The State of Game Journalism

[Sly Reflex]

Dat toilet story.

[Uncle Dokuro]

Not a big fan of Gawker Media it basically one click above TMZ and I think Nick Denton is one of the worst people in the world. But I know it Kotaku blog site has some fans on MFGamer and thought I would share this link I found on another forum.

http://kotaku.com/a-brief-note-about-the-continued-discussion-about-kotak-1627041269

A brief note about the continued discussion about Kotaku's approach to reporting. We've long been wary of the potential undue influence of corporate gaming on games reporting, and we've taken many actions to guard against it. The last week has been, if nothing else, a good warning to all of us about the pitfalls of cliquishness in the indie dev scene and among the reporters who cover it. We've absorbed those lessons and assure you that, moving ahead, we'll err on the side of consistent transparency on that front, too.

We appreciate healthy skepticism from critics and have looked into—and discussed internally—concerns. We agree on the need to ensure that, on the occasion where there is a personal connection between a writer and a developer, it's mentioned. We've also agreed that funding any developers through services such as Patreon introduce needless potential conflicts of interest and are therefore nixing any such contributions by our writers. Some may disagree that Patreons are a conflict. That's a debate for journalism critics.

Ultimately, I believe you readers want the same thing my team, without exception, wants: a site that feels bullshit-free and independent, that tells you about what's cool and interesting about gaming in a fair way that you can trust. I look forward to focusing ever more sharply on that mission.

[Sly Reflex]

Anything that lights a fire under these fuckers and makes things more straightforward and honest is a good move from my perspective.

[DANGERMAN]

Now we just need to stop journalists from pimping Kickstarters

[Uncle Dokuro]

They went kicking and screaming "we don't agree with you, but we'll do it anyways". Polygon has updated it public ethics policy.

http://www.polygon.com/forums/meta/2014/8/26/6071669/on-patreon-support

A Reddit thread was brought to my attention this morning that suggested that Polygon's Ben Kuchera published an article on this site in which he had a conflict of interest. The accusation stems from Ben's public contribution to game developer Zoe Quinn's Patreon campaign. Patreon, for those of you unfamiliar with the platform, is a way to financially support projects and creators whose work you appreciate and want to see continue. Like Kickstarter, these contributions aren't investments. There is no equity to be gained, there is no market to capitalize on.

Patreon contributions are publicly cataloged on the site. Indeed, Ben's contribution could have been made private and it stands to reason that it would have been were this a conflict of interest that we wanted to hide, but we determined that Patreon support didn't violate any journalistic principles more than, say, a preorder would. But regardless of what we thought, our public ethics policy was silent on Patreon, and critics interpreted the directive that Polygon staffers would not cover companies "in which they have a financial investment" to extend to this platform.

While I disagree that contributing to a game developer without holding an actual financial stake in their success is a violation of the spirit of that principle, I also think that disclosure is the best medicine in these circumstances. So starting immediately, I've asked everyone on staff to disclose on their staff pages any outstanding Patreon contributions and, additionally, to disclose the same on any coverage related to those contributions under that staff member's byline. We'll retroactively update any stories published in the duration of that support to reflect that, and I'll note those updates here.

It's natural that our staff would want to contribute to some of the creators whose work they appreciate and want to see continue, whether that is a Patreon campaign, a Kickstarter project or a AAA pre-order. But I think it's more important that we support the readers of this site first and foremost. It's imperative that we maintain appropriate barriers with the subjects we cover and, when those barriers are unclear or open to interpretation, as this case is, that we sufficiently disclose those details so readers can ultimately judge for themselves.

[HandsomeDead]

Now we just need to stop journalists from pimping Kickstarters

I don't think I'd want this. I'm never gonna browse Kickstarter myself; I don't want to spend my time on it. I'm fine with journalists curating the stuff based on their personal opinions, or even contacts as long as there is clarity.

[DANGERMAN]

I'm not. they're in a position of power, albeit a fairly unimportant kind of power, they shouldn't be promoting their friends stuff. Down with nepotism

[Craymen Edge]

People writing about projects they think look interesting is fine by me.

The way some people in games writing/podcasting etc. dragged projects like République and Amplitude over the finish line, promoting them like they worked for the company. Those really did feel weird.

[Hendo]

I agree that I'm happy to see writers bring interesting projects to the limelight.

If they couldn't report any Kickstarter type projects, for one thing you'd miss out on some fairly important news pieces like Elite, Molyneux, Inafune's MegaMan successor, DoubleFine and the Harmonix one was a big deal for people who loved those old games.

Edit: Also the whole Silicon Knights Eternal Darkness thing.

I find the idea of journalists having to publicly acknowledge the projects they've backed a little odd as they won't financially benefit from them but I guess I can understand it.

[DANGERMAN]

just to be clear, it's not all kickstarters I have a problem with, just when they know the people involved

[Sly Reflex]

just to be clear, it's not all kickstarters I have a problem with, just when they know the people involved

It's this more than anything. When you're buddies with the people that work there it's a bit unprofessional to give them webspace over something else that might be a better fit but is missing out because of social connections.

[DANGERMAN]

As an aside though I think I might hate Kickstarter

[Uncle Dokuro]

I personally think the ethics get murky when paid journalist pimp projects and review projects that they personally are invested in financially.

[Hendo]

If they've contributed to a Kickstarter though, it's only the same as reviewing a game that they paid for, which is no bad thing. They're not going to reap financial rewards if their review causes the game to sell well.

There's a good discussion on the whole Zoe Quinn thing (among others) on the latest Idle Thumbs podcast which I'm partially into now.

Chris Remo has himself been attacked because he was contracted as composer on Gone Home and Danielle the new-ish ID member was a guest st some point and then reviewed the game and gave it a 10. As he points out he was paid a flat fee, it made no difference how much it sold.

[DANGERMAN]

it's still nepotism regardless. There's a couple of games that do what Gone Home does better (imo) (Dear Esther for one) that didn't get half the coverage because they didn't have the right people behind it. Look at how any and all problems with Walking dead were washed over because the Idle Thumbs guys were involved, nicely giving exclusive access and interviews to the likes of Giant Bomb, those games were riddled with bugs. It's amazing how many of the Kickstarter success stories have someone formally from the press side involved in them.

Craymen mentioned Republique, there's Amplitude, which even Garnet Lee was uncomfortable with how his peers were fighting for that game. Hell, I knew Chris Remo was involved in Gone Home before the game had come out, why, he's hardly Trent Reznor/David Bowie, he's just some bloke. Why do I even know who he is, or John Drake for that matter, who incidentally people were pissed off with for getting let go from Harmonix because they'd funded Amplitude because of him, they've never met him, they just know him from Giant Bomb. The same Giant Bomb who convinced people who'd never come close to meeting John Drake to fund the John Drake tracker on kickstarter, an in-joke for his friends, paid for by Giant Bombs fans because Giant Bomb aksed

It's not about how much the journalist benefits, it's about the ethics of a critic or journalist giving favourable coverage to a friend. It's not the same as reviewing a game they'd paid for, otherwise you'd be ok with critics reviewing their friends games, which I presume no one is?

edit: it's just occured to me your post might have been aimed at Dok rather than me

[Hendo]

I don't think The Walking Dead got attention because of Idle Thumbs.

It got attention because it was based on The Walking Dead which is very popular, everyone loves zombies, Telltale are extremely well liked and regarded and they got the episodic thing down quite well.

Then if you go in the thread here for it, apart from some standout odd moments, it's largely highly praised for its ideas and narrative moments.

Season 2 isn't quite as well regarded but I don't for a moment believe that anywhere close to a percentage of people who say they like it only do so because they like 2 of the people that made it.

Personally I thought Gone Home had a much better story than Dear Esther and there was certainly more to do in it. I ended Dear Esther being a bit disappointed whereas my memories of Gone Home are much more pleasant except that I'm glad I got it on sale as I think the original price is a little too much for what the game was, regardless of how much work the people put in and how expensive it might've been for them to make.

[radiofloyd]

All I know is, I love kickstarter. In the last two years I've rarely been following less than five active campaigns at any one time. Right now I have starred 10 projects, three of which I would say look amazing (Elysian Shadows, Aegis Defenders and Moon Hunters).

For some strange reason even though my gaming time has decreased, I enjoy following games online more than ever.

[Uncle Dokuro]

Hendo, Dangerman said it best "it still nepotism regardless". That’s all I’m going to say on this matter. I don’t like going around in circles. It makes me dizzy.

[Hendo]

I really don't see how contributing to a Kickstarter and then putting a news story about it is nepotism.

That would be like me buying an album and then telling everyone I know to listen to it. It's excitable journalism maybe and if we're talking strictly about journalists and developers who are good mates then maybe, but the majority of the time it's people who are in the same position as us getting excited about a new project and spreading it around.

Giant Bomb and Harmonix? Probably yeah.

The vast majority though, no I don't believe so.

[DANGERMAN]

I didn't mean to imply that Walking Dead only got attention because of who was involved, only that it dodged criticism for its bad writing and rampant bugs because Telltale are indie darlings. Not that I didn't like it, I did, but it was a mess

As an aside Season 2 seems to be getting a lot less coverage now people's mates have left

While I don't like Kickstarter, in this instance my problem is when the journalist knows the person involved. Although I doubt you'd be telling people to listen to an album you hadn't yourself heard yet