Valve, curator transparency and #GamerGate

[SpaghettiCarbonara]

I dont think we should be forcing people to be honest, that honesty shouldn't be a function of the system but of the person you are trusting. If you think that a person has been paid to say certain thing then it should be your duty to investigate rather than oing to the gate keepers and crying about a person bias and honesty.

 

Uhh.... K den.

 

In journalism, they absolutely definitely need to be 100% honest. It's called integrity and in any form of journalism, it's absolutely fucking vital. If they're not honest, their credibility goes through the floor and what they say holds no merit whatsoever. When they're basically a source of information for the general public, honesty and transparency needs to be present 100% of the time.

[Humbug]

The curator system is an excellent improvement because previously on steam you had to rely on Metacritic scores. Metacritic is a bit too general and doesn't account for taste. Curators allows you to choose who's opinion you trust and it doesn't try to put everyone in one basket.

 

Anyway the most reliable info on steam is the user reviews. No dev can hide there, I encourage everyone to read steam user reviews before buying. Don't buy a game just because it's cheap.

[monstercameron]

Uhh.... K den.

 

In journalism, they absolutely definitely need to be 100% honest. It's called integrity and in any form of journalism, it's absolutely fucking vital. If they're not honest, their credibility goes through the floor and what they say holds no merit whatsoever. When they're basically a source of information for the general public, honesty and transparency needs to be present 100% of the time.

you basically made my argument for me, why use the system to enforce honesty when [atleast in journalism] credibility is such a vital thing. Let the market decide rather than the system[this ideology goes into other thing as you might guess]. I hate republicans when they talk about nanny state but I have to agree in some instances. Some things need intervention while some dont.

[Derangel]

Sigh... Here we go.

 

1. You obviously haven't seen all the articles they posted about gamers being horrible people and/or a dead community then, have you? What you're seeing there is a handful of many articles that came out right after the whole thing with Zoe Quinn got exposed. They hate people knowing about their shitty ethics, so there's the backlash. They wanted to brand gamers as horrible people as some quick, petty revenge, really.

 

2. I don't really understand what you're trying to say here. As for me apparently not knowing what feminist ideologies are, I never really specifically mentioned any of them, so how can you say I don't know what they are?

 

3. I'm not saying they make a lot of money now, I'm saying they will if they get their way, that's what they want. Again, it's difficult to understand the points you're trying to make (I'm probably too tired to have a debate right now), but if you don't understand why journalists cannot have sex with the subjects of their articles, you really need to research the topic a bit more. It's creates a conflict of interest and in the journalism world, that's really fucking bad. As for the proof bit, yes, it is hard to prove what he was saying, but she practically admitted it and the amount of backlash we got from the game journos community sort of concretes it in my mind. Ben Kuchera was caught out saying "Who here hasn't slept with a PR person or game developer?", so there's that.

 

1. Anita is not part of the gaming press, she is a Youtube blooger (a not very good one, at that). My point was that the gaming press in general have been fighting against the bad image of gamers for a long time. Like with any generalized statement that are exceptions, but exceptions do not set a standard. Beyond that the issues in some of the articles do need to be discussed and brought to the forefront in the press. There is a reason companies like Riot are trying to make their communities appear less like the dregs of the internet culture.

 

2. My point here was that no one is free of agendas. We can't pick and choose one side to point at and say "you clearly have an agenda" because both sides do and neither of them are entirely bad or entirely good. Like most things it is somewhere in the middle. AS for the other bit what you seemed to be doing was making the mistake most people do and lumping every single bit of feminism into the space that should be occupied by the extremists. It's no different then lumping all gamers together under negative terms.

 

3. No, they won't. The industry and the press has run fairly unchecked for decades now and while there are a lot of shady practices no one is handing out bags of money. There are several government agencies in various parts of the world that would take issue if things got too much more out of hand. I didn't say it wasn't a problem when they were working with the subject of their articles. In fact I said exactly the opposite. I said it isn't a problem as long as that line isn't crossed. When that line gets crossed than the writer needs to get fired, simple as that. At least as long as there is solid proof.

 

As for Kuchera, he's an ass that loves to stir up controversy and does not seem to give a damn. Can't say I'm overly fond of him or Polygon in general.

[ComradeHX]

it never made sense to me this hullabaloo, why does it matter if a person recommending something is biased or has an ulterior motive. by its very nature, a recommendation is biased.

There is quite a bit of difference between one trying to sell a game for his own profit and one trying to get other people to buy/play a game just because he thinks it's good.

One is just trying to make money off of, often dishonest, reviews.

The other is just trying to get people to play good games.

=======================

Btw, Anita is just someone trying to become popular on youtube.

She is free to express her opinion but you are free to point out her bullshit all the same.

She does not understand gaming.

[SpaghettiCarbonara]

you basically made my argument for me, why use the system to enforce honesty when [atleast in journalism] credibility is such a vital thing. Let the market decide rather than the system[this ideology goes into other thing as you might guess]. I hate republicans when they talk about nanny state but I have to agree in some instances. Some things need intervention while some dont.

 

Oh shit, misunderstood. My bad.

 

1. Anita is not part of the gaming press, she is a Youtube blooger (a not very good one, at that). My point was that the gaming press in general have been fighting against the bad image of gamers for a long time. Like with any generalized statement that are exceptions, but exceptions do not set a standard. Beyond that the issues in some of the articles do need to be discussed and brought to the forefront in the press. There is a reason companies like Riot are trying to make their communities appear less like the dregs of the internet culture.

 

2. My point here was that no one is free of agendas. We can't pick and choose one side to point at and say "you clearly have an agenda" because both sides do and neither of them are entirely bad or entirely good. Like most things it is somewhere in the middle. AS for the other bit what you seemed to be doing was making the mistake most people do and lumping every single bit of feminism into the space that should be occupied by the extremists. It's no different then lumping all gamers together under negative terms.

 

3. No, they won't. The industry and the press has run fairly unchecked for decades now and while there are a lot of shady practices no one is handing out bags of money. There are several government agencies in various parts of the world that would take issue if things got too much more out of hand. I didn't say it wasn't a problem when they were working with the subject of their articles. In fact I said exactly the opposite. I said it isn't a problem as long as that line isn't crossed. When that line gets crossed than the writer needs to get fired, simple as that. At least as long as there is solid proof.

 

As for Kuchera, he's an ass that loves to stir up controversy and does not seem to give a damn. Can't say I'm overly fond of him or Polygon in general.

 

1. If you look closely, those articles are not written by Anita. Those articles are writen by these glorified bloggers who call themselves journalists. While most sites have defended gamers for a long time, now that their ethics have been questioned and their bad behavior exposed, they're pissed and they're blaming gamers for it.

 

2. You're right, everyone always has an agenda. The issue here is that the agenda of most gaming journalists these days is shit. They want game devs to make games that they like, not what the devs want to make. They want to push their shitty ideologies as far into the gaming industry as they can.

 

3. Whether they will or won't is irrelevant. I'm saying that that's what they want.

 

Anyway I'm not really in any frame of mind or level of energy to have a decent debate. I might come back to this later.

[monstercameron]

There is quite a bit of difference between one trying to sell a game for his own profit and one trying to get other people to buy/play a game just because he thinks it's good.

One is just trying to make money off of, often dishonest, reviews.

The other is just trying to get people to play good games.

=======================

Btw, Anita is just someone trying to become popular on youtube.

She is free to express her opinion but you are free to point out her bullshit all the same.

She does not understand gaming.

so you are telling me TB and co. dont make any money with honest reviews? everything has a cause and effect, TB[just an example] uses the curator system to promote games he thinks you should buy[inherently biased] and uses his popularity to make advertising dollars. The funny thing is that it is possible for a game company to buy ads on his content [idk if he has any control of this].

 

It aint so simple but my point is that something as simple as sponsorships and game recommendations should be left to the community to regulate.

[Derangel]

Oh shit, misunderstood. My bad.

 

 

1. If you look closely, those articles are not written by Anita. Those articles are writen by these glorified bloggers who call themselves journalists. While most sites have defended gamers for a long time, now that their ethics have been questioned and their bad behavior exposed, they're pissed and they're blaming gamers for it.

 

2. You're right, everyone always has an agenda. The issue here is that the agenda of most gaming journalists these days is shit. They want game devs to make games that they like, not what the devs want to make. They want to push their shitty ideologies as far into the gaming industry as they can.

 

3. Whether they will or won't is irrelevant. I'm saying that that's what they want.

 

Anyway I'm not really in any frame of mind or level of energy to have a decent debate. I might come back to this later.

 

1. Your right. I was having trouble reading some of the titles and thought some of them were showing Anita's videos.

 

2. Most? I'm not sure about that. Then again I suppose it's a fairly broad term these days and for whatever reason encompasses every two-bit hack writer that occasionally mentions games.

 

3. Of course it's what some people want, though I'd argue that publishers would rather find a way to get rid of reviews entirely or only allow reviews they approve of to exist. Sadly that is something I view as more likely.

[ComradeHX]

so you are telling me TB and co. dont make any money with honest reviews? everything has a cause and effect, TB[just an example] uses the curator system to promote games he thinks you should buy[inherently biased] and uses his popularity to make advertising dollars. The funny thing is that it is possible for a game company to buy ads on his content [idk if he has any control of this].

 

It aint so simple but my point is that something as simple as sponsorships and game recommendations should be left to the community to regulate.

TB makes money because he makes good content(such as honest reviews)...he does not make money by tricking people to believe something is better than it is.

The moneymaking came naturally after making honest reviews.

He does not make dishonest review for making money.

[dalekphalm]

so you are telling me TB and co. dont make any money with honest reviews? everything has a cause and effect, TB[just an example] uses the curator system to promote games he thinks you should buy[inherently biased] and uses his popularity to make advertising dollars. The funny thing is that it is possible for a game company to buy ads on his content [idk if he has any control of this].

 

It aint so simple but my point is that something as simple as sponsorships and game recommendations should be left to the community to regulate.

Just a note of contention here: Dev's cannot SPECIFICALLY buy ad-content space on TB's channel. They can buy space on YouTube, and a rather complex algorithm determines where and when those ads show up. Yes, gaming Channels are more likely to show ads for gaming content, but it would be an ENTIRELY UNRELIABLE method for devs to try and "target" his channel, since there is literally no guarantee any of their ads would even appear on his videos.

 

Also, some of TB's most popular videos are his negative ones. The ones where he TEARS THE GAME APART. So this means that he doesn't inherently make more money from those recommendations, since anything he recommends is going to be a fairly positive view. People watch TB for a lot of reasons - logical and well thought out opinions - 60 FPS glory - Caring about FOV sliders - but most notably, people love TB when he gets REALLY PISSED OFF AND ABSOLUTELY DESTROYS A GAME THAT IS RIGHTFULLY A BIG PIECE OF TURD.

 

You seem to think that "keeping them honest" is the communities job, and that we should "know the facts" or "do our research". Okay sure, that's all well and good. But some of those facts will not be divulged unless a system like this exists. As much as we know any YouTuber or other reviewer, we don't actually know them in person, and that limits our ability to detect dishonesty.

 

Honestly I can't understand why you would think this system is anything other than fantastic for consumers. The reviewers make their recommendations - sure that's fine - but they must disclose any bias or connection that could alter the integrity of their review. Some people, like TB and LTT, do this anyway. But it's nice to see that it is built into the system.

 

All this does is show consumers an alert/notice whenever a particular recommendation is made by someone connected to the game in question. Does that immediately invalidate that recommendation? Not necessarily. That's up to he consumer to decide - but they can make that decision a better one if they have the available facts.

 

Who cares if they are forced to disclose any bias or other connection to a game? How could this be anything but good for consumers?

[dalekphalm]

TB makes money because he makes good content(such as honest reviews)...he does not make money by tricking people to believe something is better than it is.

The moneymaking came naturally after making honest reviews.

He does not make dishonest review for making money.

Agreed. Plus people love his negative reviews anyway. So because of that, it's not like he's going to falsely give a bad game a positive review, since the negative review would've likely gotten more views anyway.

[Nomelas]

news articles are required to show their affiliates/sponsors so this is really no different.