This story is baffling in a myriad of ways, but here's the gist.

Before the announcement of the Xbox One, in March 2013, an individual by the name of Jia Li received a working prototype of the console from Microsoft by accident. After realizing what he had in his hands, Li reported the prototype to Engadget.

Perhaps more peculiar to me than Microsoft losing one of their prototype consoles some two months before it was to be announced, is that Engadget then contacted Microsoft and negotiated a deal where they got early preview coverage of the console in favor of not posting the story of the lost prototype.

I'd be really interested in hearing from the GB crew, or from other people who've worked in the business, on if deals like this are commonplace. A thing like this could have had the potential to be the biggest news story in video games that spring, but instead Engadget chose to bury it for a bit of preview coverage. Seems a tad bonkers, and dare I say corrupt, to me.

The full story, written by an ex-Engadget employee, is up on Business Insider.

It's not corrupt.. press is just business, not justice. Sites do this all the time. Sometimes you get news, you go the culprit, and they ask you not to run it. It's not "more right" to run the news.

Engadget made a trade they thought was beneficial. Instead of 1 big story (and potentially ruining their relationship with MS) they went the other way, to strengthen the relationship and ensure they get a number of smaller, but still medium sized stories. If you are a tech site, it is probably useful to have MS want to talk to you.

Doesn't seem that crazy to me all in all. The craziest thing is still the accidentally sent Xbox One... Wrong address? How? Did they mail a lot of these prototypes out?

Just shows me that Engadget isn't the press site I want to follow then. If they are interested in putting business relationships above the consumer's interest, how can I trust their information?

I read this whole article, but did I miss something? I can't find the part that talks about Engadget exchanging the leak for preview coverage.

Jason Schreier wrote something about it.

He also wrote in the comments that Kotaku would have most likely ran a story on the system.

Yeah there is nothing at all about that in the linked article. It just mentions Engadget being contacted and being sent photos of the box. No info about an exchange for preview access. It just goes on to say that the guy with the console gave it back to Microsoft and received an 360 and Kinect in return. Was he corrupt for not posting it everywhere?

COLLUSION!

Since this is the point of the entire thread, it's worth noting that the link @drdarkstryfe posted to the Kotaku article about this article is where Gilbert states Engadget negotiated preview coverage:

“After receiving the box in March 2013, Jia Li wanted to either sell it or return it to Microsoft (to get the laptop he ordered!),” Gilbert told me via gchat. “We weren’t going to buy it. So we facilitated returning the box to Microsoft in exchange for exclusive, early access to the Xbox One. The condition of that exclusive: not writing about the story of Microsoft losing the Xbox One. It’s been three years. I’m no longer at Engadget. The people who worked with me at Engadget on the deal are no longer at Engadget. It felt like the right time.”

I've heard this before.

Seriously though, I think it's a little shady to essentially blackmail Microsoft into providing an exclusive. It's also kind of scummy to make that agreement, and then go back on your word with "hey, I don't work there anymore."

That seems smart.

It's not like it was a huge shocker that new consoles were coming anyways. I don't see how someone could think leveraging one story for another is a consumer interest issue, let alone corruption.

I'm not sure there's a ton of consumer interest in leaking information on pre-release hardware.

Sounds like they thought about doing something with the story, but wanted to get their hands on the console when they did. The dude wanted them to pay for it, so instead they called in Microsoft and negotiated a deal for another story instead. I guess they could have run an article about the weird situation for a quick hit in traffic, but without having the actual console on-hand to take a look at I don't see how it'd be better for them in the long run than the exclusive they got.

Corruption is too harsh in this situation, but I would definitely call it a shady course of action for a press site to follow. It makes you wonder what else they might have not published in favor of backroom deals. When stories like these come out, it just ends up hurting their image.

The dude was looking to sell it or return it. They didn't want to purchase anything, so they inserted themselves into his return process in order to negotiate a scoop. They could have posted the images and never purchased the hardware and stayed out of the return process, but I suppose they thought the scoop would offer more insight and, perhaps, be more interesting to their readership than some pictures with no 'proof' would have been. However, I think they'd be wrong about that. That may be the way people in the press think about this (it's certainly how the GB crew thinks about hardware leaks) but that is definitely not the way the general public responds to this kind of thing. 3D-printed mock up or not, that's gonna get you some fuckin CLICKS. I don't think what they did was ethically shady (assuming they just have a flat no-payments policy), but, judging from what i know about how hyped people get about hardware leaks, it's my opinion that it was a poor choice.

Really though, even if Engadget did routinely pay for insider info and just decided to negotiate a better deal that involved keeping a secret from the public this time, I could never call something like this "corrupt". I just can't be fucked to take games journalism THAT seriously.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.

What's better for a publication to do? Report on leaked hardware and potentially ruin a relationship with a major tech company? Or work out a deal that saves both companies face and still get early coverage?

@finaldasa: Yeah, I think they'd be blackballed pretty hard by Microsoft if they went through with this. It's easy to say they should have ran the story if you just consider what a scoop it would be versus what they got out of it, but I think there's more factors (whether or not it was real amongst them) then we may be aware of.

Not sarcastic at all. I don't see how dumping a bunch of info on what is likely beta hardware helps the consumer in any way. Tearing down and analyzing retail hardware, sure, but the only point of "Hey look, this is the box MS might be releasing in 6 months" is to generate site traffic.

@frytup: I invite you to look through the comments section on Austin's article on the PlayStation Neo. And that's just one example.

I don't think you could be further off on this one.

Exactly. Leaking pre-release/non-final hardware doesn't even serve your customers since that hardware a.) isn't for consumers and b.) not indicative of the final product.

You could not burn bridges, report on the final hardware, and best serve your customers all in one fell swoop.

From a business ethics standpoint, I could make a pretty good argument that it's less nefarious to notify MS of the erroneously shipped unit and negotiate a quid pro quo "thank you" of sorts for returning it than it is to plaster something that obviously wasn't meant to be out in the world yet all over the internet against the wishes of Microsoft. Realistically, they probably would have gotten far more clicks for some awful "Xbox One LEAKED! Engadget got our hands on the console and we have the details!" story than an early preview with MS' blessing, so I'm not quite ready to say it's "corrupt" when they sacrificed some cheap hits to kinda do the right thing, though I suppose there's an argument to be made about them probably not wanting to burn bridges with MS as well. Obviously the most ethical course of action would be to just send it back and ask nothing in return, but I don't think many people in this situation would actually do that.

I'm reminded of the guy who got his hands on an early copy of No Man's Sky and basically used it as a vehicle to promote himself while kinda trashing the game and shaping its perception before it even came out. I'm not sure that's a healthy way for "information" to be released. I've never been the type who thinks the public is somehow entitled to know everything, either. This was clearly just a mistake where some shipping label got switched, and who knows how close the "Kryptos" machine actually was to the Xbox One. Companies deserve the ability to keep some things in-house, and presenting a prototype that's not supposed to be presented for the world to dissect is a bit unfair. Then again, I'm not sure it would have made much of a difference in this case because the console ended up being roundly shit upon early on anyway.

I digress. However, let's say this happened to one of us random users here at GB. Would you immediately just contact MS? Would you post about it here? When people asked for details, would you give the info to them? Would you send official GB staff the unit to report on it? I have a feeling that a bunch of people who decry "journalism ethics" would gladly hop themselves right in the spotlight and milk it for all it's worth if some chance like this for internet fame and more dropped in their lap. I don't see anything particularly egregious here by Li, Engadget, or MS. It seems like all of them got something positive out of this, with the only potentially aggrieved parties being non-Engadget media and the public, neither of whom I feel too sorry for. Engadget was just the lucky one Li contacted, and "the public" likely would have done far worse things with this info. JMOs.

I work in the media, but not in the games press.

This kind of thing happens all the time. You find out something about someone and when you approach them for a comment they offer a compromise where they will grant you preferential access if you drop the story.

It could be seen as collusion,or even blackmail, but it could also bee seen as the two sides coming up with a solution where both parties walk away happy.

I wouldn't see this example as corrupt. It's not as if a new take on a console is some great conspiracy or scandal.

I used to run a site back in the day before the Xbox 360 launched (and we even covered a little bit of the console when it did launch, but shut the site down shortly thereafter). One thing I do know is the shadiness that the industry had BACK THEN.

I recall many times when I'd get e-mails from game publishers (the major ones - EA, Activision, Ubisoft, 2K) about sending us review copies. Basically, back then, we'd have to e-mail and ask for review copies (we were a small indie site with about 300,000 unique a month, so we were nothing to those big places). They would send stuff back saying they would consider us based on credentials, etc. Mind you, this was back before the gaming blogger thing went big. We had guys that went to E3 on our credentials, so we were very much a gaming website that should've had access to review copies.

Nonetheless, there would always be the inevitable "hey, we can't send you our big games, but we can send you SOME stuff."

EA was the one I most notoriously remember, along with Driv3r from Atari.

EA sent us a copy of GoldenEye: Rogue Agent with a press kit. It was basically our "here's a game for you to review, let's see how you handle this" test. It was followed up with an e-mail to make sure we received the copy, along with a note that said if the game received an 8.5 or higher, they would consider us for higher tier games (Madden, Battlefield, etc). Basically, they were saying "if you help boost our GameRankings score, then we'll give you more games."

We gave it a 7/10 and a return e-mail with the link followed by "keep your games, and we were generous with the review score." I'm sure they didn't give two shits, but I wasn't selling our integrity, no matter how small and fledgling we were.

As for Atari, I'm sure there are people who still remember the old Driv3r review incident with EGM. If not, a little paraphrasing: Driv3r was critically panned, but EGM was generous as hell in their scoring (I believe it was an 8.5 or something like that, maybe higher). They denied any type of kickback for giving the high review score. However, I remember pretty distinctly that an e-mail was sent to us when we got our copy stating pretty much the same thing that EA said to me with the GoldenEye: Rogue Agent stuff. The only difference was that it wasn't to get copies of games, but rather to get exclusive coverage on shit from Atari in the future.

Other companies:

• Activision - denied us review copies after we gave True Crime: New York City a 5.2/10.
• Square Enix - denied us review copies after we gave Romancing SaGa a 5.2/10.
• Ubisoft - denied us review copies after we gave 187: Ride or Die a 4.5/10.
• Namco - denied copies after Death by Degrees got a 4/10
• Konami - denied copies after Nanobreaker got a 3/10

So basically, if you were a small site back then and you didn't give games FAVORABLE scores and instead scored based on what the game ACTUALLY WAS, you were blacklisted. Bigger sites? The companies would generate sales from ads on the sites, so it wasn't such a big deal...ya know, until Jeff did what he did.

The companies that were dope as fuck:

• Midway
• Atlus
• Capcom
• Sony
• Microsoft

With all of those companies, we always got review copies (and with Midway, promotional materials and interviews and shit, as well as Capcom). With Atlus, we got "trade demos," which was basically a disc in a small white cardboard case. The CD looked like it was blank except for "TRADE DEMO" real big on it, and then it had the name of the game and developer on it. I still have my copy of Disgaea: Hour of Darkness and Shin Megami Tensei: Nocturne. Seriously, Atlus was basically the fucking coolest ever.

Nowadays, I don't know what it's like, but to say that companies don't make deals with websites? It wouldn't be a surprise to me AT ALL.

@jakob187: They specifically said "Give us good scores and we'll give you games"?

Usually companies are unwilling to hand out games because if you're unestablished, you could be anybody who could take a game and not review it. Why send out Madden if you can't review GoldenEye? (No one should have to review GoldenEye)

And when you do get sent codes, I'm sure they're more willing to send more to sites who enjoy their games versus sites who may be more harsh, but I've never heard of a company outright saying "good scores = better games."

But that's just based off my experiences.

@finaldasa: This was specifically what I dealt with regularly. The site was going for a little over three years, and my two staff writers who were able to attend E3 in our second year met with reps. They knew our site wasn't some random blogger thing. Mind you, this was back in 2003, 2004? Something like that. Been a while, so it's hard to remember the time frame at times.

Also, if you look at our review scores (which is the link that I threw up), we were generous with review scores in a lot of cases. For crying out loud, Chicago Enforcer got a score above 8 out of 10, and that game was trash (and I really didn't agree with the reviewer on it, but I thoroughly believed that smaller games like that were up to the reviewer themselves....bigger games were typically a group review to ensure we covered all our bases on it).

We weren't being sent codes, though, but actual physical review copies. We didn't have debug units, and the companies knew that. Microsoft wanted 1m unique a month to get a debug, and Sony wanted 500k unique a month. That's what they had told us, at least.

Also, of course they'd rather send codes or copies to sites that are going to throw praise at them, regardless of whether the game was trash or not. They want to fluff the shit out of that aggregated score. GameRankings was something that I genuinely hated, and the same can be said for Metacritic.

It's kind of weird, but I think if you read it as "Hey we could run a story on this new machine now when you don't want us to or we'll hold off until you're ready as long as you give us first notice to get out there" it actually seems okay. Either way, engadget gets the scoop - but this way Microsoft doesn't get their plans spoiled to the world, and the general public gets to have the surprise when the announcement is actually made rather than finding out ahead of time (which I find generally less exciting).

this seems entirely like a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. they had the info, they made a choice. really doesn't move the needle for me one way or another.

videogames.

@spaceinsomniac: I haven't read the story yet and was just commenting at a general level that this type of practice isn't abnormal or necessarily scummy (whatever that means to you). Was it actually blackmail or are you assuming that's what it was?

This sort of thing happens in media coverage outside of games too. Its not scummy (by media standards at least) they made the judgement call, 'what would our viewers rather, this leak or some preview stuff.' Not pissing off microsoft is also I nice plus, companies can and do blacklist people/organizations. I don't follow engadget though and now i feel justified in not going there, doesn't seem to be targeted at my interests

i'm guessing i'm missing something, but it seems like it would have been more corrupt of them to break the story about the ill-acquired prototype rather than negotiating the deal. though i guess the least corrupt thing would have been to just return it and do nothing at all.

@jakob187: So were they not sending you games because you didn't have a debug or because your scores weren't high enough?

Typically I've found larger companies are very nervous about handing out codes/games because they are limited and need to go to sites who will get the most coverage. You wanna give Gamespot and IGN their review copies before you run out.

Wasn't it an Engadget employee that had a SWAT team break down his door because he had a prototype iPhone he shouldn't have had? We are living in a goddamn cyberpunk dystopia. I can't blame them for not wanting to out the secrets of one of the biggest baddest corporations around.

Given the story I would say Patrick and Austin's Neo reports are entirely different. Engadget only had pictures of an Xbox One prototype, nothing else. They didn't know about the price, the actual performance, or the no used games aspect. Sure it wasn't announced but everyone knew a new Xbox was coming out that fall. The Neo leaks by Austin had facts about the actual performance of the hardware and Patrick's info was they were doing a half step mid console (something no one knew was coming).

@jay_ray: I was specifically addressing the person I quoted who said that there wasn't much consumer interest in pre-release hardware leaks.

My thoughts on this:

• Not writing about the prototype is fine. Whatever floats their boat.
• Getting exclusive early access in return for not writing about it is iffier though...

I'm sure negotiations like this happen quite often in the press but it still feels like it's not acting with the consumers' best interests in mind.

I'm not sure I would call it corrupt. There were no bribes or dishonesty. I guess you could call it blackmail, but that seems a bit much. They had information, and leveraged it into a good deal (from their perspective. Not sure I agree with that, and to me it seems short sighted).

That said, I could understand if someone looked at this and decided that they didn't want to rely on Engadget for coverage. I more or less feel the same way.

I recall the story and the gist of the comments, and I don't think it's really the same thing. Austin had sources discussing specs and a road map. Engadget had the opportunity to buy a piece of hardware with zero context other than the logical inference that it was, at the very least, a prototype for the next Xbox.

So what do they do? Do they take the box apart, research the chipsets, and post raw information on specs but lacking any confirmation on the state of the hardware or release dates? Leaving aside the ethical and legal ramifications of the above, it really doesn't seem to me like that had enough information to help consumers make a buying decision.

Seems to me the decision they made was the right one.

That's a bonkers definition of corruption you've got there

Does a negotiation equals corruption now? I know we live in hyperbolic times but common now...

If that's your criteria on which sites to follow, you probably don't follow very many sites and shouldn't be following Giant Bomb.

It's pretty much the same as any game embargo. We'll talk to you about our games and send you a whole bunch of free stuff if you agree to wait to talk about our game until we say it's okay. It comes up almost weekly on the Bombcast because they can't talk about something. How exactly is that putting a consumer's interest above business relationships?

Sometimes, actually most of the time, sites having strong business relationships benefits the consumer in the long run.

OK, I was being way too hyperbolic with the suggestion of corruption. Using words like shady or secretive would have been much smarter. And I failed to link the Kotaku comments where this trade was implied, so thanks to folks like @drdarkstryfe and @kcin for clearing things up.

But it seems like the topic did spur a lot of conversation, and I'd like to really thank all the industry people who commented on this. I do understand the working relationship between games/tech media and the companies they are reporting on. I understand how deals like this benefit both sides, and why a site like Engadget would be scared of losing their Microsoft contacts entirely. But I do think it's a sad state of affairs when one of the biggest (are they still one of the biggest?) sites in tech journalism can't risk reporting on a thing like this in fear of getting shut out.

I guess it all just makes me wonder how many wild stories and leaks we've missed out on over the years because of backroom deals like this. It also makes me question the trail of handshakes leading to exclusive preview coverage in the first place.

It's sort of nice to find oneself having been too naive about something in an age of cynicism.

Jesus Christ people, this is not what corruption looks like. Get off your fucking high horses. They decided not to post vague info on a weird leak, strengthened a business deal and produced content for their customers. Sounds like they handled this situation really well.

They weren't dishonest or fraudulent. They chose to get a better story further down the line as opposed turning out a shitty story now and burning bridges. Internet entitlement really is fucking daft - "These people knew something that is totally inconsequential, how dare they not tell me immediately!" Grow up.

What's the big deal here? That's business.

Here's a fantastic video about the situation from a You Tube channel that has been putting out a lot of great work lately:

Also, thanks for sharing your insider opinion of this issue. That was an interesting read, although it didn't really surprise me, either.

This is probably the most sensible viewpoint to have here. We don't really know who suggested the exclusive coverage. It could have been started by something as simple as "Microsoft, here's a story we've been given. Do you care to comment?" I still feel it's a little questionable to make a deal like this and then embarrass MS after the fact, with the excuse "I don't work there anymore," though.

After thinking about it more, I don't think we really know, and I'm fine to leave it at that.

Eh? I don't really see this as corrupt either way. We're talking about showing a video game console here, not releasing image-damaging or scandal-inducing information.

If we were talking about information on things like abuse of power within the company, deliberate lying to the consumer, pressuring the mediam etc., I think this would be a different case.

Yeah, I don't quite get it when people discuss leaks (that might be fun but ultimately meaningless) as though the journalistic scoop is comparable to stories on much more important issues in general. I remember Colin on Kinda Funny trying to argue for Kotaku's loss of developer relations due to their leaks as admirable journalistic integrity. But I just don't see the journalistic value in a few screenshots. I'm sure there's financial incentive to be first on a ball, but that's a completely different thing.

I've always found the way people disregard game press as just video-games really disrespectful of the people working in it. There are people in the industry that take their job serious and work hard to break stories whether on working conditions or leaks. Journalistic integrity should apply across the board not just on big stories. I very rarely find myself agreeing with Colin, but on this one I do.

Is corruption the next word we are ruining until it loses all meaning?

This is a silly thing. Low stakes info being traded for low stakes reward. Blackmail? Maybe, but it's super pointless blackmail.

@aktivity:I'm specifically speaking about (what I think are) pointless leaks, not journalists in gaming press in general. There are stories worth burning bridges over, a few screenshots of Assassin's Creed isn't one of them and crying over those burnt bridges later on isn't admirable either, for that matter. My point was that there are stories that do matter and that has real journalistic value and publishing those no matter the consequences is admirable and shows journalistic integrity. But when there's no story, you have to ask yourself if you're actually being a hard hitting journalist or just some dude spreading anything and everything you get your hands on. I mean, do you consider click bait articles to be important journalism with integrity or just financial cash grabs?

Personally, Penny-Arcade's take on the situation is perhaps my favorite thing I've ever read on that site, and that's saying a lot.

https://www.penny-arcade.com/news/post/2015/11/20/parabolic1

We’ll never know why or when or even if Bethesda or Ubisoft “blacklisted” Kotaku, as Kotaku claims. You would need a team of PhDs and the Large Hadron Collider to determine precisely how little I value their claims on any topic. Though, I can understand why a publisher might determine that an increasingly hostile outlet whose business model is “Start Shit” might not be the best time or money investment. And you may say, “But Jerrzorz!” and that’s all you’ll get out because you’re going to look down at the floor for a second and really think about it. Why did it ever work this way? Why would you be obligated to spend millions of dollars on something and then place it gently on the black altar of a hivemind cult, bowing as you retreat? The old accord is over. Go buy your games at the store. Do you not understand that this is literally the best thing that ever happened to you? They don’t owe you shit, and now you don’t owe them shit.

Having been the cowering creature beneath enthusiast media’s Eye of Sauron on more than one occasion, the object of their tender ministrations, their ostensible populism and their eerily synchronized perspective, I have no sympathy for these creatures. Which is to say, I have the same sympathy they express for those outside their cloister. You may feel very confident that there are conversations at every publisher now, wondering to what extent they are required to eat shit from these people.

The comic is pretty good, too.

Ironically, after Kotaku complained about being blacklisted due to posting content that made someone else look bad, they then turned around and essentially blacklisted Penny Arcade, removing the comic from their Sunday comic collection.