@Timstuff said:
@super600 said:
I really don't know what this story has to do with the gaming industry or this board, but this has been denied by kotaku. Some other parts of the boyfriend story may be false.
http://kotaku.com/in-recent-days-ive-been-asked-several-times-about-a-pos-1624707346
It doesn't surprise me at all that Stephen Totilo is denying that Zoe and Nathan's relationship had any influence over the way Kotaku has reported about her. The fact remains though that the Kotaku staff is a close knit clubhouse, and if Zoe was in a relationship with Nathan it stands to reason that the rest of the staff would be inclined to post positive coverage of her. All you have to do is type her name in the Kotaku search bar and you'll find a bunch of barely games-related crap fluff pieces about her written by other Kotaku writers like Patricia Hernandez.
Essentially, Kotaku is being accused of lying, and Stephen Totilo is trying to soothe our fears by saying "we don't lie." That doesn't exactly absolve them of everything that is happening, especially given how little many of us trust Kotaku or their ilk to begin with.
All true. And the fact that this discussion was preemptively decreed forbiden shows a lot, especially because the official argument thrown everywhere is that the starting point (which is a fraction of the premises of the whole situation) is a personal issue of hers. But forbiding this personal aspect of the discussion (with which I agree) isn't forbiding the whole discussion and the many factors involved, like the ones you and others mentioned.
From what I've seen and read, the censorship shows that this kind of issue can't be explored further, because it ultimately touches on journalists and how the industry works (at least the indie part of it). The pre-selection of games that happens before our own selection when buying them is not based entirely on the merit of the product (sometimes not at all it seems). When a big publisher announces a new big title... you have an obligation to talk about it. What about the titles made independently by small timers?
It's well known that we live in a world of pre-selected freedom. This is not something restricted to gaming. Let's take literature for example. If you enter a bookstore, there's not enough space for all the books ever released to be on display. Someone has to filter what's going to be placed there, and usually the main criterion is the potential sales of each product (that even affects where the product is going to be placed within the store). This is also valid for online stores, since we simply can't peruse everything available, and if we don't know previously what we're going to buy, we'll have to trust the site's filters, indications and the way it handles our search. Someone had to perform these pre-selections, and we are free to choose between the choices that person (or persons) allowed us to choose from. Of course this is only a limited exemple on how this phenomenom works, but I hope it'll do.
In gaming, especially in what concerns indie gaming, it seems that the pre-selection's criterion is variable and inconsistent, sometimes heavily influenced by personal bias and favors, not only the merit that may or may not translate into more sales of the product. This episode is a symptom of that. Out of curiosity, let me quote this other indie developer that came out in defense of Quinn in the Internet Aristocrat Youtube video (I've took the liberty to partly censor some foul words):
"Lol you MRA's are hilarious. Trying to s_ut shame someone for having a relationship?
Oh hay, wana know something....game devs.....have person lives (holy fu&*!!!).
We date co-workers (oh c_ap!!!)....and even marry them (what?!). We have sex even!! And we even know journalists! (and are friends with them!!!!!).
Holy c*ap. Did i just blow your minds?
And, actually, those relationships....are how the industry works! How you get into meetings to get funding! How you get support for projects! How you get advice! And yes, how journalists even hear about you or cover you (since they go "hay, that guy I met at pax...he was pretty cool, and his game was pretty cool....yea, I guess I'll pass it along to readers").
This is an industry made to create cool stuff around other people passionate about the same stuff (games). Yea, it is a small community...and we know each other (and, again, even sex happens sometimes).
But the outrage here? Did you even look at the "corrupted articles". They mentioned Zoes game in a "50 games released this week" article. And they covered a story about an indie show that blew up (which everyone was covering).
LOL, you think that is corruption? You think that all happened because she "slept her way to the top"?
Sorry, I'm having trouble seeing through the thick fog of your sexist bu*ls_it."
If you read the highlighted, you see that that's basically admitting the backstage nepotism.
I found this interview informative as well. This industry sure looks like it works like something smaller than it really is... I don't know. Of course the definitive proofs are Dan Hsu's blog entry "Editorial Integrity", which is non-existent now (there's not even a cache of the page anymore, at least I didn't find it), and the Gerstmann episode. From time to time, we're allowed glimpses into how the gears are put into play in the market, but for some reason no one wants to talk about it or ask for changes.
Log in to comment