"Ethics and Journalistic Integrity"

[Vainamoinen]

To a point, the publishers need to do something right? If they want publications to adhere to review embargoes than they need to take some kind of action against publications that don't play along, if the leaked marketing stuff was set to be released to other people at different times. 

 

I think there is a real problem with the press functioning as a defacto marketing arm, and I wonder if we wouldn't be better off if there weren't embargoes. Let the people rush reviews to market, and let people develop real taste for writers who's opinion they value? That's what movies do, basically, right?

 

I'm thankful for embargos (some of them at least). Publishers can play less favors, and reviewers have the time to actually PLAY the game they're supposed to review. If this becomes just that mad dash to the finish line... I don't really want to imagine what kind of 'reviews' we'd get then.

 

It's a good example of the give and take that is necessary between dev/publisher and press: We're giving you guys our games ahead of time, but you're not supposed to publish a review or screenshots before this date please.

 

That's in no way enforceable. That's a matter of trust. And I do think that kotaku has violated that trust in some of the examples Schreier enumerates.

[Deadpan]

I don't really want to imagine what kind of 'reviews' we'd get then.

 

You don't have to imagine them, they are out there. The embargo system may prevent races between individual reviewers for who can get their write-up out first, but it doesn't prevent reviews from being rushed in general, when the timeframe between getting the game and the embargo lifting ends up being way too short (which is almost impossible to prevent for long, open-world affairs). Or then there's the times when publishers are kind of aware their game sucks and set the embargo date to after the release date, like with Assassin's Creed Unity last year.

 

In practice, embargoes are just another symptom of how publishers' interests and consumers' indifference work together to create a messed up system. The only reason getting enough time to play these games before talking about them is dependent on publisher goodwill at all is that practically nobody is willing to wait a few days or weeks for a review. If the review comes out before they can actually buy the game, then maybe people will give it a read, or at least look at the score in order to make them feel justified in their excitement (or angry at the reviewer, if they end up disagreeing). But because large parts of these games' audiences are going to run out and buy them sight unseen, or read reviews only to get to take part in the cultural conversation for the few days or hours that it stays on that one particular game, it's very hard for sites to say "We're going to take our time with this one."

[Merus]

The pettiness of the leak cuts both ways though, right?

 

Oh no, that was my point; it's sad that everyone is treating the existence of an Assassin's Creed game as big news.

[Vainamoinen]

You don't have to imagine them, they are out there. The embargo system may prevent races between individual reviewers for who can get their write-up out first, but it doesn't prevent reviews from being rushed in general, when the timeframe between getting the game and the embargo lifting ends up being way too short (which is almost impossible to prevent for long, open-world affairs). Or then there's the times when publishers are kind of aware their game sucks and set the embargo date to after the release date, like with Assassin's Creed Unity last year.

 

In practice, embargoes are just another symptom of how publishers' interests and consumers' indifference work together to create a messed up system. The only reason getting enough time to play these games before talking about them is dependent on publisher goodwill at all is that practically nobody is willing to wait a few days or weeks for a review. If the review comes out before they can actually buy the game, then maybe people will give it a read, or at least look at the score in order to make them feel justified in their excitement (or angry at the reviewer, if they end up disagreeing). But because large parts of these games' audiences are going to run out and buy them sight unseen, or read reviews only to get to take part in the cultural conversation for the few days or hours that it stays on that one particular game, it's very hard for sites to say "We're going to take our time with this one."

 

You're right, they ARE out there. But in my opinion, less on journalist websites and far more in customer reviews. The earliest customer review, after all, gets most seen and most voted on. Steam, Amazon, Metacritic – ASAP reviews for maximum exposure. Nothing looks more rushed than reviews written when the game is actually out. The embargo ideal, then, is mutually beneficial, and better reviews come from it.

 

I of course see where we're running into trouble with that ideal, and developers have more opportunity to twist this goodwill and cooperation to something that benefits them disproportionally. Despite the ever growing number of "I only buy discounted games" type of gamers, pre order culture and gamer gratitude still haul us into the setting you describe – the setting Leigh Alexander described much to the uproar of a certain movement.

 

Still, sites do take their time with reviews after all. I don't know if it's still the case, but Telltale's routine always was to hand out keys to journalists pretty immediately before an episode release (because, well, the episode just isn't finished before that time). Some journalists would do an all nighter just to push something out the next day, but usually reviews only surfaced days after release – to the detriment of the developer certainly. The other case I've witnessed recently was Dreamfall Chapters. As RTG was working late into the night to even get their release version out, their first episode reached journalists on release day at 11PM at the earliest. Their problem, their fault – reviews only started surfacing days later, a week later on major outlets, which was less than ideal to put it mildly.

 

The situation is fairly different in the AAA world, of course, but here the rule pretty much is that journalists get the game fairly early. Here, journalists are somewhat expected to ignore some crucial bugs though... which also isn't ideal.

[Henroid]

One of GG's spotlight folks, Mark Kern, has continued to descend into madness.

 

[Vainamoinen]

 

 

Interesting. I bought coffee at Starbucks once in my life (it sucked, as did the service) and have never owned an Apple product to my knowledge.

 

Still, social justice rocks.

[Deadpan]

(because, well, the episode just isn't finished before that time)

 

That's true, and since you can't talk about the game before it is done I'm generally more upset at pre-ordering and the day one buying rush for making sites try to hit that same window with their writing. Sometimes that's impossible to do well, especially since virtually every outlet in the world requires you to play stuff on your own time. So then you got a week to play Fallout 4, on top of everything else you have to do. That's not gonna do that game justice.

[Badfinger]

I finally caught up on the thread, and I am absolutely gobsmacked that the last 5 pages have been a real, actual debate about whether a press site that received true, properly vetted information that was offered freely to them is in the grey ethically for reporting on it. Of course they're not. They're completely in the clear. If you do your due diligence and vet the information, and it's real, run a story. The reason to not run a story would be because it's not worth the effort to publish, or of worth to your constituency.

[Ninety-Three]

I finally caught up on the thread, and I am absolutely gobsmacked that the last 5 pages have been a real, actual debate about whether a press site that received true, properly vetted information that was offered freely to them is in the grey ethically for reporting on it. Of course they're not. They're completely in the clear. If you do your due diligence and vet the information, and it's real, run a story. The reason to not run a story would be because it's not worth the effort to publish, or of worth to your constituency.

 

My view on it (and the view of at least one other who thought Kotaku was in the grey) is that the leaker is definitely doing something bad (because Bethesda didn't authorize the release, the leaker broke an NDA, stole it, something), and by printing the leak, Kotaku is enabling the bad behaviour. Kotaku is to the leaker as a fence is to a thief: they don't bear as much responsibility for the bad thing, but neither are they completely innocent. Now it's subjective and debatable as to what percentage of the responsibility is Kotaku's (I imagine you feel the answer is "virtually none"), but can you at least understand where we're coming from?

[Mangela Lansbury]

My view on it (and the view of at least one other who thought Kotaku was in the grey) is that the leaker is definitely doing something bad (because Bethesda didn't authorize the release, the leaker broke an NDA, stole it, something), and by printing the leak, Kotaku is enabling the bad behaviour. Kotaku is to the leaker as a fence is to a thief: they don't bear as much responsibility for the bad thing, but neither are they completely innocent. Now it's subjective and debatable as to what percentage of the responsibility is Kotaku's (I imagine you feel the answer is "virtually none"), but can you at least understand where we're coming from?

 

Nope! Media leaks are a net good and enabling them is a public service.

[Vainamoinen]

Sure.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/05/02/showbiz/quentin-tarantino-gawker-hateful-eight-suit/

 

These specific kinds of leak aren't great for anyone, and a site that proudly specializes in them is... not desirable.

[Ninety-Three]

Nope! Media leaks are a net good and enabling them is a public service.

 

That's a pretty big assertion to drop in a twelve word post. Firstly you're saying that the consumer should get to know now more than Bethesda should profit from a well-managed release of information. Secondly you're presenting an "ends justify the means" approach despite the fact that the ends involve a negative to an unconsenting party (Bethesda) which is generally frowned upon even when it results in a net benefit.

[Mangela Lansbury]

That's a pretty big assertion to drop in a twelve word post. Firstly you're saying that the consumer should get to know now more than Bethesda should profit from a well-managed release of information. Secondly you're presenting an "ends justify the means" approach despite the fact that the ends involve a negative to an unconsenting party (Bethesda) which is generally frowned upon even when it results in a net benefit.

 

Classifying Bethesda as an innocent must require a truly breathtaking amount of mental gymnastics. More impressive than the 96 American Olympic gymnastics team, at least.

 

 

Sure.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/05/02/showbiz/quentin-tarantino-gawker-hateful-eight-suit/

 

These specific kinds of leak aren't great for anyone, and a site that proudly specializes in them is... not desirable.

 

Kotaku's controlled, measured leak of information is distinct from linking to an entire script wholesale. "These specific kinds of leak" cannot refer to both of them when they're such different scopes. It's kind of like comparing Glenn Greenwald to Julian Assange -- you can do it, and both have their place and their merit, but why talk about both at the same time when they're so different?

[Twig]

I'm still a game dev.

[Ninety-Three]

Classifying Bethesda as an innocent must require a truly breathtaking amount of mental gymnastics. More impressive than the 96 American Olympic gymnastics team, at least.

 

What have they done that makes them deserve to have their internal documents leaked?

[Gormongous]

What have they done that makes them deserve to have their internal documents leaked?

 

Do they have to deserve it? Should everything that a company wants to be secret remain secret just because they want it that way?

[Ninety-Three]

Do they have to deserve it? Should everything that a company wants to be secret remain secret just because they want it that way?

 

When the things in question are the company's authored IP, absolutely yes. Should George R. R. Martin's partly-finished manuscrupt stay secret just because he wants it that way? Should my amateur partly-finished manuscript stay secret just I because I want it that way? Yes, because that's how privacy works. The public does not have an automatic right to know about any and all IP currently being produced.

[thefncrow]

What have they done that makes them deserve to have their internal documents leaked?

Who said deserve comes into it?

If Bethesda wants to keep that stuff secret, handling security is Bethesda's responsibility. If that security is breached, that sucks for them. If they can track down the leaker, then they have legal agreements they can use to punish the person responsible and make an example out of them for anyone else considering violating their agreement. But if that information gets out to people with no duty to keep it secret, that's just too bad for Bethesda.

Bethesda wants to keep their games in development secret. I want a billion dollars. Neither of us are owed significant assistance from outside unrelated parties to ensure we succeed in our goal.

[Mangela Lansbury]

What have they done that makes them deserve to have their internal documents leaked?

 

They outsource their labor digitally by relying on a robust mod community for their games' longevity and appeal, so a pretty strong argument could be made that by externalizing their work force, they forfeit all claims that internal documents deserve to remain so.

 

But also yeah that whole thing about deserving it not mattering too I guess

 

Bethesda has the ultimate responsibility to secure data they want secured. That's pretty much the beginning and end of it.

[Gormongous]

When the things in question are the company's authored IP, absolutely yes. Should George R. R. Martin's partly-finished manuscrupt stay secret just because he wants it that way? Should my amateur partly-finished manuscript stay secret just I because I want it that way? Yes, because that's how privacy works. The public does not have an automatic right to know about any and all IP currently being produced.

 

Should the existence of a work, not its contents, also be kept secret? Should the people who own the work be able to gag the people actually working on it from talking about it? I don't think it's as cut and dried as stealing your manuscript. What inherent rights to privacy does a corporation (not a person) have?

[Jutranjo]

How can anyone sympathise with a marketing department of a giant company?

[Ninety-Three]

Should the existence of a work, not its contents, also be kept secret? Should the people who own the work be able to gag the people actually working on it from talking about it? I don't think it's as cut and dried as stealing your manuscript. What inherent rights to privacy does a corporation (not a person) have?

 

What is a corporation but a collection of authors (and managers and human resources and so on)? Why does an author's work lose the right to privacy because they're working for a company instead of themselves? If a two-person authorial team forms a company for tax purposes, is it suddenly different than a single author? How big does the company have to get before they lose the right to privacy? Three people? Four? Ten authors and a manager?

 

 

Bethesda has the ultimate responsibility to secure data they want secured. That's pretty much the beginning and end of it.

 

​So what you're saying is that people have no right to privacy of IP, and stopping violations of that privacy is the individual's ultimate responsibility. That's an awfully anarchistic view to take. If someone breaks into George R. R. Martin's house and steals his next book, is the public entitled to the leaked book and it's Martin's fault for not buying better locks? If you're not okay with that, why are you okay with someone leaking the Fallout 4 script? Is it just a matter of magnitude, the public is entitled to violations of IP privacy if it's not violated too much?

 

They outsource their labor digitally by relying on a robust mod community for their games' longevity and appeal, so a pretty strong argument could be made that by externalizing their work force, they forfeit all claims that internal documents deserve to remain so.

 

Holy shit that's entitled. You're proposing the argument that Bethesda's doesn't really own the Fallout 4 script because they owe part of their past success to modders. I can't even engage with that. I quit.

[Badfinger]

My view on it (and the view of at least one other who thought Kotaku was in the grey) is that the leaker is definitely doing something bad (because Bethesda didn't authorize the release, the leaker broke an NDA, stole it, something), and by printing the leak, Kotaku is enabling the bad behaviour. Kotaku is to the leaker as a fence is to a thief: they don't bear as much responsibility for the bad thing, but neither are they completely innocent. Now it's subjective and debatable as to what percentage of the responsibility is Kotaku's (I imagine you feel the answer is "virtually none"), but can you at least understand where we're coming from?

 

I do not understand where you're coming from. Kotaku is not doing a bad thing. They are verifying information (included in this is vetting the source, assembling the information, confirming the information is true, cross referencing, reaching out for comment) that was offered to them as reportable news, and determined it was information worth making public. Their constituency is the public, and reporting is in the public's best interest.

 

 

What if someone at a company leaked information that their company was going to be laying off employees, and it was reported in the press?

 

What if someone at a company leaked information that their company was going to be hiring more employees, and it was reported to the press?

 

Are those different things from the Fallout scenario? Are they different from each other? I submit they are exactly the same, and if they serve the public good they should be reported.

 

 

Your last couple of posts, and the Gawker thing, are a different situation. Your scenario of someone stealing a book and then publishing reprints of material, or Gawker specifically asking for someone to dig up information which they will be compensated for are not the same. An insider tip is not theft, it is not fomenting theft, it is not breaking laws. It is information received that is usable if verified.

 

Maintaining the line across all reporting means that whistleblowing about illegal EPA violations and screenshots of a video game fall under the same umbrella, they're just taking up different sized patches of importance.

[Gormongous]

What is a corporation but a collection of authors (and managers and human resources and so on)? Why does an author's work lose the right to privacy because they're working for a company instead of themselves? If a two-person authorial team forms a company for tax purposes, is it suddenly different than a single author? How big does the company have to get before they lose the right to privacy? Three people? Four? Ten authors and a manager?

 

A company has no inherent right to privacy. Its constituent members do, but you can't equivocate the two. Furthermore, the idea that the company's agency overrides its employees' agency is somewhat perverse and anti-creator, I think. Someone who worked on the marketing materials chose to leak them against the will of "the company." I don't really care what the NDA said, that makes it a legal and not a moral issue.

[Mangela Lansbury]

​So what you're saying is that people have no right to privacy of IP, and stopping violations of that privacy is the individual's ultimate responsibility. That's an awfully anarchistic view to take. If someone breaks into George R. R. Martin's house and steals his next book, is the public entitled to the leaked book and it's Martin's fault for not buying better locks? If you're not okay with that, why are you okay with someone leaking the Fallout 4 script? Is it just a matter of magnitude, the public is entitled to violations of IP privacy if it's not violated too much?

 

Bethesda is not an individual. They are a corporation. These are distinct things that should be differentiated. If someone were to rob GRRM of his manuscript, that would be a very different thing from them getting it from Bantam. These are distinct and different acts. You wouldn't blame GRRM for being robbed, but you would blame Bantam for failing to protect their property.