He didn’t just give Kojima an award in absentia, he very directly and deliberately complained that Konami would not let Kojima attend to receive the award. He makes comments and has strong opinions when it’s safe for him to do so.
You’re not wrong about his press-as-marketing nature but in no way does this mean he shouldn’t be criticised for his actions in this case, in fact I would think these actions bolster the critique.
If you look at this from an entirely cynical lens, backing Kojima is the sensible choice. Kojima wasn’t leaving the industry. He would have a high level, influential job wherever he ended up.
At the same time, Konami was publicly backing out of the games industry. Konami is a multimedia company with many divisions. Their casinos are far more profitable than their games, so they were making major cuts to their gaming division.
Backing the major industry figure against the company that doesn’t want to make games anymore is what anyone running a show like the game awards would optimally do. That’s why you shouldn’t consider it a principled stance.
I don’t consider it a principled stance, quite the opposite. I think Keighley is mercenary. The point is that the article repeats and solidifies those concerns - it accurately calls him out for both his silence when people are suffering and his faux interest when he can push a product (in this case a recruiter) who benefits himself. My point raised about Kojima is that he complains about things when he’s safe to do so and then will even go beyond complaint to grandstanding using the full weight of his awards to make it seem like he has a concerned moral position to share.
He didn’t just give Kojima an award in absentia, he very directly and deliberately complained that Konami would not let Kojima attend to receive the award. He makes comments and has strong opinions when it’s safe for him to do so.
You’re not wrong about his press-as-marketing nature but in no way does this mean he shouldn’t be criticised for his actions in this case, in fact I would think these actions bolster the critique.
If you look at this from an entirely cynical lens, backing Kojima is the sensible choice. Kojima wasn’t leaving the industry. He would have a high level, influential job wherever he ended up.
At the same time, Konami was publicly backing out of the games industry. Konami is a multimedia company with many divisions. Their casinos are far more profitable than their games, so they were making major cuts to their gaming division.
Backing the major industry figure against the company that doesn’t want to make games anymore is what anyone running a show like the game awards would optimally do. That’s why you shouldn’t consider it a principled stance.
I don’t consider it a principled stance, quite the opposite. I think Keighley is mercenary. The point is that the article repeats and solidifies those concerns - it accurately calls him out for both his silence when people are suffering and his faux interest when he can push a product (in this case a recruiter) who benefits himself. My point raised about Kojima is that he complains about things when he’s safe to do so and then will even go beyond complaint to grandstanding using the full weight of his awards to make it seem like he has a concerned moral position to share.