didnt bethesda shitcan kotaku for a few years? I mean that was for leak reporting iirc
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Sony contacted Vice due to more critical review of The Last of Us Part II
- Thread starter dex3108
- Start date
didnt bethesda shitcan kotaku for a few years? I mean that was for leak reporting iirc
I literally just qutoed the article. Please tell me where it says he had an issue with it.
"omg i tripped and deleted you from our e-mailing list, what a shame"
this is very funny coming from someone being so openly condescending lmao
Quote for me where Rob Zacny said that Sony's contact was acceptable. Your point is "he said it was fine that they contacted him", and all you can point out is he's saying it wasn't confrontational and that he was happy to explain in further detail exactly why their game was bad. None of that means "and that's why it's just fine that Sony contacted me".
Lol. The willful ignorance in your post speaks for itself. There was no need to go any further.
I remember one time a writer that was working for me skipped out on a press meeting with a publisher and never informed them (or me) that he was going to do so. It took like four months to get that pub to even interact with us at all again after that.
Publishers hold literally all the power - they can very easily just cut you off and never tell you why.
The only way they should contact a reviewer to talk about the review would be to ask "Hey, do you have any suggestion for future iterations to adress your criticism? Is there anything we could improve?"
Let's just get this straight then: You don't think that a company contacting an employee over a glassdoor review is crossing the line?
Maybe I'm not understanding you, and you think that example isn't comparable to what's happening here? Is that what you're saying? Or do you think both scenarios are fine?
So? They want to talk with the reviewer in the same way that you as a journalist call you. Not everything is a fight not everything is some kind of complot to manipulate the scores or whatever.
This is a common practice and it has nothing to do with trying to change your opinion and this relationship flow in both ways my friend.
But you guys need to fill 25 pages fighting about something that is not even in the article.
Even the writer is happy to share his opinion with Sony...as I said people working in media see a lot of value in this kind of relationship. but for some reason Era keep saying that Sony is trying to influence the Writer....
At least read the Op....because it looks like is Era the one accusing Sony/ND of trying to influence a reviewer.
Funny how Sony doesn't ask questions to reviewers who compare the game to Schindler's List. Hell, Druckmann will even go to bat for you on Twitter if you do.
But don't worry, your bad review only gets totally nice, reasonable, and cordial questions from Sony where no power dynamics are in play at all.
But don't worry, your bad review only gets totally nice, reasonable, and cordial questions from Sony where no power dynamics are in play at all.
That is literally what he is saying. There is no way to take that any other way unless you twist it into something it's not. People in this thread are doing a good job of that though.
Agreed. I actually started following Rob on Twitter because I couldn't believe how reductive and/or false his statements on the game were, it's important to read other opinions. To not like the game is one thing, to actually say things that are blatantly untrue in a review is another.
It's the principle of doing that. The article literally says how reviewing this game without fitting the general consensus has become very hard. They included excerpts of the twitter replies of Druckman and other such stuff to explain it better. Including fan outrage. Incase of a bigger publisher, questioning something in a review, it automatically creates a sense of doubt/pressure in a reviewer. That's the most basic stuff that everyone engaging with you is trying to explain.
It's like you giving a wrong answer in an interview and the interviewer trying to nudge you to the "right" answer by asking if you think that's really the right answer. You probably have been in such a situation before and already should be in the know of how you felt at that moment.
They didn't do that for just Kotaku; a lot of outlets didn't get Bethesda codes/copies prior to the game's launch so reviews came late and thus people wouldn't find out the Skyrim port for the PS4/Xbone was full of sound and animation glitches. It was a demonstrably anti-consumer move that they only recently reversed.
I'm not going to say that people only care about this because it's Naughty Dog but it definitely feels like people care more about this because it's Naughty Dog.
If you're going to have an actual conversation about the issue (intimidation tactics between publishers and games media) you have to call out the practice uniformly instead of focusing all your energy into blasting or defending (to the people defending this with such fervor: stop) this one specific case because Naughty Dog is the hot topic at the moment.
There have been other examples of this same tactic posted in this thread that show this is a games industry problem. I'm not trying to pull the heat off ND or Sony because they do deserve it but I get the feeling that a lot of other companies are skating by doing the same shit because everybody is focused on this as if what was done to Rob was a novel concept, it isn't.
If you're going to have an actual conversation about the issue (intimidation tactics between publishers and games media) you have to call out the practice uniformly instead of focusing all your energy into blasting or defending (to the people defending this with such fervor: stop) this one specific case because Naughty Dog is the hot topic at the moment.
There have been other examples of this same tactic posted in this thread that show this is a games industry problem. I'm not trying to pull the heat off ND or Sony because they do deserve it but I get the feeling that a lot of other companies are skating by doing the same shit because everybody is focused on this as if what was done to Rob was a novel concept, it isn't.
If someone finds something unaccepteable they ususally don't describe the situation as "cordially" and happily reply. I am sure if he had an issue with it he would have said so but he said the opposite.
If you are unable to contribute anything worth reading please stop replying to me. Thank you.
it literally is not what he's saying. he said he was happy to unpack and defend what he wrote. that isn't saying the same thing as he was happy for sony to reach out to him
there is a huge difference between the two things but, as is a continued pattern with your posts in this thread, you are actively choosing to ignore it
oh my god shut up
People here were revolted by that woman's experience with Square Enix when she reviewed Final Fantasy XII but go off, champ
You must think this is somehow a one time occurrence when it comes to these companies...
So seeing how other journalists have came out with their own stories about this practice I can safely conclude that:
1. This is a bad look for all these companies. It's questionable at best and outright implied blackmail at worst, and has to stop.
2. You know some people are just gonna use this as ammo from now on to further drag Naughty Dog and excuse any harassment going their way.
1. This is a bad look for all these companies. It's questionable at best and outright implied blackmail at worst, and has to stop.
2. You know some people are just gonna use this as ammo from now on to further drag Naughty Dog and excuse any harassment going their way.
He actually explained his reasoning to them? I understand wanting to maintain a good relationship, but that just seems so fucked up.
None of this happened and you literally just made up a scenario. The review was already out, everyone involved knew the review wasn't going to change. They literally just asked for more clarification. All the other stuff you said is completely irrelevant. Not a single person said being critical of the game was hard. In fact I'd argue they had it a lot easier than the reviewers that rated it positively all being accused of being paid.
Yup to 1 and I think these should be treated as two different issues for your 2. Harassment of their employees is bad. But what Sony/ND tried to do is unethical with the review influence, with stuff mentioned in the article.
so is the Writer accusing Sony of trying to change the score?
What didn't happen?? Have u seriously read the article or are you tunnel visioned ?
Edit: Interview scenario is an analogy. Use your own to understand it. I thought you would be logical enough to understand it. But based on your replies, no point in engaging with someone who can't see something for what it is in an objective manner.
In either case, I'm surprised by the replies in this thread on the side of the reviewer.
In the case of another Sony exclusive this forum voted 60% to 39% that reviewers should force themselves finish games before they review them, even if they are critical of it and can't push themselves to finish the game.
www.resetera.com
In the case of another Sony exclusive this forum voted 60% to 39% that reviewers should force themselves finish games before they review them, even if they are critical of it and can't push themselves to finish the game.
Should Reviewers Beat Games To Review Them?
If you have had the opportunity (and courage!) to traverse the Death Stranding Review Thread, then you might be aware of one topic that has returned- should reviewers beat games prior to posting their reviews? The long and short of it is that SONY requires every reviewer to finish Death...
www.resetera.com
for someone who accused other people of not reading the OP you should already know that the review isn't scored
It is literally what he is saying. No one would describe something as "happily" doing it if they felt it was negative. Nothing about what Rob said made the situation seem negative in any way. and it's not like Rob is incapable of being negative as proven by other things he has said.
You should take your own advice. If you don't want to have a conversation than stop replying to me. Yes it is that easy.
I mean, this site should be better than "just gamers" but let me not kid myself.
People want to get out their spicy take with bare minimum of effort or insight.
Jeff specifically cited that Gamespot was filtering responses from pubs/devs through new legal or hr departments that did not have experience with this stuff. It wasn't new, those people get angry historically. Some devs he's (not specifically) described had blacklisted him as a "friend" because he didn't give their game a good score, and he's like "oh, that's what you think this relationship is." But with K&L, they had people who didn't seem to know that the appropriate measure in dealing with angry advertisers was to nod silently, and then just toss the complaints in the trash because advertising should not have control over editorial like this.
But yes, this is a continued pattern among publishers that think they can get away with flexing this muscle against writers and editorial teams.
happily defending what he wrote is just that: a happy defence. that does not mean that the circumstances in which he needed to make that defence is acceptable
it's like being wrongly questioned by the cops but you're happy to tell them what you've done. that's not a tacit approval of being questioned in the first place
it should not be this difficult for you to grasp this point
You are reading way too much into the specific wording of those quotes despite having no indication what the tone they were said in was, no idea of how the person saying them usually talks, and no knowledge of that person's perspective on relevant topics. Multiple people who have the latter two have already disagreed with you.
Beyond that, multiple people who work/worked with Rob at Vice have chimed in at this point talking about how this behavior from companies is a problem. It should be obvious that there's an issue here. Come on, dude.
This didn't happen: "The article literally says how reviewing this game without fitting the general consensus has become very hard." Yes i have read the article but I am mainly focusing on the topic of this thread. Your "analogy" was awful but I still addressed it. How is asking for clrification "nudging someone to the right answer". Especially when the review is already out. None of your comment makes any sense.
You have much to learn Eggman. Not everything is what you see on the surface.
"He didn't outright say that what Sony did was shitty and made him uncomfortable."
Must be fine.
I didn't expect this many people in this thread to draw that conclusion, but man on man here we are.