Opinion: No Kotaku, you weren’t blacklisted for speaking ‘the truth’

Kotaku is throwing a self-pity party today. Following the publishing of their Fallout 4 review — which was about a week later than most other outlets — Kotaku released an article today: “A Price of Games Journalism.” Written by Stephen Totilo, the premise of the piece is justification for what the website writes (or leaks, rather) in an attempt to make the big, bad publisher look evil. The two that have scorned Kotaku the most: Bethesda, makers of Fallout 4, and Ubisoft, publisher of the Assassin’s Creed and Far Cry series.

The article begins with claims that Kotaku has been blacklisted by both of these publishers. “They’ve cut off our access to their games and creators, omitted us from their widespread mailings of early review copies, and, most galling, ignored all of our requests for comment on any news stories,” Totilo writes.

Based on the late release of Kotaku’s Fallout 4 review, I fully believe they’ve been blacklisted by at least Bethesda.

Here’s the thing, though, their attempted defense stands on shaky grounds. Both Bethesda and Ubisoft have one thing in common when it comes to Kotaku, both are victims of Kotaku’s reporting.

In 2013, Kotaku published a detailed report on Fallout 4, not just confirming its existence, but leaking a crap ton of information, including the Boston setting, the character Preston Garvey, and even direct lines from the game.

In 2014, they did something similar with Ubisoft, leaking the existence of Assassin’s Creed Victory (renamed Syndicate). This came after the outlet reported on both Unity and Rogue before they were announced as well. And let’s not forget they also published early images of the then-unannounced Assassin’s Creed Unity, which had been leaked to them by an independent source.

Kotaku claims this is “games journalism.” They believe, with their leaks, they told “the truth” about these publishers’ games. While the leaks may have been true, there’s a difference between publishing truth that needs to be known and truth that you simply write for pageviews. In these cases, neither needed to be known at the time.

Totilo even says, “I prefer to marshal our reporting to tell readers things they’ll otherwise never know or that they need to know sooner—the underpowered nature of upcoming hardware, the plight of fired game developers, the reason a high-profile game was released in rough shape.”

In the cases of Fallout and Assassin’s Creed, neither of these leaks contained information gamers wouldn’t have known eventually, and it certainly wasn’t information they needed to know sooner.

Sure, Gamers wanted to know if Fallout 4 were in development. And at the proper time, presumably E3 (when Fallout 4 actually was revealed), they would have. The truth would have been made public with or without Kotaku’s leak because that was part of Bethesda’s marketing plan.

There’s nothing “journalistic” about leaking documents fed to you. It serves the public no purpose other than ruining the surprise of a yet-to-be-announced game.

Totilo’s post reads as if Kotaku is acting as some sort of whistleblower, only nothing the outlet leaked is deemed illegal or dishonest. Is Bethesda’s attempt to keep Fallout 4 a secret illegal? No. Is Ubisoft waiting to announce a new Assassin’s Creed dishonest? No. Besides, we all know a new one is coming every year anyway.

So tell me, Stephen, what exactly is the value in leaking these games early? What benefit does seeing a leaked image of Assassin’s Creed Unity have on the overall gaming public? Allow everyone to pre-judge something before it’s ready to be shown?

In the comments of the article, Totilo defends, “My focus is telling the truth about games for readers, whether that’s the external truth that reporters discover or that more internal subjective truth about how a critic feels about a game.”

By all means, tell us the truth. Tell us how you really feel about Fallout 4 or the latest Assassin’s Creed. That is the sort of truth gamers want. They want honest, truthful critique to know if ther hard-earned $60 is worth spending on a new release. Kotaku’s report on Fallout 4 may have been true, that’s not the sort of truth Totilo is using to justify his defense against being blacklisted.

You want to write about layoffs, bad business work environments, canceled games, go for it. But stop trying to claim to be something you’re not. Kotaku is a tabloid, and this argument that they post about leaked games for “truth” instead of pageviews is a blatant lie.

I’m not saying it’s wrong to write about leaks, but don’t justify them as “truth”. There is a big difference between being truthful in your reporting of a game and simply leaking information just for the hell of it. For example, I was truthful in my review of Fallout 4, and guess what, it didn't involve me spoiling the setting months in advance.

Don’t play the game, Kotaku, and then complain when you get burned. You published significant Fallout 4 leaks years before the reveal. Imagine the backlash Bethesda would have suffered had the game, for some reason, been canceled before its full announcement. Marketing plans exist not to screw over the press or the average consumer (that's what DLC is for); they exist as a carefully constructed (usually) plan to unveil specific things when they are ready to be fully announced. Don’t attempt to use “reporting truth” as a defense for spoiling these companies’ plans early.