he's challenging people, I see it as being unproductive. 

[HoonDing]

[Meshugger]

Guess who just got fired?

 

[Fighter]

 

[Meshugger]

^a reasonable answer to the above

 

GamerGate causes harassment:

 

[kirottu]

"If someone feels they have been harassed it is harassment."

 

This is the most ridiculous sentiment yet.

[Zoraptor]

Well, the reciprocal statement is accurate ("if someone doesn't feel harassed it isn't harassment", by definition), so feeling harassed is a necessary condition- but it isn't the only condition, of course. It's the sort of rule that is really intended for people hassling cosplayers and the like, not for political statements or personal beliefs where you get sensitive snowflakes and censorious gits who just want to shut people up who disagree with them.

[kirottu]

[Sakai]

http://www.annewheaton.com/weathering-the-storm/

[Malcador]

Bit late to the party with that, isn't she. But hey if she needed abusive tweets to donate to an organization, good for her.

[Fighter]

So when is someone going to do statistical research on how many people are abusive in proportion to the overall group? Because if this is going to be "the problem" it's where we need to start.

[Meshugger]

Another "Listen & Belive"-story where some of the money ended up to a scam-artist. But atleast ACLU got some money, so in the end it wasn't so bad.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Instead there's this attitude of "oh man there's some conspiracy going on here!!!" Not a conspiracy like aliens and tinfoil hats, but like Pakman was purposefully trying to mislead the audience. That's insane. It was clearly an honest mistake and they could've calmly asked for the disclaimer. INSTEAD we see that kind of tone, we see a lot on the gamergate side (Milo, Sargon etc) jumping on board and trashing Pakman, and you know what? GamerGate does look stupid as hell now. Good job guys. Good ****ing job. (...)

 

GamerGate is becoming too high strung and handling everybody as if they were some hugbox SJW with an agenda and a refusal to hear the other side. Pro-tip: that's not how everyone acts and treated everyone that way makes you come off as looney tunes as the people you're opposing.

 

Well the problem with hate groups is that sooner or later everybody becomes a target : ]

Edited April 26, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Fighter]

Well the problem with hate groups is that sooner or later everybody becomes a target : ]

 

Cute.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Well the problem with hate groups is that sooner or later everybody becomes a target : ]

 

Cute.

 

 

Well this is pretty much the result you can expect when you define your movement by its opposition towards those horrible not-ingroup people.

[Malcador]

Still is weird to call it a hate group, given the level of structure it has. Heh, I suppose anti-GG is the same way.

[Fighter]

 

Well this is pretty much the result you can expect when you define your movement by its opposition towards those horrible not-ingroup people.

 

 

That sounds like the 'other side's' projection.