Rob Fahey Vs. Microsoft

In a story published June 21, Rob Fahey at GamesIndustry.biz cited "sources close to Microsoft's senior Xbox executives" as saying the company's next system would not be backwards compatible. The story got picked up by a number of sites around the 'net.



Breaking from tradition, the usually quiet-on-rumors Microsoft responded to the story, blasting the report as irresponsible speculation.



I conducted an e-mail interview with Mr. Fahey to find out more about how the story was reported and to gauge his thoughts on the controversy surrounding it.



Video Game Ombudsman: So, first off, who's your source?



Rob Fahey: Nice try! Seriously, I'd love to be able to reveal who my sources on this were - it would end the discussion about it straight away, frankly. However, I have made a promise to a source and I obviously cannot go back on that - even if that anonymity is causing me a headache right now.



VGO: OK, OK, you can't blame me for trying. But how did you get in contact with this "extremely senior member?" When did you talk to him? What exactly did he say (if you can reveal that)?



RF: Actually, he got in contact with us directly and we had a fairly lengthy discussion about Microsoft's general plans for Xbox 2. One of the things which emerged from that discussion was the whole attitude to backward compatibility within Microsoft, which while it wasn't surprising, exactly, was certainly worth following up. I confirmed the

story past a number of developers who are in the loop on Microsoft Xenon development plans for confirmation, so while we certainly one primary source, the story has been corroborated past several different people.



VGO: Do you feel that video game journalism is too dependent on "official announcements?" Where should insider journalism (such as your story) fit into the mix?



RF: There's a fine balance to be struck; obviously reporting official announcements is important, and it's vital that journalists be able to take those official statements and put them into a proper context for their readers. However, it's also very important that publications do proper "insider" journalism - the games media equivalent of traditional "on the beat" stories, I guess - or they risk becoming nothing more than mouthpieces for the big companies in the industry.



The one thing that we need to be very careful about is ensuring that insider journalism - like speculative reporting or opinion-based commentary - is clearly delineated from reporting on official announcements. That isn't to say that insider reports are necessarily less reliable than official statements; just that the reader should be clear on which is which, so that they can draw their own conclusions.



VGO: What sort of ground rules do you use when a conflict arises between what inside sources are saying and the official company line?



RF: This happens less often than you might think, actually. In general, you don't get a company saying one thing, and an insider there telling you the opposite; what's much more likely is that you'll get a company making no statement, and an insider source giving you information that the company won't comment on. That's what has happened here; in these circumstances, our basic rules are to run the story past as many people who might be able to confirm it as possible, and then go to press with an article which reflects the degree of confirmation we've been able to garner for it.



Obviously that isn't a very strict rule, and a lot depends on how reliable and senior the original source for the story was.



VGO: Did you worry about breaking a story like this without confirmation from another source or without official comment from Microsoft? Why or why not?



RF: I would not have run this story without checking it past other sources first. However, their confirmation wasn't important - what was important was the direct information from our senior source about Microsoft's thinking on backward compatibility and its importance, not the simple technical confirmation from developers.



As for an official comment from Microsoft - I actually have a macro in Word for "Microsoft does not comment on rumours and speculation." (I'm not kidding!) That's their standard response, and I have never seen them deviate from it to actually furnish useful information about a story such as this, so we chose to run without their comment.



VGO: Microsoft usually gives a quiet "no comment" to stories like these, but yours got a quick, vociferous response. Why do you think this is? Do you think the lack of a direct denial of your story is significant?



RF: I think it's very significant. As far as I can gather, Microsoft are annoyed because a lot of information about Xbox 2 is leaking, and they see us as one of the publications responsible for finding and publicising those leaks. Which is probably a fair assessment.



As for the name-calling... Well, a journalist a lot older and wiser than I am once told me that if you don't have someone refusing to take your calls, trying to sue you or just calling you names in public, you aren't doing your job right. I'll take Microsoft's attack on my credibility as being a compliment, then!



VGO: Are you worried about any potential legal or other retribution from Microsoft for your story?



RF: No. I hope that we can continue to enjoy a good working relationship with Microsoft going forward, and I'd be disappointed if this spat damaged that relationship in the long term. Legally, though, I know exactly where we stand and I'm not aware of any action Microsoft could take over our reporting.



VGO: What is it like to report on a story where your story is the story? Do you think you were able to remian impartial?



RF: We certainly tried very hard to do so. However, it's something I'd rather not have to do very often. I think it's a failing for a publication when they stop reporting the news, and become part of the news, and it's a situation I'd like to avoid wherever possible.



VGO: Final question -- If you had to give a percentage figure for how sure you were of XBox 2's lack of backward compatibility, where would you put it?



RF: I am 100% certain that right now, the plans for the Xbox 2 don't include backward compatibility.



I'm also 99% sure that the console won't have this feature when it launches, because I'm aware of the technical and legal difficulties surrounding its implementation, and because I know that Microsoft doesn't think it's important. Like we said in our response to their statement last week - we absolutely stand by the story. The 1% doubt about their eventual plans comes from the simple fact that they're a company that is very quick to react, and if a lot of consumer opinion now suggests that backward compatibility IS important, they may well reconsider. That's a very remote outside chance, however; and as I said, I'm 100% sure that their CURRENT plans don't include the feature. I'm only a reporter, not a prophet :)