MudMan

Schreier has not published any of his gossipy pieces because he had a deal with anyone, at least that I know of. If what you mean is that he publishes the gossip because that’s the red meat what keeps him employed at Bloomberg so he can write more thorough coverage of the really interesting stuff… well, you have a worse opinion of Schreier than I do.

Honestly, you guys are doing little to get me on board with that sort of thing. From the way you talk about it I’m getting the distinct impression that this sort of “investigative journalism”, which often boils down to “game development went poorly for reasons”, is only feeding into the antagonistic relationship and not, as I’d hoped, creating more awareness of how the process goes so people can have more informed opinions.

Honestly, my response to everything you said is on my first post. Including the “you’d love doing IT for a game studio” part.

Huh. Normally, you’d think when somebody takes longer to rephrase a post than it’d take to read the original they’re trying to straw man the hell out of it…

…but no, you mostly got it.

Define “investigative journalism” when it comes to television. Radio? Maybe movies.

At best it’s generalist journalism looking into a major issue, like the Ronan Farrow work that resulted in the whole MeToo movement. Other times it’s straight-up business journalism, like the mainstream coverage of mergers or tech regulations. There is no reason why gaming can’t be treated the same way, and in fact it is, as we saw through the whole Activision/Microsoft merger.

The idea that gaming needs a specific brand of “investigative journalism” as a matter for the daily gaming trades, such as they are, is based on this weird, antagonistic perspective that gaming fandom has about game development and it is, very much, part of the same problem as the hype cycle.

Sometimes, “investigative” journalism comes down to gossip, too, which is less relevant and I do not love. Schreier’s brand of “I have insider buddies and they tell me this stuff” coverage can stray into that. He walks the line, for sure. Some of it is genuinely interesting intrahistory, some of it doesn’t clear that bar for me.

What I do care about, though, is good journalism, and there are definitely people doing that, including those in-depth, after-the-fact analysis and historical documentaries. If those don’t qualify for what you want to see in games journalism, then we just disagree about what is needed.

Heh. It’s a LOT more complicated than that. Especially post-covid, with everybody ready to support working from home.

Hey, good luck getting hundreds to thousands of people, ranging from engineers to a bunch of kids doing QA to technically illiterate administrative positions and office workers to keep rigid, government-level security standards when each and every one of them has some degree of remote access and mostly are just… you know, going about their lives and going to work every day. You sound like you’d love doing IT for a game studio.

And hey, guess what, all of their work hardware and accounts are probably connected to their personal hardware and accounts. Or are, in fact, the same hardware and accounts. Nobody has time or money to equip every single employee with a second phone and laptop overnight and all of them had to work remotely during the pandemic, just as much as everybody else. It’s kind of chilling to know that the games industry is under this level of harassment and these leaks keep happening, because I guarantee any other non-tech industry that has shifted to remote work the past few years is doing much worse at this. Gaming was already weirdly secretive, even when compared to movies and TV or other similar cultural industries.

For the record, games are full of open source software (and closed source as well). Go check out the list of OSS on any game’s credits. They still have to comply by disclosures required by most licenses, so it’ll be in there somewhere.

There is no obligation for publishers to send early copies, although when you don’t do it selectively you’re sending a bad message that you have something to hide or an axe to grind, so it’s pretty bad PR to handle things that way.

Plus nothing stops an outlet from still getting a copy and reviewing the game day one. With so much of today’s content being live video the kind of thing you’re describing is… pretty inefectual? I get that it’s the stuff people remember from the old days when there were more gatekeepers and print media could be reliably delayed by months by doing that, but… yeah, that’s pretty anecdotal these days. It’s mostly messing with critics’ free time, which isn’t the best way to get them to be nice to your game, if that’s what you’re trying to do.

See, I hear this a lot, and it’s a bit disappointing. Because hell yeah, there is great journalism being done. If you want “investigative journalism”… I mean, why? It’s videogames, not politics, but yeah, there are people out there doing that stuff (Jason Schreier comes to mind, even if I don’t particularly like the guy, but he’s not alone). If you want genuine, in-depth documentaries and explorations of the process of game development then I like you more. Noclip and People Make Games come to mind, in terms of sheer production value and coming from the journalism side, but Youtube is full of in-depth looks at games from that perspective based more on documentation and less on talking to the actual devs.

So maybe the question I have is why aren’t those better known? Why is the hype machine still what the audience cares about? Because all of those are publicly available, and some even very popular. Why isn’t it the default and why do people not actually engage with it even when they claim they do want to engage with it? Particularly when Noclip started doing what they do, it was such a common trope to say that people wanted that exact thing and nobody was doing it, and then the very, very good 2Player Productions documentary on Double Fine’s Broken Age happened and it seemed like it was possible to do, so Noclip started doing it… and they’re fine, they’re good, they’re still going, but they certainly haven’t exploded in popularity or anything.

Whatever, this is an old argument. At this point most gaming coverage is let’s play videos and Twitch streamers. And you know what? That’s fine. that’s still better than the relentless hype machine. I just hope the good ones doing good work get to keep doing it as well.

The actual article here gets to a great, very accurate conclusion: that information about unfinished, upcoming games is really not that valuable for users and an entirely artificial hype machine that insists on only paying attention to games before they exist. This is true.

There is very little genuine value in exploring a game in development, that is mostly a commercial concern. Which is fine, this is an entertainment industry. All parties here (publishers, journalists and audiences) are willingly engaging in a bit of a commercial transaction.

But journalistically and in terms of art criticism, the moment that coverage matters is after a game exists, not before. Really, leaking publishing plans or greenlit projects shouldn’t be a big deal because publishing plans and business deals should be insider stuff that end users don’t give a crap about. The relevant Insomniac game now is at most Spider-Man 2, not Wolverine or any later games they may or may not have deals to make. Mostly because there’s no guarantee those games will ever exist or in what form.

But also, screw leaking personal info of game developers.

This is the one of very few remotely empathetic takes here and it still feels a need to preface with “some people do fake it”.

I am hoping I stumbled upon a meme, because if not, holy crap.

Oh, hard disagree on the last part, at least.

As always in left-leaning spaces, the best way to disarm any threat of reform is to wait for whatever purity test over a random issue to trigger a schism, sit back and watch. It’s not even the first time it happens to Mastodon specifically.

In this case, a potential competitor that already has a reputation for being overcomplicated and having bad UX now needs an extra FAQ item called “can I interact with Threads from Mastodon?” and the answer is “it depends”.

It’s terrible, self-destructive and worse than either a yes or no call. Zuck boned Masto by federating a handful of employee accounts only AND he’s still going to get the plausible deniability in front of regulators from federating with whatever’s left. I’d be impressed if I thought Meta did it on purpose instead of it being entirely self-inflicted.

Huh. You’d think more instances were blocking, given the amount of buzz.

Being generallky in favor of letting individual users make this call that’s… mildly encouraging. Of course I happen to be in an instance that is blocking, so…

It’s worth noting that this still splits Mastodon pretty much in half. That’s arguably a bigger concern than anything else Meta may be doing. They may not even have to actually federate to break Mastodon, which is a very interesting dynamic.

Ditto for all animals. A guy from out of town was here for work one time and he tried to pet a cute stray cat he saw hanging out next door. I ended up being the designated local chaperone to take him and his dumb purple sausage finger to the hospital at 2 AM that night.

I’ve been saying this from the go: users don’t need to know decentralization even exists until AFTER they are signed up.

What Mastodon needs is a proper migration flow that moves old posts and remote follows so users can decide if they want a new instance after they spend some time in the system and start to understand how it works. Any mention of decentralization on signup is a churn point, because decentralization doesn’t add any features to posting and reading posts. From a UX perspective, decentralization isn’t a feature.

Things are about to get messier once the big decision coming in becomes “do you want to see Threads or nah?”, which then actively requires thinking about a competing social media platform on the way into this one.

I don’t love how this is phrased, but it’s not wrong.

The harsh reality of creative industries is that people are gonna be uninformed, dickish smartasses on social media (and… you know, traditional media, too), but they don’t owe the creators anything, so if they don’t like a thing they don’t need to be right about why they like it.

But hey, I also don’t resent any creator for venting reasonably on social media about this stuff every now and then. I think it’s a dumb, potentially career-ending thing to do, but I get it.

deleted by creator

They didn’t “chicken out”, necessarily. It turns out that making huge social networks, and particularly for-profit ones, is not trivial. They connected a few accounts this week… but they also launched in the European Union this week, they weren’t even out worldwide until now.

But hey, don’t you worry, everybody is freaking out again. And if BlueSky ever finishes their own proprietary interoperability protocol and that is made AP-compatible on this end I’m sure we’ll have another hipster breakdown.

deleted by creator

Oh, absolutely not. Let me be clear, I do not question that the author was involved in the project and interacted with Google. I do not question any of the factual details in the article and my argument is not that he’s lying. Total respect for him, his work at the time and even his opinions on how annoying and frustrating it was working with Google around.

What I’m saying is his perspective on the alleged failure of XMPP is specifically biased by his insider experience, that many of the examples he gives do not apply to AP, that the process he describes there is not EEE, that it’s not the reason XMPP and Google Talk failed and that, as he admits throughout the piece, XMPP didn’t in fact disappear or “die” after Talk’s failure or because of their intervention.

I swear, I’m so tired of naive takes about “good” and “bad” corporations.

Corporations are corporations. They are groups of people legally mandated to make money for their shareholders. They’re not individuals.

So yeah, I’m fairly confident that them taking steps towards joining ActivityPub is some mix of high ranking people thnking interoperability is cool, some other high ranking people thinking that may smooth over what seems like an immediate future full of legal challenges, particularly in Europe and some other people thinking that as long as all the newcomers to the Twitter corpse party are interoperable they can flex their superior resources and development.

Because that’s how groups of people behave.

But I’m also very confident that nobody looked at the rounding error that is the fediverse userbase, disproportionally made up of FOSS true believers and fringe infosec nerds and went “we need to plot their demise”. That’s not a thing that groups of people concerned with building userbases in the billions talk about.

Hah. Alright, it’s not deader than it would have been had Google not stepped in and then stepped out. We’re grading “dead” late 2000s instant messaging apps on a bit of a curve here.

deleted by creator