Support NeoGAF

[Abriael_GN]

Hard disagree. If you have a bunch of people speaking on background separately, but all corroborating each other, they're probably giving you good information. It's important to be skeptical of individuals who might have a personal vendetta, but if all of your sources are telling you the same thing, there's no reason you should toss it just because they don't want the attribution.


Or, and I want you to sit down and consider this for a moment, it could be because... people don't like reading bad things about themselves.

Your selective skepticism is really hard to reconcile. Everyone who says something bad has an ax to grind, but everyone who denies doing anything wrong must be telling the truth. That doesn't feel like responsible journalism to me.

How they teach you to do this in the real journalism world is to print both the accusation and the denial. Get both sides of the story. It doesn't seem like you get that, you only want the happy story.

How many dedicated gaming outlets out there in 2021 actually pay their writers a decent middle class salary to write about games full time? You can probably count them on your fingers at this point. They're kind of all the wrong outlet. If you're okay making $40K a year or whatever maybe there are some more opportunities for local papers or special interest magazines or whatever but there's not exactly a ton of great opportunities anymore.


If that's true, then you must realize how abnormal that is. If you started 20 years ago, that would mean we came up around the same time. I wrote for one of the biggest gaming publications in the world and almost NOBODY that I worked with is still working as a gaming journalist today. They're all working in publishing or PR or development, or just some corpo writing gig outside of gaming entirely. Hardly anyone stays in gaming journalism.

I had that for a time too, but the whole industry shook up in the early 2010s. Editors changed, trends changed, the way people consume media just changed.

If you're still hanging on in legacy media or whatever fine maybe, but the fact is the VAST majority of web media is fed to people by one algorithm or another, not by people navigating directly to their favorite tastemakers.


Same here. But "looking elsewhere" meant "taking a tech industry job making more than twice as much."

At the end of the day, it's a job either way. I liked doing it but I was only willing to sacrifice so much for my art. I didn't like where the job was going so I got a better job, fuck it.

I still freelance here and there when the mood hits me, mind you, and I might write a book at some point, but I'll never depend on it for my income again, it's not worth it.

You should probably stop talking out of obsolete experiences and trying to preach to someone who has direct and current experience in order to disingenuously defend something dishonest and disingenuous. The fact that you didn't manage to do something and make a good living out of it doesn't mean it's not possible or even particularly difficult.

Developers are starting to push back against this writer because they know how dishonest he is, since they know quite a lot better than anyone who doesn't do their job how things are. Broussard said it best. He's an ambulance-chasing hack.

"people don't like reading bad things about themselves" is a laughable excuse, considering that developers say negative things about themselves and the industry all the time, one just needs to listen to a few GDC speeches. The difference is that those have the purpose of learning from mistakes and improving. This has the sole purpose of making money by throwing people under the bus.

Incidentally, you can disagree as much as you want. If you go look for people who have been fired or quit a company, you'll *always* find plenty who have plenty of negative things to say, most of them because it's never their fault, it's always the boss, the colleagues, the environment, or something else external to themselves. Giving them credence when they aren't even willing to stand behind what they say means either not caring about the possibility of misleading one's readers, or being completely ignorant of how any work environment works (or both).

You can write a story like this about *any* company that has former employees. All you need to do is to dig out the malcontents that always exist and not have scruples about hurting people for your personal benefit.

 

[Abriael_GN]

*meh double post*

 

[SF Kosmo]

You should probably stop talking out of obsolete experiences and trying to preach to someone who has direct and current experience in order to disingenuously defend something dishonest and disingenuous. The fact that you didn't manage to do something and make a good living out of it doesn't mean it's not possible.

I did manage to do work I was proud of, and it was the sort of work you're talking about, long form research pieces, retro stuff, and independent gaming news, rather than the bullshit reviews and trend chasing articles. But I saw those opportunities shrinking, I saw the pay shrinking, not just personally but industry wide. So I moved on. I don't regret it, I make a lot more money and I love my job.

It wasn't just me. EVERYONE from back then is gone, no matter how successful they were. If you're going to tell me with a straight face that the market for that kind of content hasn't shrunk radically in the last 10 years then you're just a liar.

Developers are starting to push back against this writer because they know how dishonest he is, since they know quite a lot better than anyone who doesn't do their job how things are. Broussard said it best. He's an ambulance-chasing hack.

Broussard is literally one of the most infamous bullshitters in the industry... Do you really think he should be taken at face value but not those that criticize him? Really?

"people don't like reading bad things about themselves" is a laughable excuse, considering that developers say negative things about themselves and the industry all the time, one just needs to listen to a few GDC speeches. The difference, is that those have the purpose of learning from mistakes and improving. This has the sole purpose of making money by throwing people under the bus.

So are you arguing that if someone denies an accusation they must be telling the truth? Because some developers are self aware enough to be critical?

Most game journalists are not trained as journalists, and I am guessing that is the case with you as well. Which, fine, whatever. But you don't seem to grasp even basic concepts of fact checking or skeptical thought.

Incidentally, you can disagree as much as you want. If you go look for people who have been fired or quit a company, you'll *always* find plenty who have bad things to say, most of them because it's never their fault, it's always the boss, the colleagues, the environment, or something else externals to themselves. Giving them credence when they aren't even willing to stand behind what they say means either not caring about the possibility of misleading one's readers, or being completely ignorant of how any work environment works.

Except the gaming industry IS a notoriously abusive one. If you have personal relationships with game developers, as you seem to claim, then surely you know about this.

We've seen entire studios collapse over it, like Team Bondi. We're seeing a mass exodus from companies like Activision and Ubisoft right now. These people aren't quitting their jobs over rumors. People who quit are going to be more vocal about being unhappy, yes, but people don't quit their jobs unless they have a reason to be unhappy.

 

[Abriael_GN]

blahblahblahblah

Opportunities are there. If you don't like the odds, quitting is your legitimate choice, but don't pretend you can teach how it is to those who didn't quit.

Quite obviously not EVERYONE from back then is gone.

Vague, generic statements about the bad industry don't support any point you're trying to make, nor does insulting a developer because he says something you don't like. There are many who are pushing back against this, more appear with every hit piece, and they're people who actually take responsibility for what they say. Your personal opinion of one of them is irrelevant and doesn't in any shape or form detract from the validity of what they say. Even the smallest one among them knows better about game development than you do.

I present to you this writer's whole current production:

Jason Schreier - Bloomberg

Recent stories by Jason Schreier on Bloomberg.com

www.bloomberg.com

If you think this monotone dumpster fire made of gossip and the cheapest controversy hammering is something to defend as "real journalism," I honestly can't help you. End of the story.

 

[SF Kosmo]

Quite obviously not *everyone* from back then is gone.

Pretty fucking close, though. How many 20 year vets can you name? People who are actually well known and successful, not lifer freelancers with day jobs.

Like seriously I can hardly think of any. I guess Mollie Patterson still works for the shambling corpse of EGM. That's about it...

So tell me, why do you think that is?

Vague, generic statements about the bad industry don't support any point you're trying to make, nor does insulting a developer because he says something you don't like. There are many who are pushing back against this, more appear with every hit piece, and they're people who actually take responsibility for what they say. Your personal opinion of one of them is irrelevant and doesn't in any shape or form detract from the validity of what they say. Even the smallest one among them knows better about game development than you do.

Do you actually know who George Broussard is? The guy who spend a decade lying about the state of his game to the public and to business partners? You might as well be stanning Peter Molyneaux at this point.

I present to you this writer's whole current production:

Jason Schreier - Bloomberg

Recent stories by Jason Schreier on Bloomberg.com

www.bloomberg.com

If you think this monotone dumpster fire made of gossip and the cheapest controversy hammering is something to defend or "real journalism," I honestly can't help you. End of the story.

Again your counterpoint is just that you think bosses always tell the truth and employee grievance is illegitimate, and that's just a bad take. If you have something more reasonable to say about it you aren't articulating it...

 

[Abriael_GN]

Pretty fucking close, though. How many 20 year vets can you name? People who are actually well known and successful, not lifer freelancers with day jobs.

Like seriously I can hardly think of any. I guess Mollie Patterson still works for the shambling corpse of EGM. That's about it...

So tell me, why do you think that is?

I know plenty who have done this job for that long and are still about. I also know plenty that are gone. All industries have a turnaround, especially industries that have tangential fields which one can branch into without completely resetting their career. It's very easy to branch from gaming journalism into PR or even development.

As to why people quit, in 20 years people change interests, are offered better opportunities, want a different lifestyle, or simply lack the passion to continue doing what they're doing. Some simply want a change of environment. There are plenty of reasons. Gaming journalism isn't easy unless you make a business out of writing an article a week about controversies and gossip like this specific writer does, I guess.

Do you actually know who George Broussard is. You might as well be stanning Peter Molyneaux at this point.

And he would still know better than you about game development. You still haven't countered what Broussard (and many others) said in any shape or form. Cheap insults don't count as an argument.

Again your counterpoint is just that you think bosses always tell the truth and employee grievance is illegitimate, and that's just a bad take. If you have something more reasonable to say about it you aren't articulating it...

I suggest cutting the strawman arguments because they do you no favors. Nowhere I've even hinted at such a generalization. There's a massive difference between that and knowing for a fact that many grievances expressed by ex-employees are far from a realistic or fair representation of a work environment, and that goes for any industry. And that credibility drops even further when they're expressed from behind the protection of anonymity. Cherry-picking sources is a thing, and this specific writer is the world champion of cherry-picking sources. *none* of his "articles" ever presents a conflicting view.

But good to see that, presented with his production, you had nothing to say about the fact that it's crap. Perhaps you should choose who you defend a bit better.

 

[SF Kosmo]

I know plenty who have done this job for that long and are still about.

"Plenty?" Who actually do it as their full time and only job that pays their rent? Doubt.

Like thinking back on the staffs of IGN, Gamespot, 1up, and all the major magazines from 2002, can you name one of those people who is still doing it full time? Besides the one I already said?

I also know plenty that are gone. All industries have a turnaround, especially industries that have tangential fields in which one can branch into. It's very easy to branch from gaming journalism into PR or even development.

Yeah because game journalism pays less than almost anything else you could do with the same skillset.

And he would still know better than you about game development.

It isn't his knowledge of game development I take issue with, it's his ability to speak truthfully, handle criticism, and take accountability for his mistakes.

There's a massive difference between that and knowing for a fact that many grievances expressed by ex-employees are far from a realistic or fair representation of a work environment, and that goes for any industry.

I acknowledge that there is a need to corroborate multiple sources and to report conflicting accounts. But you don't seem to find that satisfactory. Instead you have repeatedly doubled down on this idea that the uncorroborated claims of higher ups in game development are somehow more reliable or the only reliable source...

But good to see that, presented with this writer's production, you had nothing to say about the fact that it's crap. Perhaps you should choose who you defend a bit better.

I can't see from a list of headlines why you think it's crap. It's mostly pretty straightforward news about things that are happening along with some occasional editorials that you might or might not disagree with (but who cares because that's the nature of editorials), and some investigative pieces here or there which I maintain are better sourced than anything that might contradict them.

 

[Abriael_GN]

Like thinking back on the staffs of IGN, Gamespot, 1up, and all the major magazines from 2002, can you name one of those people who is still doing it full time? Besides the one I already said?

You seem to have a very limited view of gaming journalism. There's a giant industry beyond the usual 5-6 mainstream outlets that can't write about anything else than Fortnite and Call of Duty and won't write about anything smaller unless they can extort an exclusive from the developer. Perhaps people are tired of having to work in a fully corporate environment that doesn't let them pursue their passions, but this doesn't mean that many alternatives don't exist.

Yeah because game journalism pays less than almost anything else you could do with the same skillset.

So? Not everyone works exclusively for the money. Could I find a job that paid better? Surely. I've been offered several. That doesn't mean it's the only factor dictating where I'll work.

Given the ability to make a good living, money is definitely not the only factor in my decision of what I should do and where I should work.

It isn't his knowledge of game development I take issue with, it's his ability to speak truthfully, handle criticism, and take accountability for his mistakes.

He isn't any more biased than the writer we're talking about, as even a cursory look at his production would reveal to anyone willing to read and comprehend. Considering who you're defending, seeing you talk about "ability to speak truthfully, handle criticism, and take accountability for his mistakes" is honestly absolutely hilarious.

Instead you have repeatedly doubled down on this idea that the uncorroborated claims of higher ups in game development are somehow more reliable or the only reliable source...

Funny, because I haven't said this a single time. Either you're unable to understand, or you're being dishonest.

I can't see from a list of headlines why you think it's crap. It's mostly pretty straightforward news about things that are happening

No. It's a series of poorly headlined articles almost exclusively about controversy and gossip, that does absolutely *no effort* to provide an even remotely realistic or fair view of what gaming and the gaming industry is. It's pretty literally the work of an ambulance-chasing hack intentionally providing a very skewed and biased view of an industry, to the detriment of the reader.

 

[SF Kosmo]

You seem to have a very limited view of gaming journalism. There's a giant industry beyond the usual 5-6 mainstream outlets that can't write about anything else than Fortnite and Call of Duty and won't write about anything smaller unless they can extort an exclusive from the developer. Perhaps people are tired of having to work in a fully corporate environment that doesn't let them pursue their passions, but this doesn't mean that many alternatives don't exist.

We're talking about back in 2002, though. No one else was really paying much though. Like I have a lot of respect for the indies and fansites, I made my bones running one of them, but that shit was beer money and free games, not a job. Even some of the smaller "corporate" places were paying like $125 and a free game for an article, you couldn't live off it.

So? Not everyone works exclusively for the money.

Not exclusively, but there's a reason we don't do it for free.

And you know, as much as I love this hobby, game journalism is still hard work, frustration, stress... At the end of the day,. it's still a job. And it's not as good of a job as the one I have now.

No. It's a series of poorly headlined articles almost exclusively about controversy, that does absolutely *nothing* to provide an even remotely realistic or fair view of what gaming and the gaming industry is. It's pretty literally the work of an ambulance-chasing hack.

You think stuff like the Activision case is just "controversy"? It was probably the biggest gaming industry story of the year, and it's 1000% legit, I have friends who worked for Blizzard, who are suing Blizzard. You really think we should just shrug off these stories because they're "too negative" or "Bobby Kotick denies it?"

 

[Abriael_GN]

Back in 2002, no one else was really paying much though. Like I have a lot of respect for the indies and fansites, I made my bones running one of them, but that shit was beer money and free games, not a job.

I've been paid enough to make a good living since 2000, and haven't had to settle for less, while not touching the biggest sites with a ten-foot pole, because I know very well they would not afford me the freedom to write about what I'm passionate about and do what I consider true gaming journalism, which is providing my readers with information about games they haven't read on 443 other sites already.

If one can do it, others can, and many do.

And you know, as much as I love this hobby, game journalism is still hard work, frustration, stress... At the end of the day,. it's still a job. And it's not as good of a job as the one I have now.

Good for you. Obviously, your values are different from mine. Doing what I like to do certainly outweighs hard work, frustration, and stress, as long as I'm paid fairly.

You think stuff like the Activision case is just "controversy"? It was probably the biggest gaming industry story of the year, and it's 1000% legit, I have friends who worked for Blizzard, who are suing Blizzard. You really think we should just shrug off these stories because they're "too negative" or "Bobby Kotick denies it?"

It certainly is controversy (pretty literally). That doesn't mean it's *just* controversy. When it's among a production that is nearly exclusively made of controversy, clickbait, and gossip and is very obviously skewed toward providing a negative and controversial view of the gaming industry and gaming, it says a lot about the writer, and nothing of what it says is good. Ambulance-chasers can stumble into legit cases, but it doesn't change their nature as ambulance-chasers.

 

[TheMay30thMan]

Has this man ever written an article with valid sources? I’ve only seen him use “15 current and former employees” as his source, without even specifying how many of these anonymous sources are still with the company.

Before anyone comes at me with the “THEY'RE ANONYMOUS BECAUSE THEY DONT WANT TO GET FIRED” bull crap, consider this:

1. It’s illegal to treat employees inhumanely in the US.

2. It’s illegal to for an employer to retaliate against an employee when said employee reports an inhumane workplace in the US.

Using anonymous sources can be valid and necessary. Solely relying on anonymous sources for you entire journalism career in video games? That should make everyone skeptical of your work. If none of your sources want to be named, they’re probably in the wrong.

Also, how very nice of Jason to write about this story while knowing about the rape and abuse within Activision for years. He’s a real hero.

 

[SF Kosmo]

I've been paid enough to make a good living since 2000, and haven't had to settle for less, while not touching the biggest sites with a ten-foot pole, because I know very well they would not afford me the freedom to write about what I'm passionate about and do what I consider true gaming journalism, which is providing my readers with information about games they haven't read on 443 other sites already.

If one can do it, others can, and many do.

First of all, you're wrong that you couldn't cover indies and oddities at a big publication back then because I did a ton of it. Things are different now, but back then people would go to your site directly and see whatever you were pushing so there was more market for that (and when that changed, it was part of why I left).

But outside of the bigs and some legacy media like newspapers there were really no such thing as staff jobs, it was all freelance. And I know what the freelance rates were like. I think you are likely overstating either the extent to which you made a living or the extent to which you focused exclusively on niche content.

Good for you. Obviously, your values are different from mine. Doing what I like to do certainly outweighs hard work, frustration, and stress, as long as I'm paid fairly.

Nothing wrong with that. I felt that way for a long time. But I am happier now.

It certainly is controversy (pretty literally). That doesn't mean it's *just* controversy. When it's among a production that is nearly exclusively made of controversy, clickbait, and gossip and is very obviously skewed toward providing a negative and controversial view of the gaming industry and gaming, it says a lot about the writer, and nothing of what it says is good.

Is the issue that it's "negative" or that it's untrue?

 

[Abriael_GN]

First of all, you're wrong that you couldn't cover indies and oddities at a big publication back then because I did a ton of it. Things are different now, but back then people would go to your site directly and see whatever you were pushing so there was more market for that.

To an extent, but not nearly as granularly or intensively as I like to do.

Is the issue that it's "negative" or that it's untrue?

Both.

The truthfulness of much of his production is very much in doubt. Once again, when reports by the same author about complex matters that involve a lot of personal perception include no conflicting views, it's very obvious that said author is cherry-picking sources, which absolutely removes credibility from their production. It's statistically impossible that no one ever told them anything that doesn't support their case. They're obviously not interested in providing a fair and informative look at the situation. Their interest is in choosing the sources that can support the point they want to make and discarding everything else. There's only one word to describe this, and it's "dishonest."

On top of that, the pervasive negativity compounds the fact that there is a giant bias at play. If it doesn't jump in your face simply by looking at his author page, you're just choosing not to see.

 

[SF Kosmo]

To an extent, but not nearly as granularly or intensively as I like to do.

You had to know how to package it. I could get 10,000-12,000 words on a cover feature, but you'd have to theme it around something other than a game no one has heard of, you'd have to make it an article about the "new wave of horror games," or JRPG special" or something. You couldn't just write like "Behind the scenes of Doki Doki Idol Star Seeker" or whatever because no one is going to read that.

The truthfulness about much of his production is very much in doubt (once again, when many reports by the same author about complex matters that involve a lot of personal perception include no conflicting views, it's very obvious that said author is cherry-picking sources, which absolutely removes credibility from their production), and the pervasive negativity compounds the fact that there is a giant bias at play. If it doesn't jump in your face simply by looking at his author page, you're just choosing not to see.

I'd avoid judging solely from headlines that he likely didn't write, but I do not see these as being all negative in the way you do. I see a positive story about how Halo regrouped and pulled out a good game, for example, and for what it's worth I actually think his Bioshock coverage is similar -- it's a good game that had a rocky road to victory, and those stories are cool.

There's a LOT of stuff about the Activision-Blizzard thing in particular, but I think we both agree that one is pretty fucking fair. You could accuse him of milking it, but probably not of seriously distorting it.

 

[Abriael_GN]

You had to know how to package it. I could get 10,000-12,000 words on a cover feature, but you'd have to theme it around something other than a game no one has heard of, you'd have to make it an article about the "new wave of horror games," or JRPG special" or something and use that.

I'm pretty sure any editor at that kind of site would be very, very, very resistant to letting anyone write about 80 articles on a visual novel series. And that's always been so. That's just one of many examples of what I mean. You can't do effective and comprehensive coverage of that with a "Visual novel special." What I mean by covering a game comprehensively is "when there's news, you cover it, with no exceptions."

I'd avoid judging solely from headlines that he likely didn't write, but I do not see these as being all negative in the way you do. I see a positive story about how Halo regrouped and pulled out a good game, for example, and for what it's worth I actually think his Bioshock coverage is similar -- it's a good game that had a rocky road to victory, and those stories are cool.

There's a LOT of stuff about the Activision-Blizzard thing in particular, but I think we both agree that one is pretty fucking fair. You could accuse him of milking it, but probably not of seriously distorting it.

Milking it is certainly a way of putting it, but it's in the context of his production that it contributes to showing his true colors.

Incidentally, I'm not just judging from headlines, but from the content as well. If you know the writer's history, that "positive" article about Halo isn't very positive at all. It's just an "I was right to shit on those developers' work for years, but now they saw the light! Thank god for me!" And if that's the most positive thing you can pick up from his production, the situation's really dire.

There's no way to see this specific article as positive. It's absolutely a personal hit piece against Ken Levine. There are no two ways about it.

 

[SF Kosmo]

There's no way to see this specific article as positive. It's absolutely a personal hit piece against Ken Levine. There are no two ways about it.

The piece from his book about Infinite? It's critical of Levine's leadership style -- a reputation that had dogged Levine since before Schreier was even in the business -- but it also quotes people as calling him a genius and an essential creative driving force behind the game. I find that assessment fair. It also doesn't use you dreaded "anonymous sources," or cherry picked randos, but many high level team members who worked on the game.

The article about the new title is more negative, but it's a game that has been in development for 8 years, has shown nothing, and lost half its staff, so again, I'm not sure if that's a "hit piece" on Levine as a talent or a human or just a statement of fact about what has come from this project under his leadership.

 

[Abriael_GN]

Again. Books are a different thing for a different market. You can't fill a whole book with little more than anonymous dirt and expect it to be interesting or even published. A book written in the style of his articles would likely be rejected by any self-respecting publisher, on top of cutting him a ton of bridges. That's pretty much irrelevant to the topic at hand.

The article about the new title is more negative, but it's a game that has been in development for 8 years, has shown nothing, and lost half its staff, so again, I'm not sure if that's a "hit piece" on Levine as a talent or a human or just a statement of fact about what has come from this project under his leadership.

A game being in development for 8 years is irrelevant. If the company that pays the bills is fine with it, a game can be in development 20 years. Levine's obviously trying to do something different, and that takes time and a lot of trial and error. Japanese developers call it "scrap & build" and it's an entirely viable way to come up with games that aren't same old same old. Levine's certainly not the only one. As for losing part of its staff, people in the gaming industry come and go, especially over several years.

But again, the lack of any, even remote conflicting vision is a clear indication that the article is dishonest. You can't tell me you truly believe no one thought of telling Schreier anything that doesn't support the negative narrative he presents. That's statistically improbable. Extend that across his whole journalistic production, and it becomes an absolute impossibility and a very clear pattern.

 

[SF Kosmo]

Again. Books are a different thing for a different market.

But the article on Polygon was literally a book excerpt.

A game being in development for 8 years is irrelevant. If the company that pays the bills is fine with it, a game can be in development 20 years.

Sure, but it's not hard to understand how that can feel Sisyphean for everyone else working on it though.

I mean these two sides of the story can both be right. ken can be an ambitious genius and an utter pain in the ass to work with who can't manage a project.

 

[Abriael_GN]

Sure, but it's not hard to understand how that can feel Sisyphean for everyone else working on it though.

I mean these two sides of the story can both be right. ken can be an ambitious genius and an utter pain in the ass to work with who can't manage a project.

And an article presenting only one side of the story while claiming to have interviewed FIFTEEN people is unequivocally dishonest.

 

[SF Kosmo]

And an article presenting only one side of the story while claiming to have interviewed FIFTEEN people is unequivocally dishonest.

That team only had like 20 people so that sounds pretty thorough. And even as individuals a lot of the takes seemed balanced, like "Ken is good at A and B but struggles with C and D."