Imagine my surprise when I visited Spong.com last Thursday (Sept. 25) to see this shocking headline:
"New Nintendo console revealed and named! Full details inside, first games announced"
I was shocked. I had assumed that Nintendo would wait until E3 to reveal any substantial information about their next console. Eager for more information on this possibly huge story, I scanned the sub-headline:
"Chinese move spawns new hardware"
This just baffled me further. What does China, usually a non-player in the video game market, have to do with the successor to the GameCube? I clicked the link...
Nintendo Japan has announced a new home console specifically designed for use in the piracy-riddled country of China."
As I continued to read about the announcement of the iQue -- a Chinese console based on N64 technology that is focused on preventing game piracy -- I wondered how anyone could write a headline that was so misleading.
While almost all other news outlets (both video-game-centric and conventional) managed to write headlines that were both informative and concise, Spong managed to craft a headline that is neither.
While the headline Spong wrote is technically accurate, no one without previous knowledge of the story is going to infer its intended meaning. When any sane, thoughtful person who follows video game news reads the words "New Nintendo console," they immediately start to think about the successor to Nintendo's GameCube. The author of this headline must have known this, just as they must have known that the real story here was Nintendo's move into China and not the fact that the "first games" for the system were going to be Chinese ports of old Super Mario Bros. titles.
Of course, the goal of this headline was probably not to provide clear information, but instead to get as many readers as possible to click the link without technically lying. And while Spong does get more adviews this way, they lose something more important in the long run: credibility. The next time I see a headline that seems to good to be true on Spong, I will probably click over to some other site that is less likely to inentionally skew the facts just to gain more readers.
A dishonorable mention goes to Gamerfeed for their story headlined "New Nintendo Console." Gamerfeed avoided winning the worst headline award by including a self-aware subhead -- "Click here to find out exactly why this title is misleading the reader!" -- and by posting a more clearly titled story -- "Nintendo's New Chinese Console Revealed" the next day. To be fair, Spong also had a follow-up story, but the headline "Nintendo's iQue, first hardware shots" fails to provide even basic information to someone who has not read the previous article.
Stuff I'm covering for the near future: FF7: Advent Children: How did some sites come to think this thing was a game and not a movie? Also, an overview of the coverage of GameCube's drop to $99 and a long overdue look at Gamerfeed's redesign in style and substance.
Monday, September 29, 2003
Tuesday, September 23, 2003
From the "Why write an article at all" file
The Gamespot.com headline:
"NBA Jam Ships"
For those who can't be bothered to click the link, here's the whole story:
"Acclaim began shipping NBA Jam for the Xbox and the PS2 today.
[Big annoying advertisement goes here]
NBA Jam is a 3-on-3 basketball simulation that features arcade-style action, including huge dunks, no fouls, and characters who catch fire when on streaks."
Yep. That's all of it.
Here's a new, slightly longer headline (written by me) that would save the reader a click of the mouse:
"New basketball game NBA Jam ships today for PS2 and XBox"
If you're adept at message board-speak you could add a little "[nt]" to the end there.
Now I know even the most trivial of headlines needs an accompanying article to help sell ad space (see [big annoying ad] above), but when the whole article is only two lines long, you have to consider whether what you're linking to (and what you're writing) is worth the effort. The time it took author Bob Moseley to write those two sentences and a headline is time he could have spent writing something that was actually worth the reader's time.
First off, if you're going to write yet another article announcing that yet another video game has finally shipped, you have to put some minimal amount of effort and enthusiasm into it. I know it's hard to get excited about yet another cookie-cutter "Game X ships" story, but you've got to give the readers something. The Gamespot article doesn't even mention that the new game is a continuation of the popular arcade series that hasn't been seen for nearly a decade. Granted, most Gamespot readers know this already, but your job is to assume that the audience always knows less than you do (since you do this for a living, they probably should)
But the writing is not the main problem. The main problem is that shipping announcements like this get treated like news stories at all. When the whole of the information in a story can be conveyed in a one-sentence headline, it's not a news story -- it's a blurb. And when that blurb is about something as frivolous as a new game shipping it amounts to simple free advertising -- free advertising that is biased towards the games you deign worthy of an article. (I suppose you could write a story about every single game that ships for any system ever, but you wouldn't have time for much else. Even if the stories were only two sentences long.)
Instead of clogging up the news section with these types of non-stories, I'd recommend creating a section, (or sidebar, or dropdown menu or something) that simply lists the games that have been released in the past couple of weeks. The list could link to the appropriate preview or review for each game, and leave it at that. This keeps the public informed while eliminating the bias of selective featuring and the need to think of two-sentences worth of new stuff to say about games like NBA Jam.
The other route is to just make your shipping announcements read more like press releases, but unless you're comfortable having no credibility and inserting words like "BOOMSHAKALAKA!" into your writing, this route is best avoided.
"NBA Jam Ships"
For those who can't be bothered to click the link, here's the whole story:
"Acclaim began shipping NBA Jam for the Xbox and the PS2 today.
[Big annoying advertisement goes here]
NBA Jam is a 3-on-3 basketball simulation that features arcade-style action, including huge dunks, no fouls, and characters who catch fire when on streaks."
Yep. That's all of it.
Here's a new, slightly longer headline (written by me) that would save the reader a click of the mouse:
"New basketball game NBA Jam ships today for PS2 and XBox"
If you're adept at message board-speak you could add a little "[nt]" to the end there.
Now I know even the most trivial of headlines needs an accompanying article to help sell ad space (see [big annoying ad] above), but when the whole article is only two lines long, you have to consider whether what you're linking to (and what you're writing) is worth the effort. The time it took author Bob Moseley to write those two sentences and a headline is time he could have spent writing something that was actually worth the reader's time.
First off, if you're going to write yet another article announcing that yet another video game has finally shipped, you have to put some minimal amount of effort and enthusiasm into it. I know it's hard to get excited about yet another cookie-cutter "Game X ships" story, but you've got to give the readers something. The Gamespot article doesn't even mention that the new game is a continuation of the popular arcade series that hasn't been seen for nearly a decade. Granted, most Gamespot readers know this already, but your job is to assume that the audience always knows less than you do (since you do this for a living, they probably should)
But the writing is not the main problem. The main problem is that shipping announcements like this get treated like news stories at all. When the whole of the information in a story can be conveyed in a one-sentence headline, it's not a news story -- it's a blurb. And when that blurb is about something as frivolous as a new game shipping it amounts to simple free advertising -- free advertising that is biased towards the games you deign worthy of an article. (I suppose you could write a story about every single game that ships for any system ever, but you wouldn't have time for much else. Even if the stories were only two sentences long.)
Instead of clogging up the news section with these types of non-stories, I'd recommend creating a section, (or sidebar, or dropdown menu or something) that simply lists the games that have been released in the past couple of weeks. The list could link to the appropriate preview or review for each game, and leave it at that. This keeps the public informed while eliminating the bias of selective featuring and the need to think of two-sentences worth of new stuff to say about games like NBA Jam.
The other route is to just make your shipping announcements read more like press releases, but unless you're comfortable having no credibility and inserting words like "BOOMSHAKALAKA!" into your writing, this route is best avoided.
Thursday, September 18, 2003
Digging deeper for Phantom information
Thanks to Ombudsman reader Alexei Miagkov for point me to a HardOCP article that does some investigative reporting about the Infinium Labs and its supposed Phantom game console. The author uses evidence from press releases, internet resumes, phone calls, registration papers and some good, old fashioned leg work to paint a picture of a company that seems like an investor's nightmare. From the article:
We were surprised that there wasn't even an office at the address listed for Infinium Labs. The use of a post office box as the main contact point for Infinium Labs was very surprising as well. We spoke to Mr. Roberts today and he confirmed that there are currently no physical offices for the Infinium Corporation, but he assures us that they are on the way. Combine these elements with a past history of bankruptcies and failed business ventures, and it paints a very bleak picture of the possible success of this company.
I applaud the authors for looking past the official Infinium press releases at the man behind the company. By following a paper (and digital) trail of documentable evidence, HardOCP has managed to get past the PR double talk and give a more accurate gauge of Infinium's current state than a simple link to a promo video ever could. Hopefully, other outlets (with a larger budget and staff) will pick up this trail and do more in-depth reporting to find the truth behind Infinium.
My only criticism of the coverage is the "Our Thoughts & Opinions" section. While it is good that this section is clearly labeled and separate from the factual portion of the article, I don't think it is totally necessary. Had the facts been presented correctly, the reader could have been trusted to make their own decision about the evidence rather than having an opinion force-fed to them at the end of the article. If the editors really wanted to share their take on the fats, they should have done it through one of their [H] editorials. But with evidence this damning, the facts should be able to speak for themselves.
We were surprised that there wasn't even an office at the address listed for Infinium Labs. The use of a post office box as the main contact point for Infinium Labs was very surprising as well. We spoke to Mr. Roberts today and he confirmed that there are currently no physical offices for the Infinium Corporation, but he assures us that they are on the way. Combine these elements with a past history of bankruptcies and failed business ventures, and it paints a very bleak picture of the possible success of this company.
I applaud the authors for looking past the official Infinium press releases at the man behind the company. By following a paper (and digital) trail of documentable evidence, HardOCP has managed to get past the PR double talk and give a more accurate gauge of Infinium's current state than a simple link to a promo video ever could. Hopefully, other outlets (with a larger budget and staff) will pick up this trail and do more in-depth reporting to find the truth behind Infinium.
My only criticism of the coverage is the "Our Thoughts & Opinions" section. While it is good that this section is clearly labeled and separate from the factual portion of the article, I don't think it is totally necessary. Had the facts been presented correctly, the reader could have been trusted to make their own decision about the evidence rather than having an opinion force-fed to them at the end of the article. If the editors really wanted to share their take on the fats, they should have done it through one of their [H] editorials. But with evidence this damning, the facts should be able to speak for themselves.
Thursday, September 11, 2003
Newell, Author Comment on Fake Half-Life 2 Interview
"Internet gaming journalism is based on one principle: If it's on a website, it must be true!"
-Directrix, NerdsAhoy
Directrix is in a good position to make this statement. On the afternoon of Sept. 1, he put a now-infamous fake interview with Gabe Newell up on his site. He posted a link to the article on the SomethingAwful forums, and set off an absolute firestorm of linking from sites large and small, some of which handled it skeptically, and some of which did not.
Directrix said he never intended for anyone to believe the interview. "I'm not sure if you're familiar with those forums [at SomethingAwful]," he said, "but it is a humor site. In my opinion the people who post there are much more intelligent than what you would find in your average forum, so I didn't expect anyone to buy it. It was basically me sarcastically poking fun at the fact that any rumor, no matter how insane, can pop up on the Internet and people will believe it.... Or not believe it, and argue about it for pages on end."
Planet Half-Life, a member of the GameSpy network, was one of the sites that didn't totally believe it. Their post about the interview indicated that, "it could very well be a fake," but justified its own existence by explaining that "there's already a ton of inaccurate information out there."
Kevin Bowen (a.k.a "Fragmaster"), Planet Half-Life's manager, said he doesn't regret running the story. "It was a better than average fake and the answers were somewhat amusing," he said. "We were pretty sure it was fraudulent from the start and we indicated so in the post. A lot of other sites were fooled and there's a whole bunch of other false information out there, so we wanted to give it some sort of mention to acknowledge its existence and point out that it was bogus."
But Directrix notes that, while PlanetHalfLife handled the matter skeptically, they "wouldn't take an official stance on whether the interview was real or fake until [Valve Founder/Managing Director] Gabe [Newell] himself confirmed it. They should never have even posted it."
Newell confirmed that he was contacted by numerous web sites about the article, and said he felt such direct confirmation was a good way to prevent such things from happening in the future. Newell added that he didn't feel any malice towards Directrix or those that linked to his story. "It's the kind of thing that happens all the time on the Internet," Newell said.
Directrix, however, said he wasn't contacted by any web sites seeking to confirm the veracity of his article. "I was never contacted by anyone who could string a complete sentence together," Directrix said. He acknowledged that some of the people who linked to the article may have been in on the joke, but said the problem then was "that their audience apparently cannot distinguish between fact and sarcastic humor."
Directrix said that other web journalists could learn a lesson from the saga of his article. "Don't trust one source for your information," he said, "especially a website that no one has ever heard of before." He wasn't very optimistic about the chances his advice would be followed, though. "The same thing could happen tomorrow and nothing would turn out differently... The only thing I've learned from this is that it's amusing to sit back and watch it take place. Kind of like watching Sea Monkeys eat each other, except you don't have to change the water."
-Directrix, NerdsAhoy
Directrix is in a good position to make this statement. On the afternoon of Sept. 1, he put a now-infamous fake interview with Gabe Newell up on his site. He posted a link to the article on the SomethingAwful forums, and set off an absolute firestorm of linking from sites large and small, some of which handled it skeptically, and some of which did not.
Directrix said he never intended for anyone to believe the interview. "I'm not sure if you're familiar with those forums [at SomethingAwful]," he said, "but it is a humor site. In my opinion the people who post there are much more intelligent than what you would find in your average forum, so I didn't expect anyone to buy it. It was basically me sarcastically poking fun at the fact that any rumor, no matter how insane, can pop up on the Internet and people will believe it.... Or not believe it, and argue about it for pages on end."
Planet Half-Life, a member of the GameSpy network, was one of the sites that didn't totally believe it. Their post about the interview indicated that, "it could very well be a fake," but justified its own existence by explaining that "there's already a ton of inaccurate information out there."
Kevin Bowen (a.k.a "Fragmaster"), Planet Half-Life's manager, said he doesn't regret running the story. "It was a better than average fake and the answers were somewhat amusing," he said. "We were pretty sure it was fraudulent from the start and we indicated so in the post. A lot of other sites were fooled and there's a whole bunch of other false information out there, so we wanted to give it some sort of mention to acknowledge its existence and point out that it was bogus."
But Directrix notes that, while PlanetHalfLife handled the matter skeptically, they "wouldn't take an official stance on whether the interview was real or fake until [Valve Founder/Managing Director] Gabe [Newell] himself confirmed it. They should never have even posted it."
Newell confirmed that he was contacted by numerous web sites about the article, and said he felt such direct confirmation was a good way to prevent such things from happening in the future. Newell added that he didn't feel any malice towards Directrix or those that linked to his story. "It's the kind of thing that happens all the time on the Internet," Newell said.
Directrix, however, said he wasn't contacted by any web sites seeking to confirm the veracity of his article. "I was never contacted by anyone who could string a complete sentence together," Directrix said. He acknowledged that some of the people who linked to the article may have been in on the joke, but said the problem then was "that their audience apparently cannot distinguish between fact and sarcastic humor."
Directrix said that other web journalists could learn a lesson from the saga of his article. "Don't trust one source for your information," he said, "especially a website that no one has ever heard of before." He wasn't very optimistic about the chances his advice would be followed, though. "The same thing could happen tomorrow and nothing would turn out differently... The only thing I've learned from this is that it's amusing to sit back and watch it take place. Kind of like watching Sea Monkeys eat each other, except you don't have to change the water."
Monday, September 8, 2003
Battle of the Reliable Sources
You probably heard rumblings from a variety of sources about a possible deal between Sony and NVIDIA for the PS3 graphics chipset. Chris Morris first broke the story on Aug. 27 (later updated Sept. 2) in his regular CNN/Money column. He based his article on the commentary of industry analyst Erach Desai who said that nVidia "are in discussions with Sony for the PS3."
You might not have heard about the report calling the link "ridiculous." Rob Fahey at GamesIndustry.biz broke that one on Sept. 1, quoting a "senior source" at Sony as saying that teaming up with NVIDIA, "would simply make no sense either technologically or commercially."
So what do you believe: The commentary with the named analyst, or the news article with the unnamed source? I talked with the authors of the competing articles to try and make some sense of this controversy.
When commentary becomes fact
First off, it should be made clear that Morris intended his article to be taken as commentary, not as a hard news story. "All of my columns... are labeled as commentary at the top of the page - above the headline," Morris said. "That affords me the luxury of interjecting opinion, speculation and analysis into the stories. When it's a straight news story (say, the launch of a new console), we put it in a news template and just go with a standard byline."
But just because it was a commentary piece doesn't mean Morris didn't do his homework. "Mr. Desai has been on record with those for some time and I called him to make sure they still reflected his thoughts on the matter. Sony and nVidia were also asked for comment and responded as they saw fit."
The commentary heading didn't seem to prevent many sites from reporting the story as if it were fact, without even seeking outside confirmation. Fahey said this sort of lazy journalism is simply unacceptable. "It's a bit sad to see dedicated, professional games sites spreading this kind of story without asking any of the obvious questions," Fahey said. "Obviously it's fair enough to expect sites to run the story as it emerges - that's the difference between web news reporting and print news reporting... - but nobody seems to have asked any tough questions about it, even a few days down the line."
Unfortunately, Fahey doesn't think this is a trend that is likely to change anytime soon. "It's not the first time and it's certainly not the last time that the online media covering the games industry will jump on a story like this and print sensationalist nonsense without really thinking about what they're saying."
The problem, Fahey said, is that many video game "journalists" are not informed or critical enough of the industry they cover. "Anyone familiar with both Sony and NVIDIA would have raised questions about this story as soon as it emerged, but apparently some elements of the games media... just chose to report the story in a totally credulous way."
Naming your sources
Setting aside such concerns, some might say that Fahey's refutation doesn't hold as much weight because he doesn't name the "senior source" at Sony who provided the basis for the story. There's no way for the reader or other members of the press to confirm what the source is saying, or that the source even exists!
Fahey said that while GamesIndustry.biz usually won't base a story on an unnamed source, he decided to make an exception this time. "In this particular case, our source was simply talking a lot of sense, and while I'd have loved to have named him, his comments still carry weight regardless," Fahey said. "It's always unfortunate when ongoing business negotiations or other concerns prevent very informed people from putting their names to their comments, but that's just how the industry works and I think we all appreciate that."
Fahey went on to say that the sources he used for his article go beyond the unnamed one that ended up being quoted. "Although I only quote one source, I've also spoken to a number of Stateside analysts about the story," Fahey said. "Writing a story that rebuts something which has been reported elsewhere is something that has to be even more carefully researched than an original news story, in my experience - purely because you're stepping on a lot of toes when you publish it, and if you set a foot wrong, the people who you're leaving red-faced will come in and tear your story to pieces."
As for Morris, he said he doesn't have any reason to believe that GI.biz didn't have a "senior source" to back their story. However, he did say that he had no way of knowing whether their source was a "decision maker" or not. "The guessing game about the next generation of consoles has been going on pretty much since the last batch came out," Morris said. "It will continue until the exact specs of the 2005/2006 machines are revealed."
Don't look back in anger
In the end, Morris said he stands behind everything in his story. "The column never said nVidia's tie with the PS3 was a sure thing. It speculated, based on reliable sources, that the companies are talking and that a partnership might make sense for a series of reasons. I'd write it again today the exact same way."
Fahey, on the other hand, said in retrospect that he could have handled his refutation a little better. "I could probably have been a lot more professional and less tabloid-style with the story - but it was the weekend after a very long, tiring trade show, so I guess I can be excused having a bit of fun with it. It's not every day that I get to write "MONSTER RAVING LOONY NVIDIA RUMOURS CONDEMNED AS DAMNED LIES!" style headlines, whereas some of the other guys out there seem to be making a living off it."
Whether or not Nvidia and Sony are actually in talks, I commend both Mr. Morris and Mr. Fahey for handling the matter professionally and for covering the story fairly.
You might not have heard about the report calling the link "ridiculous." Rob Fahey at GamesIndustry.biz broke that one on Sept. 1, quoting a "senior source" at Sony as saying that teaming up with NVIDIA, "would simply make no sense either technologically or commercially."
So what do you believe: The commentary with the named analyst, or the news article with the unnamed source? I talked with the authors of the competing articles to try and make some sense of this controversy.
When commentary becomes fact
First off, it should be made clear that Morris intended his article to be taken as commentary, not as a hard news story. "All of my columns... are labeled as commentary at the top of the page - above the headline," Morris said. "That affords me the luxury of interjecting opinion, speculation and analysis into the stories. When it's a straight news story (say, the launch of a new console), we put it in a news template and just go with a standard byline."
But just because it was a commentary piece doesn't mean Morris didn't do his homework. "Mr. Desai has been on record with those for some time and I called him to make sure they still reflected his thoughts on the matter. Sony and nVidia were also asked for comment and responded as they saw fit."
The commentary heading didn't seem to prevent many sites from reporting the story as if it were fact, without even seeking outside confirmation. Fahey said this sort of lazy journalism is simply unacceptable. "It's a bit sad to see dedicated, professional games sites spreading this kind of story without asking any of the obvious questions," Fahey said. "Obviously it's fair enough to expect sites to run the story as it emerges - that's the difference between web news reporting and print news reporting... - but nobody seems to have asked any tough questions about it, even a few days down the line."
Unfortunately, Fahey doesn't think this is a trend that is likely to change anytime soon. "It's not the first time and it's certainly not the last time that the online media covering the games industry will jump on a story like this and print sensationalist nonsense without really thinking about what they're saying."
The problem, Fahey said, is that many video game "journalists" are not informed or critical enough of the industry they cover. "Anyone familiar with both Sony and NVIDIA would have raised questions about this story as soon as it emerged, but apparently some elements of the games media... just chose to report the story in a totally credulous way."
Naming your sources
Setting aside such concerns, some might say that Fahey's refutation doesn't hold as much weight because he doesn't name the "senior source" at Sony who provided the basis for the story. There's no way for the reader or other members of the press to confirm what the source is saying, or that the source even exists!
Fahey said that while GamesIndustry.biz usually won't base a story on an unnamed source, he decided to make an exception this time. "In this particular case, our source was simply talking a lot of sense, and while I'd have loved to have named him, his comments still carry weight regardless," Fahey said. "It's always unfortunate when ongoing business negotiations or other concerns prevent very informed people from putting their names to their comments, but that's just how the industry works and I think we all appreciate that."
Fahey went on to say that the sources he used for his article go beyond the unnamed one that ended up being quoted. "Although I only quote one source, I've also spoken to a number of Stateside analysts about the story," Fahey said. "Writing a story that rebuts something which has been reported elsewhere is something that has to be even more carefully researched than an original news story, in my experience - purely because you're stepping on a lot of toes when you publish it, and if you set a foot wrong, the people who you're leaving red-faced will come in and tear your story to pieces."
As for Morris, he said he doesn't have any reason to believe that GI.biz didn't have a "senior source" to back their story. However, he did say that he had no way of knowing whether their source was a "decision maker" or not. "The guessing game about the next generation of consoles has been going on pretty much since the last batch came out," Morris said. "It will continue until the exact specs of the 2005/2006 machines are revealed."
Don't look back in anger
In the end, Morris said he stands behind everything in his story. "The column never said nVidia's tie with the PS3 was a sure thing. It speculated, based on reliable sources, that the companies are talking and that a partnership might make sense for a series of reasons. I'd write it again today the exact same way."
Fahey, on the other hand, said in retrospect that he could have handled his refutation a little better. "I could probably have been a lot more professional and less tabloid-style with the story - but it was the weekend after a very long, tiring trade show, so I guess I can be excused having a bit of fun with it. It's not every day that I get to write "MONSTER RAVING LOONY NVIDIA RUMOURS CONDEMNED AS DAMNED LIES!" style headlines, whereas some of the other guys out there seem to be making a living off it."
Whether or not Nvidia and Sony are actually in talks, I commend both Mr. Morris and Mr. Fahey for handling the matter professionally and for covering the story fairly.
Tuesday, September 2, 2003
Well, it has Playstation in the title, so...
A whole boatload of sources (and then some) picked up on a quote from Japanese paper Ashai Shimbun saying that the Playstation 3 will indeed play all Playstation 1 and 2 games. In their articles, some members the media called the revelation "not shocking by any means," (EvilAvatar) " and said it was assumed by "everyone and their mother." (GamerFeed) My question, then, is this.
Why didn't anybody ask about this before?
Before today, it was very easy to assume that Sony's new system would play PSOne games. It seemed like a total no-brainer, an absolute lock considering the success of backwards-compatibility on the PS2. But one if there's one thing a good journalist should know, it's this:
Nothing is ever an absolute lock!
I'm amazed that, in all this time since the PS3 buzz started (E3 2002 by my rough recollection) that no one else bothered to ask anyone at Sony about backwards compatibility for the PS3. In the months and months of hype and interviews and pre-previews, it didn't occur to anyone to confirm this most basic of assumptions. Doesn't anybody in the industry know that you never assume anything that can be confirmed with a simple question?
It may be that someone did ask about this before, and simply got a "no comment," but I find this unlikely. If the question had been asked, but not answered sufficiently, I would think that the rest of the media would pick up the scent and continue to ask the question until someone finally broke the silence. Then again, this might be giving the video game media too much credit. But I highly doubt Sony was remaining tight lippedo n the matter until today, when it decided to reveal its grand plans to a reporter who happened to ask. Regardless, the fact that a Japanese newspaper broke this story instead of a video game magazine or web site shows that the video game journalism industry needs to focus on its fundamentals.
Stories I'm currently following: The PS3/Nvidia controversy and the fake interview with Gabe Newell. Inform yourselves with those links until I'm able to report the full story.
Why didn't anybody ask about this before?
Before today, it was very easy to assume that Sony's new system would play PSOne games. It seemed like a total no-brainer, an absolute lock considering the success of backwards-compatibility on the PS2. But one if there's one thing a good journalist should know, it's this:
Nothing is ever an absolute lock!
I'm amazed that, in all this time since the PS3 buzz started (E3 2002 by my rough recollection) that no one else bothered to ask anyone at Sony about backwards compatibility for the PS3. In the months and months of hype and interviews and pre-previews, it didn't occur to anyone to confirm this most basic of assumptions. Doesn't anybody in the industry know that you never assume anything that can be confirmed with a simple question?
It may be that someone did ask about this before, and simply got a "no comment," but I find this unlikely. If the question had been asked, but not answered sufficiently, I would think that the rest of the media would pick up the scent and continue to ask the question until someone finally broke the silence. Then again, this might be giving the video game media too much credit. But I highly doubt Sony was remaining tight lippedo n the matter until today, when it decided to reveal its grand plans to a reporter who happened to ask. Regardless, the fact that a Japanese newspaper broke this story instead of a video game magazine or web site shows that the video game journalism industry needs to focus on its fundamentals.
Stories I'm currently following: The PS3/Nvidia controversy and the fake interview with Gabe Newell. Inform yourselves with those links until I'm able to report the full story.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)