I thought this was an excellent article by Russ Pitts, once and again Editor-in-Chief at the Escapist (and one of the founders of Polygon).
Yes, it addresses the elephant in the room up front: GamerGate
Beyond that, it posits that there really is a set of very important conversations that need to be had not just about ethics in game journalism, but in game development as well, and that all parties involved (consumers, developers, and journalists) deserve that conversation be had in order to create better environment for all involved.
For Consumers:
For Journalists:
For Developers:
So, if these are actually important conversations to have, and given that merely approaching the topic itself has its own baggage and history of paint and problems, how do we have those conversations without letting the past repeat itself?
I tried to pick out interesting parts from each point, but the article really is worth a full read and can be found here: https://web.archive.org/web/2019020...19/02/05/how-do-we-finally-talk-about-ethics/
Edit: Link to article replaced with archived version since the original has been taken down and replaced with an apology (see Threadmark)
Yes, it addresses the elephant in the room up front: GamerGate
The memes about what GamerGate was "really about" are too numerous to count, but the most well-known is probably the image of It's Pennywise the Clown whispering up from the storm drain that "It's about ethics."
[...]
Most of the people I talked to about GamerGate at the time it was happening were journalists or developers who experienced a movement that had nothing to do with ethics and everything to do with hurting women. People were doxxed, bullied, harassed, threatened, actually assaulted, SWATTed, forced to relocate or change jobs, and flat out terrorized during GamerGate. Pretending an enormous, motivated group that relished in making other people hurt didn't exist, or was exaggerated, not only insults its victims, but is simply unreasonable and illogical. It requires a willful ignorance not worthy of debating.
[...]
To those who willfully enabled and enacted this terrorism, I say this: Fuck you. You are pathetic. And we don't need you.
Beyond that, it posits that there really is a set of very important conversations that need to be had not just about ethics in game journalism, but in game development as well, and that all parties involved (consumers, developers, and journalists) deserve that conversation be had in order to create better environment for all involved.
For Consumers:
There are good ways and bad ways to ask customers to pay more. Publishers owe it to their customers to keep an open dialogue about why they're adding tricks and gimmicks, how they're being implemented, and what, ultimately, they're asking us to pay for when we purchase a game. So long as we don't have a unified voice on this issue, we continue to lose time and money on doomed-to-fail experiments conducted with highly anticipated games. Star Wars: Battlefront II, I'm looking at you.
[...]
That is the role the press can, and should, serve. You have a right to expect transparency in that process.
For Journalists:
Given the pressures and instability, it's frankly a wonder anyone is working in this business. Much like the business of making games, most of us are here because we love the industry and genuinely enjoy what we do. But some of us (and sometimes all of us) are willing to take a shortcut, improperly source a quote, give a higher review score to a friend, or outright copy a review from someone else. It's inexcusable. But it happens. And readers deserve to expect better precisely because journalism is so important to the industry, not in spite of it.
[...]
In order to hold the industry accountable for bad practices (against workers and players) we have to have established the credibility that we will always strive to do the right thing, acknowledge when we fail, and work with readers to maintain that trust. I used to tell a publisher I once worked for that integrity is an egg. Once it's broken, it's gone, and you can't put it back together. And I still believe this to this day.
As journalists, in order to regain the public trust, we have to have not broken it in the first place. And if we do, we have to act swiftly to correct that error in full view of the public we serve.
For Developers:
The canaries in the coal mine here are the line-level game makers themselves, and we've already seen the impacts of rampant crunch, death marching, and endless development cycles. The average age of game makers continues to creep downwards, the average time in the industry continues to hover at around five years, and the number of developers voicing their concerns, being driven out of the industry, or suffering severe medical complications related to their treatment at the hands of their employers continues to increase.
[...]
Applying pressure on the industry from the bottom up, starting with the audience, forces developers and publishers to reevaluate their practices. And a lot of times, those practices are contributing to rising costs just as much as uncontrollable market forces. A person working a job at one studio might not be able to find a similar job at another studio, or that job might not even exist.
[...]
Game makers deserve better, too. Separating uneducated griping about why a hat isn't a different shade of blue from frustration about the systemic abuse of selling hats is also part of the job of the press. And you deserve to know that when we're holding game makers to account, we're not only picking on publishers who aren't our friends.
So, if these are actually important conversations to have, and given that merely approaching the topic itself has its own baggage and history of paint and problems, how do we have those conversations without letting the past repeat itself?
I tried to pick out interesting parts from each point, but the article really is worth a full read and can be found here: https://web.archive.org/web/2019020...19/02/05/how-do-we-finally-talk-about-ethics/
Edit: Link to article replaced with archived version since the original has been taken down and replaced with an apology (see Threadmark)
Last edited: