Journalism and bias in the gaming industry

[Nonek]

I prefer not to ignore the evidence of game journalists sleeping with developers, appearing in games followed by stellar reviews, sharing appartments, paying money to developers, not recusing themselves after the above conflicts of interest, publishing thousands of articles that were basically free PR for games without any form of criticism, releasing near perfect reviews for critically flawed games, sacking any journalist whom actually starts giving realistic scores, the bloated review scores that we now see used as a standard, their anti consumer articles such as those arguing against Steam refunds etcetera, etcetera.

 

However others are free to ignore all of this.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

I prefer not to ignore the evidence of game journalists sleeping with developers, appearing in games followed by stellar reviews, sharing appartments, paying money to developers, not recusing themselves after the above conflicts of interest, publishing thousands of articles that were basically free PR for games without any form of criticism, releasing near perfect reviews for critically flawed games, sacking any journalist whom actually starts giving realistic scores, the bloated review scores that we now see used as a standard, their anti consumer articles such as those arguing against Steam refunds etcetera, etcetera.

 

However others are free to ignore all of this.

 

...Or you can just admit the obvious, that this has very little to do with how a publisher's marketing people will operate.

 

However, others are free to blame a shadowy cabal of gaming journalists for all the ills of the industry.

[Nonek]

...Or you can just ignore the obvious, that game journalists are in bed with publishers and a part of their marketing operations.

 

After all it's probably all a conspiracy by the patriarchy isn't it, aiming to cause sexism and violence through games?

[BruceVC]

...Or you can just ignore the obvious, that game journalists are in bed with publishers and a part of their marketing operations.

 

After all it's probably all a conspiracy by the patriarchy isn't it, aiming to cause sexism and violence through games?

" Marketing operations "  

 

 Nonek please, we agreed you would keep the hyperbole and grandstanding to a minimum in order to encourage reasonable debate ?

[aluminiumtrioxid]

...Or you can just ignore the obvious, that game journalists are in bed with publishers and a part of their marketing operations.

 

 

Which still has nothing to do with this particular example of ****tiness.

 

For heavens' sake, the guy chose to impersonate a random schmuck on the internet, which signals that they're well aware whose opinions we hold in higher esteem, that of the fellow gamer or journalists'.

Edited June 26, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Nonek]

 

Well this really has ended well, with a resounding victory for the gamer, and a black eye for the corrupt media whom wanted Steam to not allow a basic consumer right. I do wonder whether this would have occured before Gamergate, and whether the public actually standing up for their rights, and spurning the regressive press has given the publishers a little more respect for their audience. It's really surprising to see how quickly Warner Bros. stepped in, and an indication of how valuable this audience is to their business.

 

On the celebration of historical revisionism, it's to be expected, Orwell really was a prophet in many ways.

 

 

 

 

...Or you can just ignore the obvious, that game journalists are in bed with publishers and a part of their marketing operations.

 

 

Which still has nothing to do with this particular example of ****tiness.

 

For heavens' sake, the guy chose to impersonate a random schmuck on the internet, which signals that they're well aware whose opinions we hold in higher esteem, that of the fellow gamer or journalists'.

 

 

Except that as I first stated (and have bolded above) Mr Nathan Greyson argued against Steam refunds, and this is a black eye for him and those like him whom wanted a basic consumer right denied.

Edited June 26, 2015 by Nonek

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

Except that as I first stated (and have bolded above) Mr Nathan Greyson argued against Steam refunds, and this is a black eye for him and those like him whom wanted a basic consumer right denied.

 

 

Which is wonderful, but it still has nothing to do with the image you directly responded to with the aforementioned post, given that said image was depicting a pretty high-ranking marketing guy at Warner Bros. masquerading as a random internet guy going off on a tirade about how it's totally expected for a game to have issues at release nowadays, and anybody raising complaints is "just a bunch of babies".

 

Blaming journalists for that does everybody a disservice. Well, everybody who's interested in calling out anti-consumer attitudes on the publisher side, instead of pointing at the convenient scapegoat of gaming journalism.

[Malcador]

Wonder why someone would go through the tedium of getting an indie game, playing it and then getting a refund rather than just pirating it. Steam may cut you off if you make it a habit, I'd imagine.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Wonder why someone would go through the tedium of getting an indie game, playing it and then getting a refund rather than just pirating it. Steam may cut you off if you make it a habit, I'd imagine.

 

Yeah, this was my main point as well in arguing for the Steam refunds. Worrying about short indie games being returned in droves betrays a fundamental failure to understand the target demographic of those indie games.

[Nonek]

 

Well this really has ended well, with a resounding victory for the gamer, and a black eye for the corrupt media whom wanted Steam to not allow a basic consumer right. I do wonder whether this would have occured before Gamergate, and whether the public actually standing up for their rights, and spurning the regressive press has given the publishers a little more respect for their audience. It's really surprising to see how quickly Warner Bros. stepped in, and an indication of how valuable this audience is to their business.

 

On the celebration of historical revisionism, it's to be expected, Orwell really was a prophet in many ways.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Except that as I first stated (and have bolded above) Mr Nathan Greyson argued against Steam refunds, and this is a black eye for him and those like him whom wanted a basic consumer right denied.

 

 

Which is wonderful, but it still has nothing to do with the image you directly responded to with the aforementioned post, given that said image was depicting a pretty high-ranking marketing guy at Warner Bros. masquerading as a random internet guy going off on a tirade about how it's totally expected for a game to have issues at release nowadays, and anybody raising complaints is "just a bunch of babies".

 

Blaming journalists for that does everybody a disservice. Well, everybody who's interested in calling out anti-consumer attitudes on the publisher side, instead of pointing at the convenient scapegoat of gaming journalism.

 

 

Seriously? The image was used by me to refer to the whole situation surrounding the latest Batman: Arkham something game, this is surely simple to comprehend? I pronounce that this has ended well with Warner Brothers advising consumers to take advantage of Steam refunds, and condemn the journalists whom argued against Steam refunds being implemented, and you can see no correlation between these two things?

 

I'm sorry, I know it's a knee jerk reaction to defend corruption, champion unethical behaviour and demonise gamers as misogynists and whatever term is trending this week. To try to excuse game journalists by shifting the blame onto publishers, even though game journalists should serve as watchdogs of the publishers, not their advocates. Consumers at the end of the day should not be made convenient scapegoats for the unfit for purpose press not doing their jobs and actually working counter to it.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Seriously? The image was used by me to refer to the whole situation surrounding the latest Batman: Arkham something game, this is surely simple to comprehend? I pronounce that this has ended well with Warner Brothers advising consumers to take advantage of Steam refunds, and condemn the journalists whom argued against Steam refunds being implemented, and you can see no correlation between these two things?

 

 

...Surely I am allowed to take issue with the fact that, in the post in question, you've just chosen to let a really slimy move on the publisher's part go unremarked on while patting yourself in the back for winning at Ethics?

 

 

I'm sorry, I know it's a knee jerk reaction to defend corruption, champion unethical behaviour and demonise gamers as misogynists and whatever term is trending this week. To try to excuse game journalists by shifting the blame onto publishers, even though game journalists should serve as watchdogs of the publishers, not their advocates. Consumers at the end of the day should not be made convenient scapegoats for the unfit for purpose press not doing their jobs and actually working counter to it.

 

 

I'm not going to dignify this particular bit of idiocy with a response.

 

It's, like, I'm looking at the words, and each of them has meaning on their own, but as a sentence, it's just incoherent rambling that doesn't even have a tangential connection to the discussion we were just having.

Edited June 26, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Nonek]

 

 

Seriously? The image was used by me to refer to the whole situation surrounding the latest Batman: Arkham something game, this is surely simple to comprehend? I pronounce that this has ended well with Warner Brothers advising consumers to take advantage of Steam refunds, and condemn the journalists whom argued against Steam refunds being implemented, and you can see no correlation between these two things?

 

 

...Surely I am allowed to take issue with the fact that, in the post in question, you've just chosen to let a really slimy move on the publisher's part go unremarked on while patting yourself in the back for winning at Ethics?

 

 

I'm sorry, I know it's a knee jerk reaction to defend corruption, champion unethical behaviour and demonise gamers as misogynists and whatever term is trending this week. To try to excuse game journalists by shifting the blame onto publishers, even though game journalists should serve as watchdogs of the publishers, not their advocates. Consumers at the end of the day should not be made convenient scapegoats for the unfit for purpose press not doing their jobs and actually working counter to it.

 

 

I'm not going to dignify this particular bit of idiocy with a response.

 

 

It seemed obvious that I and anybody reasonable would condemn the marketing individuals actions, but since you need reassurance, yes I find this as despicable as I did the last time I heard it happen. At what point did I pat myself on the back for anything?

 

I don't regard asking game journalists to do their jobs rather than asking consumers to do it for them as being particularly idiotic, it seems very reasonable to me.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry, I know it's a knee jerk reaction to defend corruption, champion unethical behaviour and demonise gamers as misogynists and whatever term is trending this week. To try to excuse game journalists by shifting the blame onto publishers, even though game journalists should serve as watchdogs of the publishers, not their advocates. Consumers at the end of the day should not be made convenient scapegoats for the unfit for purpose press not doing their jobs and actually working counter to it.

 

 

I'm not going to dignify this particular bit of idiocy with a response.

 

 

I don't regard asking game journalists to do their jobs rather than asking consumers to do it for them as being particularly idiotic, it seems very reasonable to me.

 

 

That's completely fair; snide remarks about "trying to excuse games journalists by shifting blame to publishers" (translation: pointing out that the particular instance of unethical behavior exhibited was done by the publisher), and how "consumers shouldn't be made scapegoats for the press" (that accusation makes no sense; how would anybody accomplish that?) are not.

Edited June 26, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Meshugger]

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/06/allan-davis/the-war-on-men-3/

 

 

 

Gamers, and Gamergate supporters, come in all makes and models.  Both sexes and all colors and creeds are well represented, as the #NotYourShield hashtag revealed, and practically every notch on the political spectrum is covered.  But the overwhelming message of Gamergate is a purely libertarian one:  “Leave us alone to make the games we want to make and play the games we want to play.”

 

Sometimes you read something good on the internet.

[Nonek]

 

Blaming journalists for that does everybody a disservice. Well, everybody who's interested in calling out anti-consumer attitudes on the publisher side, instead of pointing at the convenient scapegoat of gaming journalism.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't regard asking game journalists to do their jobs rather than asking consumers to do it for them as being particularly idiotic, it seems very reasonable to me.

 

 

That's completely fair; snide remarks about "trying to excuse games journalists by shifting blame to publishers" (translation: pointing out that the particular instance of unethical behavior exhibited was done by the publisher), and how "consumers shouldn't be made scapegoats for the press" (that accusation makes no sense; how would anybody accomplish that?) are not.

 

 

Ah I see so it's snide for me to say "trying to excuse games journalists by shifting blame to publishers" but fine for you to say "Well, everybody who's interested in calling out anti-consumer attitudes on the publisher side, instead of pointing at the convenient scapegoat of gaming journalism." Double standards at play?

 

As for how one can make the consumer scapegoats for the press, well one can ask them to do the press' job for them, and defend the press when they don't.

[HoonDing]

I'm puzzled after spending some time on a forum infested with SJWs.

When did "queer" stop being derogatory?

[Meshugger]

I'm puzzled after spending some time on a forum infested with SJWs.

 

When did "queer" stop being derogatory?

 

Good question. I wouldn't know, since i once thought that it meant something uh, else.

 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

We have a new foe guy. I give you the Mautist himself, Jason Unruhe.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S72jiRtIMeI

[Meshugger]

Hahahaha, what a bad bait.

[cirdanx]

 

I'm puzzled after spending some time on a forum infested with SJWs.

 

When did "queer" stop being derogatory?

 

Good question. I wouldn't know, since i once thought that it meant something uh, else.

 

 

 

+1 for Garbage

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Hahahaha, what a bad bait.

 

Yeah, an apologist for Best Korea who cosplays from the safety of Canada is hilarious.

 

Some responses from a Marxist to him from a challenge he issued a while back:

 

https://commonruin.wordpress.com/2015/06/07/answering-jason-unruhes-maoist-third-worldist-challenge/

 

https://commonruin.wordpress.com/2015/06/15/first-world-phantoms/

[Zoraptor]

That's completely fair; snide remarks about "trying to excuse games journalists by shifting blame to publishers" (translation: pointing out that the particular instance of unethical behavior exhibited was done by the publisher), and how "consumers shouldn't be made scapegoats for the press" (that accusation makes no sense; how would anybody accomplish that?) are not.

 

The latter is referring to the 'entitlement' argument, I believe, why do gamers feel entitled to... a working game, refunds, whatever. It's an utterly illogical shilltastic argument, but it is also very common, depressingly so. Basically, it isn't a problem with the journalists or the product, it's just a problem generated (unfairly) by those complaining.

 

More generally, the big difference between journalists and interested parties of any sort is that you don't really have an expectation of 'ethics' from an interested party, like a game publisher, their obligation is not to be 'ethical' but to make money, publicise the game or if the interested party is an 'interest group' rather than a commercial one, to push their agenda. Companies will be ethical so long as it's compatible with making money, legalities and (to an extent) with generating intangibles like goodwill, but there's no real expectation of anything beyond that. That is why publishers sometimes tend to get lesser flak over such issues- though for Arkham Knight WB is still getting massive, and deserved, flak- people simply expect them not to really have their best interests at heart, whatever they say.

 

In contrast, journalists, at least theoretically, do have an obligation to ethics and to 'the truth' rather than to making money- they fundamentally ought to be a disinterested party. Ill thought out arguments against refunds parroting those made by others and ignoring that piracy will always be cheaper and easier than refund rigmarole strongly suggest that the person is not a disinterested party but an interested one. From a disinterested/ logical viewpoint there's very little to dislike about a refund policy, especially on a DRM system like Steam where removal of the refunded goods can be enforced.

Edited June 27, 2015 by Zoraptor

[Meshugger]

Anoter gem from Tauriq:

 

Edited June 27, 2015 by Meshugger

[Hurlshort]

I don't know who the person is, do they only write about console stuff?  You wouldn't really need to be all that well versed in the technical stuff if you were.  Kind of odd to trumpet your ignorance on social media though.

[Malcador]

Yeah Moosa is Kuchera redux. Seems to do nothing but post on Twitter every 5 minutes, heh.

 

Even if you are some console writer, you should at least be aware of the GPUs in the things and how they perform, at a high level.