binary solo said:
No he doesn't, https://m.ask.fm/Jimquisition/answers/129585918178 a stupid thing to say at the time, but he has clarified and I'm satisfied with his explanation as lame as he was in the first place, and as lame an excuse as it is. I hate "but it was just a joke" excuses, but if it really was a terrible attempt at sarcasm then I accept it at the same time as being very disappointed in him for what he initially said and how he said it. Anyway, unless you are legally bound to conform to a code of ethics, like lawyers or doctors, then "ethically allowed" is meaningless. And indeed I completely disagree with you on the point that either sides' actions were ethically OK. If you actually believe Kotaku was ethically OK to do what it has been said they did, then surely you would say the blacklisting is an extreme and unethical over-reaction on the parts of Ubi and Bethesda, legal, yes, ethical no. And if you think that what Kotaku is said to have done is ethically dodgy then does that mean it is ethically passable for publishers to use an inherently ethically dodgy practice in response. Blacklisting of media has a much borader context than this one case and it is a very problematic action because it has strong implications of corruption, collusion, and suppression. And it would worry me greatly if other games media swung in behind Ubi and Bethesda in supporting the blacklisting. I do note with interest that the gamezone article doesn't directly support Bethesda's and Ubisoft's actions, and it is a reasonable critique of Kotaku's action. But I think most readers are taking that Op-ed as a tacit endorsement of blacklisting as a media control tactic, and that's a concern.
|
Considering I watched the event where he agreed with Adam Sessler regarding it, I reject his attempt at passing it off as 'just a joke'. It doesn't take a psychologist to read body language, and nothing about either of their demeanor at the time in any way indicated it was a joke. I don't respect the guy, and I've stopped watching his videos. We can have this discussion without bringing him up, though.
I think ethically, you can't really argue what Kotaku did, and you really can't argue what Bethesda/Ubi have done (if we're going by what's being claimed, of course). The way I see it, Kotaku released information that the publisher didn't want revealed at that point in time (it wasn't about truth, it wasn't about breaking a story, it was just click generation, we knew both of these games were coming, the official announcement just hadn't happened yet), while yes, it's dodgy, it's not unethical, but it is their right. Is it a dick move to pull on Bethesda/Ubisoft, given they may have grand reveal plans? But, unethical? Eh...not really sure I'm willing to go that far.
Likewise, Bethesda and Ubisoft, for whatever reason (we really don't know how this impacted their plans), decided it was time to end their relationship. That's fine. I don't see how that's wrong. I really don't. Furthermore, and this is just me, but I could care less about pre-launch reviews. They're simply not reliable, as whatever evironment it's being played on, is very clearly not the same environment as players would find on launch. I also don't see how this hurts anyone, but Kotaku (Which goes back to consequences of the choices you make). Kotaku's readers can either A) get the information elsewhere, or B) Wait until Kotaku's review is in place, while being assured that it's more representative of the actual experience the players will have.
You should check out the Harmful Opinions video, that one actually is closer aligned with my thoughts on the matter. I do think the media should have open and free access, but I also think the media has figured out a grey area where they can basically funciton w/o any kind of repercussions when they behave poorly, while they hide behind the guise of Free Speech. I love Free Speech, what I don't love is people who use a platform they control 100% to lie straight to millions of peoples faces, purposefully and intentionally miss-informing the populace. It's a very common practice among news agencies, these days, and I'm pretty fucking tired of it. Way, way more tired of that than I am a company blacklisting a tabloid. If games journalists, actually behaved like real journalists, pubs wouldn't have the ability to do this to any of them, because the news generally holds all the cards. It's precisely because it's a rotten cesspit, that Ubisoft and Bethesda can do something like this and many people won't really care.
