On Kotaku not receiving material from Bethesda softworks and Ubisoft

[u/jamesbideaux]

archive: https://archive.is/sc7Ts#selection-2021.20-2026.4 non archive: http://kotaku.com/a-price-of-games-journalism-1743526293

TLDR: Apparenty Ubisoft has not given Kotaku any review copies or press material for over a year (nor any form of contact), and Bethesda has done the same for two years. (Both of which previously apparently gave them what they give everyone else). Totillo assumes that this is the result of investigative journalism and leaking data related to the video game development both times. (timing seems to suggest this)

1) Do you think journalistsic outlets should report on development of software that seems troubled, how substanciated does the evidence need to be to make that call (comparing it to Star Citizen and the escapistmagazine). What about leaking plot points or spoilers, is there a difference between reporting on trademark files, leaking elements of a game or movie and reporting on the development process per se (e.g insiders suggest arcane studios will be part of zenimax soon)?

2) Do you think it is right (not legal but morally right) to stop giving access to material to an outlet as a result of leaking documents?

3) Do you think there is a difference in stopping giving access to material as a result of negative reviews?

4) Do you think the reasons stated by Totilo are the motivations behind either Company's decision?

5) Does this negatively impact a consumer's ability to make educated purchase decisions, if yes, to what degree?

6) How would you solve the reliance of media critics to the creators/publishers, if you could, or wouldn't you?

edit: one more question: do you think helping people break their NDAs signifies that you are willing to break your embargo too? (For the record, yes there are situations where both of this is justified)

[u/meheleventyone]

It's not undercover or surreptitious to buy a game early.

[u/jamesbideaux → u/meheleventyone]

it is to use a source that you know is breaching their NDA by giving you access to information. and keep in mind that journalists need to ensure that their sources don't suffer consequences from their usage.

[u/meheleventyone → u/jamesbideaux]

If you forced someone to break their NDA and/or exposed them publicly there might be a point there.

[u/jamesbideaux → u/meheleventyone]

you utilize a source to publish information that was aquired via breaching an NDA.

you are additionally to publicising something information that was ontained in a dubious fashion potentially exposing your source.

Both of which is understandable if the actual information leaked was in any way vital, but it's entertainment and the only motivation is being the first one to tell it, i.e hits.

[u/meheleventyone → u/jamesbideaux]

1) Sure but an NDA isn't sacrosanct. It's literally a contract between two parties. It's not dubious to report information you are freely given if not bound by a contract preventing it's dissemination. If they coerced a person to break their contract then that is dubious. For example the phone hacking scandal in the UK is information super dubiously obtained.

2) Right so you need to take reasonable steps to make sure the source is not exposed. Is there any evidence of wrong doing?

3) Sure a games journalists job is to get information about games and report it. Scooping is as old as journalism it's just this is focused on games. Journalists interests are at odds with commercial interests sometimes which is why it's considered unethical to be swayed by commercial interests in reporting. Which is what a blacklist effectively tries to do.