How should Gamereactor respond to the Insomniac leak?

No matter what I write in an article like this, where I try, as far as possible and to the best of my ability, to outline and structure an official editorial position on leaked data, which is subsequently covered as news material on Gamereactor, there will be some who think it's wrong. I've long since come to terms with that, and I've also realised that this is and will always be a game of compromise, where no single central solution can act as a kind of skeleton key to all the problems we as a press will face.

In this digital age, we will, perhaps increasingly, find ourselves in a situation where information is provided in morally ambiguous ways. Such is the case these days with the gigantic Insomniac leak, where a hacker group stole information from the studio, tried to extort money from Sony and then dumped it all online. But this was also the case when Rockstar was hacked in the same way, and when Microsoft itself accidentally uploaded sensitive documents in connection with the Activision Blizzard case.

All are examples of how these cases are never quite the same, and the circumstances can sometimes determine whether the press can decide on a solid moral basis which aspects of this information they will pass on and which are considered to be presenting factual information from a toxic source.

In many ways, it's a lose-lose situation for us, as we find ourselves on a thin line between our obvious raison d'être of reporting on a games industry that is usually shrouded in more secrecy than any other media industry, and being respectful of the studios, the publishers, the people who become the subjects of our articles.

I've had my ears pricked up in defence of Jason Schreier, who has repeatedly been able to communicate with anonymous sources and then reveal information about upcoming games, about working conditions, about financial results for major AAA launches without the publishers, studios, the people at the head of the companies in question wanting it. It remains my steadfast belief that we break news about the industry, about the products in it, and the studios that make them. That's our independent function, and in most cases it's not our job to cater to Sony, to Microsoft, to Rockstar.

But of course there are exceptions to these rules, and as I've stated in a previous post about the Insomniac leak, there's no need to create black and white rules that we have to bend as new, unique cases arise, but with the same sign. Each of these cases is different, and we have to deal with that, but it did make me think more about the case and how we as an independent news media should react to this information.

Furthermore, I watched a video from the excellent SkillUp;, where he asks rhetorically:

"Is it bad that The Verge is listing upcoming Insomniac games? Is it distasteful for Eurogamer to cover internal corporate strategy documents that emerged from this hack? Is it wrong that IGN are revealing details about a potential exclusivity deal for X-Men characters, locking them down on Sony's hardware the same way that Spider-Man has been exclusive there since Insomniac's first Spidey game?

That last one really hits home, right? Like it or not, no matter how that information came to light, that is news, and if game's media is going to be a functional journalistic entity, and not just enthusiast press, then we have an obligation to at least some of the details emerging from this hack."

These words made me realise again that there is no one central solution, no one central strategy, no one skeleton key. Media outlets confer, discuss and work out what details emerge from these cases and make active decisions they can live with about what to present to their readers.

This may not be a satisfactory answer for you, especially if you want Gamereactor to ascribe to a fixed set of rules and consider the flexibility to be a cop-out, or even indefensible. It is not the intention to try to avoid taking responsibility for our role in spreading information from a toxic source, but rather to stand up and present our considerations when it comes to judging on a case-by-case basis what we should, and should not, say.

In this regard, I think I can easily admit that I regret that we both published and linked directly to the material that was stolen from Rockstar. We should have informed you about what had happened and possibly dedicated column space to factual revelations, but pointing you in the direction of the stolen data? We had our heads up our arse.

When it comes to Insomniac, we cannot "put the genie back in the bottle." We can't pretend that sales data, superficial information about upcoming development plans and internal analyses of previously launched and upcoming titles simply don't exist. That's why we've chosen to talk about X-Men exclusivity, Marvel's Venom, Bloodborne sales data and more, but we'll do so without ever showing leaked video or images, nor will we point you in the direction of leaked gameplay or narrative spoilers - and trust me when I say it's all out there.

Will we need a follow-up article of the same kind the next time a high-profile leak takes place and the press once again has to decide where the line is drawn? Yes, that will probably be the case, and we will inform you again. This is part of the process, but I hope most of all that you realise that we don't take responsibility for granted and that we think about these things before we do or don't do anything.