Games Journalism General

Does he not realize that's because AAA studios give the companies money to do it?

Like some of Veilguard's bloated budget went to advertising, which is absolutely why "journalism" sites paid time and attention to it.
Of course he knows that but it doesnt change his point about them being completely worthless to anyone else. They've tied themselves to games like Veilguard and so they die with them
 
Back in the 1990s, though, "real" outlets (magazines, organized companies) would often get review copies of software. It wasn't just games, it was often software as well and I expect that extended to other media (movies, books). This did create a somewhat skewed-positive view since they didn't want to cause problems with the publishers, and this is what games journalism was based on.
That was because of the time it took to get print onto shelves.
 
That was because of the time it took to get print onto shelves.

All I'm saying is that the precedent exists for the reason why they do things. This is not to say the reason most indies get stiffed is just lack of a free product, or that the games that they decide to review or not aren't based on incredibly petty/selfish/deceitful reasons.
 
It looks like Bobby Kotick is suing Gizmodo and Kotaku. Even if he is a greedy goblin, hope he wins.
(Archive)
1742071107714.png
 
Can't they all lose somehow?
Kotick spends a ton of money, the defendants lose and he doesn't have a way to recoup the fees or get any sort of restitution because they're a couple of shitty broke businesses? But that's still going to be a drop in the bucket for Kotick at the end of the day.
 
Kotick spends a ton of money, the defendants lose and he doesn't have a way to recoup the fees or get any sort of restitution because they're a couple of shitty broke businesses? But that's still going to be a drop in the bucket for Kotick at the end of the day.
He might just be happy to Hogan legdrop them out of existence. I suppose his case could be so bogus he gets SLAPPed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chickenpolar
I don't hate journos enough for me to proclaim something like "I hope Bobby Kotick wins his litigation!"
I'm not going to go to bat for Kotick, but his career put Activision through highs and lows alike, basically everything that came from Activision and later Activision Blizzard since like 1993 was under him. I can't say the same for journos; has ANYthing good or interesting happened under them?
 
<grabs popcorn>

Place your bets people! I'm thinking Kotick will win this one simply because Mercante is a nobody and also that much of an utter cunt.
I'm more expecting it's going to be a model defendant/plaintiff thing.

In other words, I'm expecting the kotakuians to absolutely dig their own graves by fucking up somewhere.
 
<grabs popcorn>

Place your bets people! I'm thinking Kotick will win this one simply because Mercante is a nobody and also that much of an utter cunt.

I wonder how Bollea v. Gawker would've gone if Daulerio took the lawsuit seriously. (It really shouldn't have gotten to that point, Kotaku may as well have been part of Gawker Media today had they just settled years ago).
 
I wonder how Bollea v. Gawker would've gone if Daulerio took the lawsuit seriously. (It really shouldn't have gotten to that point, Kotaku may as well have been part of Gawker Media today had they just settled years ago).
Instead that dipshit thought it was a great idea to make child porn jokes in front of the jury.
 
I wonder how Bollea v. Gawker would've gone if Daulerio took the lawsuit seriously. (It really shouldn't have gotten to that point, Kotaku may as well have been part of Gawker Media today had they just settled years ago).
Jesus Christ THAT WAS ALL THE WAY BACK IN 2013.

WHERE DID MY LIFE GO?!
 
Excuse me what
They were asked if gawker would publish a sex tape of a 4 year old child and A. J. Daulerio of gawker said yes they would, they'd post a sex tape of a 4 year old child on their site if they thought it was news
This was just supposed to be a "Under certain circumstances it'd be wrong to post a sex tape right?" question to establish some basic foundation of decency but they said fuck it no, we're a bottomless pit of evil
 
They were asked if gawker would publish a sex tape of a 4 year old child and A. J. Daulerio of gawker said yes they would, they'd post a sex tape of a 4 year old child on their site if they thought it was news
This was just supposed to be a "Under certain circumstances it'd be wrong to post a sex tape right?" question to establish some basic foundation of decency but they said fuck it no, we're a bottomless pit of evil
they genuinely thought they could play the rhetorical question chicken game that goes through twitter every few weeks with a jury? god damn that's frankly impressive.
 
Man I wonder if anybody at Kotaku (besides Mercante of course) is as stupid/insane as Daulerio was. I'd love to watch Kotaku torpedo themselves in court.
 
Back