- vorab: Mir geht es hier nicht um "Fanboy muss seine Plattform verteidigen", sondern mehr um den "Spielejournalismus" an sich. -
ich bin die letzten Tage auf einige Artikel gestoßen, die den Spielejournalismus mMn nicht gut darstehen lassen bzw. mich ziemlich misstrauisch machen:
1) Kotaku article removed for being misleading https://www.reddit.com/r/Stadia/comment ... isleading/
mit folgendem Statement der Mods:
Spoiler
Show
Hey there! Aside from the very clear biased the author of the kotaku article has towards Stadia (which is perfectly valid, we accept criticism) we removed it based on the very clear inaccuracies, some being:
The title "Stadia Developers Can't Fix The Bugs In Their Own Game Because Google Fired Them" stating that everyone got fired is false. According to the Google blogpost ~ Over the coming months, most of the SG&E team will be moving on to new roles. We’re committed to working with this talented team to find new roles and support them.
This statement: "that’s caused a bit of a problem, because there’s nobody around to fix their games." Has no backing or sources behind it.
Another false statement: "You can’t really blame the original developers — Google fired them all, so it’s not really their fault to fix problems on Google’s service."
Another false statement: "(I’m sure they aren’t thrilled about leaving their customers in the lurch, but at the same time, would you lift a finger to help Google after they fired you and all your co-workers?)"
A statement with no backing thrown from no where: "And Google’s support should know from the start that traditional publishers can’t fix problems with Stadia the way they could for a normal game."
Completely unrelated comment that greatly exagerates the lawsuit: "For users who are still playing on Stadia however — at least the ones who aren’t suing Google"
We as mods on this subreddit encourage you voicing your discomfort and dissatisfaction. However, no one benefits from reading blatant misleading and biased articles that not only misinform those happy with the service but also those that are not happy.
If you want some examples of us allowing negativity then by all means sort this subreddit by top posts of all time and you'll see plenty of criticism.
All these articles are also quoting a thread on this subreddit. If you're wanting to contribute then visit the thread that all these articles are quoting, or better yet voice your opinions on the stickied thread on this subreddit that is addressing it. We don't need 50 misleading articles that are quoting a thread on the subreddit when you can simply visit the thread yourself
The title "Stadia Developers Can't Fix The Bugs In Their Own Game Because Google Fired Them" stating that everyone got fired is false. According to the Google blogpost ~ Over the coming months, most of the SG&E team will be moving on to new roles. We’re committed to working with this talented team to find new roles and support them.
This statement: "that’s caused a bit of a problem, because there’s nobody around to fix their games." Has no backing or sources behind it.
Another false statement: "You can’t really blame the original developers — Google fired them all, so it’s not really their fault to fix problems on Google’s service."
Another false statement: "(I’m sure they aren’t thrilled about leaving their customers in the lurch, but at the same time, would you lift a finger to help Google after they fired you and all your co-workers?)"
A statement with no backing thrown from no where: "And Google’s support should know from the start that traditional publishers can’t fix problems with Stadia the way they could for a normal game."
Completely unrelated comment that greatly exagerates the lawsuit: "For users who are still playing on Stadia however — at least the ones who aren’t suing Google"
We as mods on this subreddit encourage you voicing your discomfort and dissatisfaction. However, no one benefits from reading blatant misleading and biased articles that not only misinform those happy with the service but also those that are not happy.
If you want some examples of us allowing negativity then by all means sort this subreddit by top posts of all time and you'll see plenty of criticism.
All these articles are also quoting a thread on this subreddit. If you're wanting to contribute then visit the thread that all these articles are quoting, or better yet voice your opinions on the stickied thread on this subreddit that is addressing it. We don't need 50 misleading articles that are quoting a thread on the subreddit when you can simply visit the thread yourself
Hier wird mMn eigene Meinung mit falsch dargestellten Tatsachen gemixt. Des Weiteren greifen diverse andere Spieleseiten darauf zu und kopieren sozusagen den Inhalt "as Kotaku AU said...". (Inzwischen wurde das Spiel gepatched.)
2) https://www.videogameschronicle.com/new ... -and-more/
Angeblich produzierte Kojima Productions ein Spiel für Stadia und es wurde gecancelt (Diverse, eher unbekannte, Seiten haben dies auch wieder aufgegriffen).
Jedoch was mich hier stutzig macht:
1) Anonyme Quelle
2) Keine Beweise
3) VGC ist schon mal durch tolle Quellangabe aufgefallen https://www.reddit.com/r/ModernWarzone/ ... =post_body
4) Schauen wir uns mal VGC bzw. die 1981 Media Ltd. im genauen an:
https://youcontrol.com.ua/en/catalog/gb-card/11761942/
https://www.northdata.de/1981+Media+Ltd ... e+11761942
https://www.1981media.co.uk/ (<- deren ernst?)
Die Seite ist gerade mal zwei Jahre alt und irgendein "Whistleblower" rennt zu denen? Die Informationen sind weit über Junior/mid-level, d.h. eine Führungsperson geht aktiv (?) auf VGC zu? Für mich macht das ganze Unternehmen (100 Pfund Startkapital und den Opa (Jahrgang 1946/man findet nichts über ihn) als Direktor eingetragen, damit er whrs. noch für alles haftet) keinen seriösen Eindruck.
5) VGC hat seltsamerweise öfters so "anonyme Quellen"
https://www.videogameschronicle.com/new ... cancelled/ "One person with knowledge of the studio’s plans told VGC"
https://www.videogameschronicle.com/new ... verhauled/ "according to people with knowledge of the project."
https://www.videogameschronicle.com/new ... cellation/ "One person with knowledge"
https://www.videogameschronicle.com/new ... -4-remake/ "One person with knowledge of development"
https://www.videogameschronicle.com/new ... -only-one/ "Two people with knowledge of the Japanese publisher’s plans"
DAZU kommt noch folgendes:
Schauen wir uns mal Andy Robinson (Editor in Chief) mal genauer an:
https://mobile.twitter.com/andyplaytonic?lang=de
"VGC’s audience is up 400% YoY with 5 million monthly readers"
und was SimilarWeb dazu sagt: https://www.similarweb.com/website/vide ... /#overview
Max. 1,5 Mio. Besuche (-> Nicht Leser!) und von 4x Wachstum ist nicht zu sehen.
(Falls ich irgendwo falsch liege bzw. was falsch verstanden habe, korrigiert mich bitte).
Ich will nicht sagen, dass irgendjemand gekauft wird, um schlechte PR zu machen. Habe schließlich dafür nichts in der Hand. Ich habe dafür eher dein Eindruck, dass man fleißig Klicks generieren will, um besser bei Werbepartner etc. darzustehen. Was man aber vorwerfen kann: Den Mangel an "Qualität" (bspw. eigene Meinung als News darstellen und somit andere direkt beeinflussen) sowie den Mangel an Glaubwüdigkeit (bspw. die Quelle an sich sowie "das sich besser darstellen, obwohl man irgendeine Pommesbude aus Südlondon ist").
- Nochmals: Ich bin kein Fanboy. Mir geht es hier nicht um Stadia an sich. Mir geht es hier um den "Spielejournalismus" an sich. -
Wie seht ihr das? Sehe ich evtl. Gespenster, teilt ihr meine Meinung, da ihr schon ähnliches beobachtet habt (Den "Spiegel" lassen wir mal außen vor
), etc. ...Vielen Dank für eure Zeit und ein schönes Wochenende!
