You do know that this show isnt nothing new lolGood to finally see someone out there promoting PC gaming.
Should be a good show full of surprises.
You do know that this show isnt nothing new lolGood to finally see someone out there promoting PC gaming.
Should be a good show full of surprises.
lol nice oneGood to finally see someone out there promoting PC gaming.
Should be a good show full of surprises with Epic's backing.
People act like there's so many examples of them giving Epic sloppy blowjobs but if you actually tried to collect what people are getting outraged about and showed them to a third party observer you would look fucking looney toons.
Just to clarify - What we're showing at The PC Gaming Show 2019 is coming to Steam.
...a year after EGS?Hello.
Just to clarify - What we're showing at The PC Gaming Show 2019 is coming to Steam.
Very well said.I can't say whether games media is being directly paid by Epic. (Fwiw, I don't think that's the case).
What I can say is that the way most media outlets unanimously started pushing the narrative of "White Knight Epic is finally here to save us from the evil clutches of Steam by delivering COMPETITION (TM) via exclusive games" was strange and off-putting. Whenever individual staff would engage in comments with Epic detractors, I tend to see the same rhetoric of "it's just another launcher" and all detractors are dismissed as "vocal minority of Steam fanboys" .
Given that this was preceded by a whole bunch of stories about how bloated and lazy Valve was (to which valve generally didn't respond), I can totally see how said staff who already had an ax to grind against Valve would find Epic's narrative to be be more...agreeable?
Add to this Epic's rhetoric of "focusing on developers and content creators" (and many members of the media ARE also content creators), and I can very much see how Epic could cultivate a positive bias without any direct financial contributions.
You are making this a binary judgement when reality is rarely binary.
I don't believe that some individual(s) at PC Gamer took a cash payment from Epic with specific conditions on what to report on attached.
I do believe that the overall editorial direction at PC Gamer can be influenced by not wanting to lose out on future contracts with an important sponsor. Not necessarily because individual people knowingly choose to change their reporting, but due to the direct influence something has on you personally potentially coloring your impressions on the overall impact it has. (I would, in fact, argue that the same is true for developers) If you think that very idea is offensive and intolerable then I sadly don't think we'll ever agree on this.
Yeah, but are the games coming day and date?Hello.
Just to clarify - What we're showing at The PC Gaming Show 2019 is coming to Steam.
Third-party observers didn't deal with the GFWL years. Which, by the way, GFW Radio and Games for Windows: The Official Magazine were brutally and incessantly critical of.
To be clear: you are doubling down on the statement that PC Gamer is giving Epic positive coverage as a direct result of Epic's sponsorship of the E3 PC Gaming Show 2019? Do you have any evidence to back up your outlandish claim?
Since you seem to have no concept of journalism code of ethics, I would encourage your attention to be directed to the Society of Profession Journalists (SPJ) Code of Ethics: https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
Notably, there is a section titled "Act Independently":
These are standard code of ethics that every institution follows, including PC Gamer. There is no evidence to suggest that PC Gamer has violated their responsibility to act independently. Were you to have evidence, I am positive it would be major news to virtually every major gaming news outlet, and they would be eager to report on it. Obviously, you don't have that evidence.
You are comparing not being allowed to push conspiracy theories to a thought-crime. I hope you realize how absurd this leap in logic is. ResetEra has a moderation standard that they behold themselves to in order to ensure healthy discussion. For example, bigotry is banned from this forum. That does not mean that not allowing someone to post bigoted statements is a thought crime. You're still free to have bigoted thoughts, but they aren't welcome nor accepted here.
What you have done is suggest that PC Gamer's coverage is pro-biased because they are receiving funding from Epic for that coverage which is incredibly inflammatory. This is not the same as saying that PC Gamer has a pro-Epic PoV or bias in its coverage. I hope you can see and understand the difference.
I have to admit that my original post was more inflammatory than it could have been.I want to say that this is a rational and logical point of view that, yes, makes sense. I would absolutely agree with you that media outlets can be influenced by not wanting to lose out on future contracts with an important sponsor. We've seen similar things in that past around media reporting such as Bethesda not sending review copies or responding to Kotaku after their negative coverage or even historically when Jeff Gerstmann was fired from Gamespot. Advertisements are the lifeblood of many journalism websites, and negative coverage has been know to lead to threats of pulling ads, restricted access, etc.
I think that what your previous post indicated that there was some form of cash payment or money being exchanged under the table when you said they were "bought by Epic," which is where my concern stemmed from because that would be a conspiracy theory. I do think it is rational to think that they may have not gone after Epic Games Store negatively out of financial concerns, but, like you said, I don't think there was any sort of implicit or explicit deal between PC Gamer and Epic. Thanks for clearing up your perspective on your original post; I don't have any qualms with your point of view here.
I guess advertisements in gaming magazines also mean those magazines can't be unbiased, right? Or if someone doesn't share your opinion and condemn Epic you have to assume Epic paid for that because no one could possibly have a differing opinion?
Just think I should post this here as a friendly reminder regarding a certain conversation in this thread.
https://www.resetera.com/threads/10-years-since-jeff-gerstmann-was-fired-from-gamespot.8496/
It's not exactly Conspiracy Theory to say that media outlets are going to have a different editorial direction on certain topics when the subject of an article is their biggest sponsor.
Just think I should post this here as a friendly reminder regarding a certain conversation in this thread.
https://www.resetera.com/threads/10-years-since-jeff-gerstmann-was-fired-from-gamespot.8496/
It's not exactly Conspiracy Theory to say that media outlets are going to have a different editorial direction on certain topics when the subject of an article is their biggest sponsor.
I have to admit that my original post was more inflammatory than it could have been.
I just find it very important to be allowed to entertain the notion that a significant (i.e., as we see here, a headline sponsorship), recurring source of revenue can have an impact on the editorial voice of media outlets -- even if it's indirectly.
Just think I should post this here as a friendly reminder regarding a certain conversation in this thread.
https://www.resetera.com/threads/10-years-since-jeff-gerstmann-was-fired-from-gamespot.8496/
It's not exactly Conspiracy Theory to say that media outlets are going to have a different editorial direction on certain topics when the subject of an article is their biggest sponsor.
It seems you've been real set off by something relatively small. Yes, live reaction threads during E3 are fun.Yeah, console wars-like bullshit is fun.
.... if you're twelve.
How is this circling of the wagons from people who never give a shit about PC threads until Epic shows up acceptable?
You're transparent as fuck.
Good to finally see someone out there promoting PC gaming.
Should be a good show full of surprises with Epic's backing.
I want to say that this is a rational and logical point of view that, yes, makes sense. I would absolutely agree with you that media outlets can be influenced by not wanting to lose out on future contracts with an important sponsor.
Ironically and disappointingly, Jeff's recent comments on the Bombcast whenever EGS news comes up have not amounted to much more than the "it's just another launcher, what's the big deal" line.
I'm sorry. But what exactly do you think sponsorships are if not for sale? Like there are legit things to worry about Epic buying, but this is literally what sponsoring is.
Should Washington Post be forced to publish holocaust denying articles in order to show "both sides" of that """debate"""?It breaks all sorts of journalistic rules and codes when a publication decides to present only one side of a debate.
To be clear: you are doubling down on the statement that PC Gamer is giving Epic positive coverage as a direct result of Epic's sponsorship of the E3 PC Gaming Show 2019? Do you have any evidence to back up your outlandish claim?
Since you seem to have no concept of journalism code of ethics, I would encourage your attention to be directed to the Society of Profession Journalists (SPJ) Code of Ethics: https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
Notably, there is a section titled "Act Independently":
These are standard code of ethics that every institution follows, including PC Gamer. There is no evidence to suggest that PC Gamer has violated their responsibility to act independently. Were you to have evidence, I am positive it would be major news to virtually every major gaming news outlet, and they would be eager to report on it. Obviously, you don't have that evidence.
You are comparing not being allowed to push conspiracy theories to a thought-crime. I hope you realize how absurd this leap in logic is. ResetEra has a moderation standard that they behold themselves to in order to ensure healthy discussion. For example, bigotry is banned from this forum. That does not mean that not allowing someone to post bigoted statements is a thought crime. You're still free to have bigoted thoughts, but they aren't welcome nor accepted here.
What you have done is suggest that PC Gamer's coverage is pro-biased because they are receiving funding from Epic for that coverage which is incredibly inflammatory. This is not the same as saying that PC Gamer has a pro-Epic PoV or bias in its coverage. I hope you can see and understand the difference.
Should Washington Post be forced to publish holocaust denying articles in order to show "both sides" of that """debate"""?
Are you not the same person who used the call of duty boycott photo non ironically? Why should anyone care what you have any qualms withI want to say that this is a rational and logical point of view that, yes, makes sense. I would absolutely agree with you that media outlets can be influenced by not wanting to lose out on future contracts with an important sponsor. We've seen similar things in that past around media reporting such as Bethesda not sending review copies or responding to Kotaku after their negative coverage or even historically when Jeff Gerstmann was fired from Gamespot. Advertisements are the lifeblood of many journalism websites, and negative coverage has been know to lead to threats of pulling ads, restricted access, etc.
I think that what your previous post indicated that there was some form of cash payment or money being exchanged under the table when you said they were "bought by Epic," which is where my concern stemmed from because that would be a conspiracy theory. I do think it is rational to think that they may have not gone after Epic Games Store negatively out of financial concerns, but, like you said, I don't think there was any sort of implicit or explicit deal between PC Gamer and Epic. Thanks for clearing up your perspective on your original post; I don't have any qualms with your point of view here.
Indeed. Even if Epic aren't putting direct pressure, or even indirect pressure, the way PC Gamer has acted is eyebrow-raising at best. There's clearly wiggle room to suggest a potential conflict of interest here, yet PCG have mutely refused to even acknowledge one.The problem with PC Gamer isn't that it's taking advertisements by Epic. I've worked on print and digital gaming media for several years, our main source of income besides direct sales of the magazines were advertisements. That's understandable and fine, as long as the publication still adheres to the principles that you linked to.
The problem with PC Gamer is that for many months its coverage of the Epic Games Store issue has been ridiculously and shockingly one-sided. That's the thing that makes all these Epic sponsorships heavily problematic. I refuse to accept that in the last eight months or so that the EGS controversy has been developing, PC Gamer didn't see fit to make sure that both sides of the argument are equally represented. It's simply a very bad look to accept payment for sponsored articles and advertisements by Epic and decide to cover an issue about them in a blatantly one-sided way. It breaks all sorts of journalistic rules and codes when a publication decides to present only one side of a debate.
Are you seriously equating criticism of EGS with holocaust denial? They're two obviously different situations that aren't even remotely analogous in any way, shape or form.Should Washington Post be forced to publish holocaust denying articles in order to show "both sides" of that """debate"""?
Exactly! Bout time PC Gaming gets a show at E3 to help promote PC Gaming. Because that's never happened before. Never ever. And it certainly wasn't sponsored by another PC related company that would benefit from promoting PC Gaming.Good to finally see someone out there promoting PC gaming.
Should be a good show full of surprises with Epic's backing.
Should Washington Post be forced to publish holocaust denying articles in order to show "both sides" of that """debate"""?
... It's intentionally extreme in order to point out the flawed logic in that argument.Mass genocide under nazi regime and video game marketplacecompetitionfeud are not on the same level of journalistic approach and commentary. Your example is unfortunate.
It's in incredibly poor taste.... It's intentionally extreme in order to point out the flawed logic in that argument.
I'm not say that they are on the same level, that's not how analogies work.
The way this thread has gone from page one shows us the exact opposite is true. EGS could meet feature parity with Steam tomorrow and the same 10 posters would still rain their performative disinterest on every thread with 'EGS' or 'Epic' in the title.Lawful good marketing. If Epic did more like this and less of the other stuff, the backlash would be lessened.
It breaks all sorts of journalistic rules and codes when a publication decides to present only one side of a debate.
The way this thread has gone from page one shows us the exact opposite is true. EGS could meet feature parity with Steam tomorrow and the same 10 posters would still rain their performative disinterest on every thread with 'EGS' or 'Epic' in the title.
It doesnt work like that breh.... It's intentionally extreme in order to point out the flawed logic in that argument.
I'm not say that they are on the same level, that's not how analogies work.