The way I see it, it's completely fine that you, fellow internet dweller, don't care about marketing spoilers, just like I don't really care about any spoilers. You can even voice your discomfort about other people feeling differently.
But Schreier editorializing us about it? No, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
Schreier is working for a website which wants you visit itself for the gaming news instead of checking out the source. Which is absolutely fine, but there's a clear conflict of priorities. Believe me that I take meat demonization with a huge grain of salt when it comes from a tofu distributor; the same principle is applying here. Sure, he's probably not consciously doing it to make people visit Kotaku; but the fact he works with that mindset is clearly affecting his viewpoint.
The conferences are just there to sell you games? Well guess what, 99% of games are also just there to sell you games. Doesn't mean they cannot be fun, and the same applies to marketing. Speaking of marketing, what about Hasbro stuff? Are He-Man and ponies immune to spoilers because the series were supposed to sell you toys? Or, say, if there's a shareware style game, is the free intro episode immune to spoilers? Clearly, they made it so that you would buy a game.
Unless you take a scorched earth approach on any people who want to avoid any sort of spoilers - which is not my way of doing things, but it's sort of respectable - the "it's designed to sell you stuff" argument is ridiculous; you're going to have a hard time finding anything that doesn't apply. Game of Thrones? Sells you TV/streaming subscriptions. Mortal Kombat? Sells you DLC. Indie games not in franchises and whatnot? Sell you on gifting or making friends buy more of themselves. E3 conferences? Sell you games. Is the difference that clear cut to you?
But Schreier editorializing us about it? No, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
Schreier is working for a website which wants you visit itself for the gaming news instead of checking out the source. Which is absolutely fine, but there's a clear conflict of priorities. Believe me that I take meat demonization with a huge grain of salt when it comes from a tofu distributor; the same principle is applying here. Sure, he's probably not consciously doing it to make people visit Kotaku; but the fact he works with that mindset is clearly affecting his viewpoint.
The conferences are just there to sell you games? Well guess what, 99% of games are also just there to sell you games. Doesn't mean they cannot be fun, and the same applies to marketing. Speaking of marketing, what about Hasbro stuff? Are He-Man and ponies immune to spoilers because the series were supposed to sell you toys? Or, say, if there's a shareware style game, is the free intro episode immune to spoilers? Clearly, they made it so that you would buy a game.
Unless you take a scorched earth approach on any people who want to avoid any sort of spoilers - which is not my way of doing things, but it's sort of respectable - the "it's designed to sell you stuff" argument is ridiculous; you're going to have a hard time finding anything that doesn't apply. Game of Thrones? Sells you TV/streaming subscriptions. Mortal Kombat? Sells you DLC. Indie games not in franchises and whatnot? Sell you on gifting or making friends buy more of themselves. E3 conferences? Sell you games. Is the difference that clear cut to you?
