Something went wrong. Try again later

SpicyRichter

This user has not updated recently.

748 102 17 5
Forum Posts Wiki Points Following Followers

SpicyRichter's forum posts

Avatar image for spicyrichter
SpicyRichter

748

Forum Posts

102

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Is it really that hard for games writers to avoid donating to games? Just avoid it completely and there won't be any questions about integrity. Having a few dozen individuals not contribute won't sink a game if it is destined to be made.

Avatar image for spicyrichter
SpicyRichter

748

Forum Posts

102

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

There has been a lot of hubbub lately regarding this subject, and so that this thread doesn't get deleted immediately, let's avoid any specifics surrounding said hubbub, and keep this on topic.

We all want journalistic integrity in our reporting, at least that is what the internet at large is screaming about. This means that there needs to be a total separation between the media and industry, and in the young gaming industry, personal/professional separation seems to be incredibly difficult. Relationships are formed due to shared interest and people are constantly jumping the line between media and industry. I can't think of any other business sectors where this is so prevalent. Rarely do people in the automotive industry jump from their job at Road & Track to get a job in the Ford marketing department. Product engineers at Samsung don't often have B of J or English degrees.

As much as the press would like to say that personal relationships are personal and not the public's business, there is always a very good chance of a future business transaction happening with their friends. When a member of the press gives any sort of coverage to a game, this is a business transaction. The developer benefits in a business sense from this transaction, as does the publication. If you have a personal relationship with this person, then this is a case of nepotism, and something that can potentially damage the credibility of the coverage. It is a big industry, and this coverage could have been given to a multitude of other games currently in development or for sale. Was this coverage deserved or the result of a relationship? As hard as the press might try, it is impossible to be completely impartial when it regards a close friend.

So we all are crying for a separation between industry and press, but here at GB we have benefited a great deal from industry/press relationships. The teams relationship with Kasavin resulted in Building the Bastion, which I personally enjoyed a great deal. While Jeff decided that he wouldn't review the game because of the previous relationship, Supergiant has still benefited in a very real monetary sense from the large amount of coverage that Bastion received on this site. Supergiant Games received extra press coverage due to a personal relationship, which resulted in the company generating revenue it normally wouldn't have. I can say this with absolute certainty, as I personally wouldn't have bought the game without the coverage it received from this site. Brad Muir has had a lot of direct support from members on this site, including from me. My donating to Muir's kickstarter was a result of the relationships he has with the editors here. There are a lot more examples, including some of our favourites like Dave Lang, John Vignocchi and John Drake, to name a few.

So that brings us to our dilemma - I love having Lang, Kasavin, Muir, Vignocci, and others on the live shows and so on, and this wouldn't happen without these personal relationships. But money is indirectly changing hands, and nepotism is abound. Would Lang have the opportunity to promote Divekick without his personal relationship with the Giant Bomb editors? Nepotism is common in every industry out there, but journalists are supposed to be impartial, aren't they? We trust them to give us purchasing advise, and fair, even, coverage of the industry, no matter who is involved. At least we are supposed to?

Is it worth the entertainment we get from these characters? I know I personally love it. What does the industry give up integrity-wise from these relationships? How does the rest of the world view this industry? Are gaming sites just hobby sites, and the editors just writers, not journalists?

I know it's impossible to control who becomes friends with who, but where is the line drawn? Should members of the press directly contribute money to friends projects through crowd-funding? Should editors recuse themselves from any coverage of friends games? An opinion piece arguably gives just as much coverage as a full review these days.

These are hard questions, and will need to be faced for this industry to mature. I'd like to hear everyone else's thoughts.

Avatar image for spicyrichter
SpicyRichter

748

Forum Posts

102

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

The whole thing about her past relationships isn't the only story [read post 48] about Zoe Quinn happening right now, and it's not the only one that is being suppressed by game journalists either. The fact that the non-personal story isn't being talked about is the real issue here, especially since it's either hiding the promotion of a good cause designed to promote women in gaming, or it's not warning people about an ongoing scam. And if this is true, that means that either Zoe is either a manipulative opportunist, or she was absolutely right about something that she suspected to be a scam, or she was tragically mistaken and is hurting a good cause.

For goodness sake, Total Biscuit even tweeted in support for this cause. People need to know the truth, and SOMEBODY should be getting to the bottom of this.

Woah, a youtube search filled me in. It is insane that none of this was covered, especially after sites raked Temkin over the coals.

I'm kinda pissed that sites have left me blind to a lot of this. It's not very fair to us readers. I get the concept of 'unfit to print', but at least be consistent about it.

Anyway, this issue is too volatile, I'm outta here. I know why all of the other editors of GB stay away from this stuff. Unfortunately it looks like Klepek has been drawn in by the gravity. I kinda wish he'd distance himself, there's enough other sites out there covering the 'politics' of games.

Avatar image for spicyrichter
SpicyRichter

748

Forum Posts

102

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

So - all I've heard about over the last few days is Fine Young Capitalists getting hacked by a hacker group, as well as PSN, Blizzard, and League being targeted by a group called LizardSquad. So is all this uproar just about a group of script kiddy DoS jerkoffs?

What the hell is everyone talking about?

I only get my news from video game sites.

Avatar image for spicyrichter
SpicyRichter

748

Forum Posts

102

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5  Edited By SpicyRichter

Yea I made the edit - we've been on parity with American prices up until now, and prices for new releases/preorders on Steam are still $49-$59. I wasn't going to buy it and play it until later anyway, but now I'm really not going to.

So I guess this is a 'screw EA' thread now?

Avatar image for spicyrichter
SpicyRichter

748

Forum Posts

102

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6  Edited By SpicyRichter

Just looked at Origin and the standard version on the PC is $70! That seems insane for a PC game, what's going on? How did we jump from $49 for PC releases to $69?

No Caption Provided

*Edit: Also noticed the standard version of Fifa is $70 as well. I'm in Canada, maybe this is in response to our shitty dollar? Curious to know what price Americans see

Avatar image for spicyrichter
SpicyRichter

748

Forum Posts

102

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Wait, what happened over the last few days? @patrickklepek should really include a link when referencing something outside the article.

Avatar image for spicyrichter
SpicyRichter

748

Forum Posts

102

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@spicyrichter said:

@exiledvip3r said:

I'm not a fan of Facebooks policies in general, but Facebooks future application of the device is simply likely to be at the forefront of the future market and providing exclusive telepresence software;

I didn't get in on the ground floor with Oculus to get first crack at telepresence software, I got in to play games! Which is why I say fuck this!

And there is absolutely nothing making the two mutually exclusive.

Oculus is a hardware company, they will continue to focus on making a nice piece of hardware which by their repeated statements, both pre and post Facebook buyout, would have a gaming first focus. Facebook is a software company, they'll make whatever software makes sense for them to make for it, and push the Rift vs other VR headsets as their preferred platform on that software.

Just because you (rhetorically) run a Windows computer doesn't mean your computer is best suited to, or only capable of, running Microsoft Word.

And for the record I own a DK1 and have preorded a DK2, I am no less in on the ground floor with Oculus.

It does mean, however, that oculus' focus is no longer on just providing an outstanding gaming experience.

Avatar image for spicyrichter
SpicyRichter

748

Forum Posts

102

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9  Edited By SpicyRichter

I'm not a fan of Facebooks policies in general, but Facebooks future application of the device is simply likely to be at the forefront of the future market and providing exclusive telepresence software;

I didn't get in on the ground floor with Oculus to get first crack at telepresence software, I got in to play games! Which is why I say fuck this!

Avatar image for spicyrichter
SpicyRichter

748

Forum Posts

102

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I wonder how Carmack feels being a facebook employee now? Wonder if he saw that in his future?