What is or isn't part of the US Constitution is fact, not a matter of opinion. And the Declaration of Independence is not part of it.
No, but without the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution has no legality. It's just pieces of paper you could wipe your ass with if it were softer. The DOI is the foundation on which the Constitution rests, and from which it derives its powers.
That is really... ignorant drivel. The Declaration of Independence was a political document intended to "sell" the revolution as legitimate to European powers so that those of them who hated England would feel OK about helping the rebels. That is what it was, and all it was. It did not identify an actual legal basis for revolution. Instead, it detailed some of the crimes that the English King had committed against the colonies, and made a case that he was actually not governing. That he would overturn laws decreed by his own appointed Governors was a big part of that; the rebels were being denied governance, even governance by the government they were fighting. They also made a bunch of other less specific claims that cite general principles but were not then and are not now a basis for legality.
The legality of the Constitution was established by being Ratified by the States after having won the war. That is 100% of the legal basis. They won the war, and they agreed to a Constitution, and they had a Process, and came to some Agreed Result. There is no authority at all derived from the DOI.
Interestingly, the Constitution does recognize Common Law as existing authority, and under Common Law the DOI had no weight, it was just a political document. The Magna Carta, for example, is a valid legal authority. The DOI is not.
No, her position is not that others shouldn't speak. Her position is that certain speech is sexist, and she is calling it out.
The response against her is to rally around this idea that she shouldn't speak at all; that her being critical of sexist gamers somehow deprives them of... something or other, they rarely actually finish that idea, and when they do it is insane crazy stuff. What is clear is that members of this group illegally threaten and harass her with the clear and explicit intent of silencing her speech, because they disagree with it.
They could, instead, make response videos and simply counter her speech with their own speech. But then, without being horrified by the crimes, most of wouldn't ever know or care what their response is.
I personally am offended by sexism in games because it leaves very little for a more enlightened, worldly male gamer to identify with. I want realistic, high quality female characters in the games I play... because I am actually fond of real women!
I mean, jeeze, shave your neck and realize there is a difference between criticizing you, and oppressing you. Speech is only oppression when it is threatening.
I lived in SF, without a car. The public transit was really super awesome. If by "SF" you're thinking "Bay Area" it may or may not suck. I heard such rumors, but I didn't leave the City. In the actual place called "SF" the public transit is cheap, plentiful, and safe. Lots of nerds with laptops. Presumably they've slimmed down to tablets by now.
My favorite part was that they just run the routes in circles as fast as they can, and instead of coming at a scheduled time it comes every n minutes. So on my street there was a bus every 20 minutes, and if traffic was light, they'd actually come faster. Normal scheduling, instead of coming more often when they can, they just park somewhere for a long time and make everybody wait, including people already on the bus. Just the waiting at "time points" can be a significant part of the total trip time on long multi-bus trips in other towns.
Also, their light rail is really great. People think of the BART but that is for East Bay people to get to or from the City. The MUNI light rail in SF is extensive, runs fast, has modern trains, and is the same price as a bus; and transfer-compatible with a bus. So you don't have to pay extra or pay twice to get across town.
I lived way down on the south side of Twin Peaks, almost to the south edge of town, and I could downtown or to lower Haight/GG in 20 minutes. Even at 3am there was a "night owl" bus.
Portland has cleaner buses, but they're more expensive and run less often than SF. And they have better trains to the `burbs, but less trains in town. So overall SF and Portland have equal quality systems IMO, with different strongest areas.
My much smaller town has awful transit, with expensive buses that don't go very many places very often, and still lots of waiting for transfers.
In what country? I'm an American. "Leftists" are Pink-Communists from Central and South America here. I don't think there is any "leftist" group even active in my whole country, and yet you pick out a fairly mainstream "1st world" position on Neo-Soviet propaganda as being... communist.
Presumably you stumbled over your talking points, I guess accusing people of using talking points in on your list?
"SJW"s get their bad rep not for being egalitarian but for demanding benevolent sexism and decrying anything less than that as hatred of women.
I'm glad we cleared that up. Now we know that there are almost no "SJW"s[sic] in the world, and that the accusation is almost guaranteed to be raw pejorative without even being associated with any actual group of people.
Traditionally that is because the article links to low quality information sources, and the links to primary documents will be in the comments. I guess those traditions are before your time.
They don't even need to be confused, or have doubt. They just need to know what the propaganda says, so they can parrot it and not have to move to Siberia.
Explosive machine gun rounds from the cannon would cause larger holes, not smaller ones. They're not big enough rounds to have both explosives and a bunch of shrapnel, like a grenade. And they wouldn't fly fast enough or far enough to be useful for dogfighting if they were that big.;)
Keep trying though, maybe Puti will give you a big bare bear hug for thanks.
So they decided on sanctions. Apparently the sanctions are pretty effective, because there's no good economic news out of Russia.
The Russian military seems to have lots of money, for things like sending gear along the Ukrainian border. So I guess we are punishing the Russian people only for the military shooting down a civilian plane?
Yeah those sanctions are working GREAT.
Yes, that is exactly how sanctions work. They take time, and they put pressure on the people to put pressure on their government. You've got a user id lower than mine and you claim not to know even something basic like that? I would say you are just a liar, playing stupid, to defend Puti. No way somebody that stupid would spend over a decade on slashdot.
Did anybody even read the minimum requirements before buying? And if they did, and saw that only a couple people they even know have that expensive of a machine, did they buy it anyways and just say, "gee, I'll turn down the settings a little. Good on them for being aggressive! grar!" LOLOL
Obviously they bungled the whole thing. But that doesn't mean they didn't also tell people what they were buying...
Linux user calling in to say, "hey that isn't a windows issue, it is a limitation of the API version everybody has unless they bought a graphics card more expensive than an entire `gaming PC.'"
The reason it is a "driver issue" is because the API versions each rely on hardware support. The bottleneck actually happens in the driver, but it is due to how the whole technology fits together. It is not a bug and it would not be changed with a driver update. Instead, the game needs to be altered so that it can run well on the technology that consumers have in the year the game is being released.
I doubt the consoles have substantially new code in the drivers. I suspect that an optimized driver is made by taking a regular desktop driver, and pulling out all the functionality that is not used. The parts that are still there will run faster, but have similar limitations per API level.
No, we need a law that forbids all this 'release broken shit for money, fix it later' syndrome.
Why? Isn't taking someone's money and then not giving them what you promised already illegal?
Yeah, but it turns out they got exactly what they were promised, they were just promised a bunch of intangibles like "fun," and minimum system requirements most "gamers" don't have. But I'm sure buying it anyways and whining will teach those awful meanies! Oh, wait...
OK, so in your mind, the solution to sucky institutional games is to ban indie software, and require corporate software to complete a checklist.
Wow, that is just a mind-numbing example of not understanding industrial regulation. Game quality is subjective, get it? They can still have the same opinions after the testing as before. So you lock out all individuals and small shops, and you actually get no benefit at all. All it does is force developers to hire a giant array of hosts, and vent heat for a couple months. That is it.
Wait, you want a law to protect yourself... from yourself... no. Just, no.
If the mean evil company is abusing you, just don't buy their crap. It is not an essential service, you're not obligated to buy it, and they didn't mislead you. Everybody is talking about the pre-release loaner terms, and consumers will either care, or not.
There is no problem here, except perhaps some video-game addiction problems that affect people just "have to" buy something before there are even reviews of said thing published!
If we were going to pass a law, it would be more like a $5 tax on games with the proceeds going to an addiction counseling hotline for gamers.
I love my A-series! I don't have to buy an overheated energy pig PC just to be able to do 3D editing and development using current APIs. And, Tuxracer never looked better.
Running a 3d game my CPU fan spins loudly, but running business apps it slows down to the lowest speed, I can't even hear it.
Obviously, it is a low to mid priced CPU, and considering the GPU, it is very low cost. And yet, it is much faster in every area that a similarly priced CPU+GPU from anybody else. It wins all the way from low end, "I do want 3d sometimes but I don't want to pay extra" up to "I want something pretty good at both, but I don't want to buy an overpriced `gaming' machine." Also if you don't use 3d at all, then you can get a slightly faster CPU for the same money.
For most tasks it stays close to idle and uses almost no power.
their stance so far is that there would be no benefit using Mantle
The article points out a contradiction that isn't, there is no point in supporting Mantle when all relevant low level features will be accessible using the next versions of already existing APIs (OpenGL/DirectX). That the mantle specification is under AMD control makes support for Mantle a gigantic risk with no gain.
So you'd have them wait until the average consumer has the "next versions" of APIs. OK. You should be advised that each new numbered "version" of those APIs are actually new things that typically require new hardware. This isn't a matter of waiting for people to update their drivers, you're talking about waiting until consumers have all bought new PCs. I don't see that helping their shipping schedule.
If they're shipping now, it should probably run well on current computers people already own. Golly gee.
The problem (or solution rather) is that developers don't want to write the same game 7 times.
As a business apps dev, it seems obvious that the correct number of different versions is dependent on client considerations and not on the desires of the programmer. If the client has 7 platforms, I might need 7 versions. In this case, the platforms are actually being chosen by the vendor, and so they can't complain about how many platforms they have.
It is funny because they make more money and have higher margins, so they should be more able to manage that. Plus, they choose what platforms their game targets and what the listed requirements are, so they can totally control this themselves. Wish I could do that!
It looks almost like the developers just didn't finish the product, and didn't even have time to "port" the main effort from the highest end machines to all the machines listed as targets. This has got to be some serious PHB horse-pucky right here, "ship it anyways, we can just patch it later."
There is nothing in the Constitution about using arms against our oppressively corrupt government. You are thinking of the preamble of the Declaration of Independence.
Yes, I was. Which I consider a part of the constitution, because without the DOI, the constitution is null and void.
What is or isn't part of the US Constitution is fact, not a matter of opinion. And the Declaration of Independence is not part of it.
Since much of the discussion mentions the 2nd Amendment, I'll just point out that many of us Americans are willing to take up arms, if need be, to defend the Constitution from the addition of new extra parts and conditions that have never been ratified.
Nobody cares what you "consider." What Americans care about is what is actually in the Constitution. This isn't England, we don't have a whimsical "unwritten Constitution." We have a written one. And we know what words are in it, and what words are not in it.
While I applaud your interest in the Constitution, I'm not sure it says what you imply it says.
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years
It just says that armies raised by Congress have to have a new budget written up every 2 years. This means that every newly elected House will have a say in continuing or changing the budget. One Congress can't set aside money for 10 years and send them off on an unpopular mission. The military budget has to be on the same time scale as House elections. That is it, that is all. There is nothing there about how much Congress should spend, or anything that would limit the size of the army.
Reading the Constitution: Good. Ignoring what it says and making up a whole new interpretation where no interpretation is even necessary: Bad.
She ignored the entire sexism of the male population in video games and focused on only the female side and acted as if that was the biggest issue. Is that the debate she refused to acknowledge?
Other people's speech doesn't need to acknowledge you. It is not a requirement of participation in society.
Even in a business setting where there is a conflict of interest concern, (this isn't one) they are still "accused" of doing things exactly correctly; they waited until after the professional relationship ended, and then were free to become involved. Even if one of them had the other's employer, this would be OK. If they were opposing lawyers in a trial, it would be OK, assuming appeals were exhausted. There is almost no limit here. The prosecutor and the acquitted would be weird, but ethically acceptable.
I think of lot of the "problems" that gamergaters have around sex and journalists could be resolved in an hour by an "escort" in glasses with a clipboard.
This is just incorrect. The "gate" part of Gamergate was the allegation that the developer had sex with some journalists in exchange for press. This is a direct criticism of the ethics of those journalists.
Except that that allegation is a known lie, and doesn't even represent the actual criticism. There was never any press given. There was only a scorned lover whose desire had dated an employee of a website about games. And a million single guys on the internet harassing her and a bunch of random women to "get even."
It is one thing to hold news journalists covering actual real-world news to high ethical standards. But the "JOB" of a writer for a website about video games is to write words that are on topic and sell advertising. Where did these people make some kind Hippocratic Oath for journalists? And what about the nature of their job implies that it has the gravitas to just guarantee that anybody who does it must have agreed to some such code?
They are obviously crappy websites if they agree to give information about a new game late, just to have more time to write the story. It seems like they could just buy the game when it comes out, play it for 3 hours, write for 2 hours, and scoop themselves. But that is just a reason not to go to that website. It isn't anything unethical. And nothing about a writers job is to "hold these [people] accountable and [random thing that doesn't exist in journalism]."
Perhaps it is just a simple vocabulary mistake. Perhaps you just confused the word "journalist" with "investigative journalist." And while an investigative journalist is a journalist, and a game magazine writer is also a journalist, there is very little actual overlap between investigative journalists and game magazine writers. Sorry.
Slashdot Mirror
What is or isn't part of the US Constitution is fact, not a matter of opinion. And the Declaration of Independence is not part of it.
No, but without the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution has no legality. It's just pieces of paper you could wipe your ass with if it were softer.
The DOI is the foundation on which the Constitution rests, and from which it derives its powers.
That is really... ignorant drivel. The Declaration of Independence was a political document intended to "sell" the revolution as legitimate to European powers so that those of them who hated England would feel OK about helping the rebels. That is what it was, and all it was. It did not identify an actual legal basis for revolution. Instead, it detailed some of the crimes that the English King had committed against the colonies, and made a case that he was actually not governing. That he would overturn laws decreed by his own appointed Governors was a big part of that; the rebels were being denied governance, even governance by the government they were fighting. They also made a bunch of other less specific claims that cite general principles but were not then and are not now a basis for legality.
The legality of the Constitution was established by being Ratified by the States after having won the war. That is 100% of the legal basis. They won the war, and they agreed to a Constitution, and they had a Process, and came to some Agreed Result. There is no authority at all derived from the DOI.
Interestingly, the Constitution does recognize Common Law as existing authority, and under Common Law the DOI had no weight, it was just a political document. The Magna Carta, for example, is a valid legal authority. The DOI is not.
No, her position is not that others shouldn't speak. Her position is that certain speech is sexist, and she is calling it out.
The response against her is to rally around this idea that she shouldn't speak at all; that her being critical of sexist gamers somehow deprives them of... something or other, they rarely actually finish that idea, and when they do it is insane crazy stuff. What is clear is that members of this group illegally threaten and harass her with the clear and explicit intent of silencing her speech, because they disagree with it.
They could, instead, make response videos and simply counter her speech with their own speech. But then, without being horrified by the crimes, most of wouldn't ever know or care what their response is.
I personally am offended by sexism in games because it leaves very little for a more enlightened, worldly male gamer to identify with. I want realistic, high quality female characters in the games I play... because I am actually fond of real women!
I mean, jeeze, shave your neck and realize there is a difference between criticizing you, and oppressing you. Speech is only oppression when it is threatening.
I lived in SF, without a car. The public transit was really super awesome. If by "SF" you're thinking "Bay Area" it may or may not suck. I heard such rumors, but I didn't leave the City. In the actual place called "SF" the public transit is cheap, plentiful, and safe. Lots of nerds with laptops. Presumably they've slimmed down to tablets by now.
My favorite part was that they just run the routes in circles as fast as they can, and instead of coming at a scheduled time it comes every n minutes. So on my street there was a bus every 20 minutes, and if traffic was light, they'd actually come faster. Normal scheduling, instead of coming more often when they can, they just park somewhere for a long time and make everybody wait, including people already on the bus. Just the waiting at "time points" can be a significant part of the total trip time on long multi-bus trips in other towns.
Also, their light rail is really great. People think of the BART but that is for East Bay people to get to or from the City. The MUNI light rail in SF is extensive, runs fast, has modern trains, and is the same price as a bus; and transfer-compatible with a bus. So you don't have to pay extra or pay twice to get across town.
I lived way down on the south side of Twin Peaks, almost to the south edge of town, and I could downtown or to lower Haight/GG in 20 minutes. Even at 3am there was a "night owl" bus.
Portland has cleaner buses, but they're more expensive and run less often than SF. And they have better trains to the `burbs, but less trains in town. So overall SF and Portland have equal quality systems IMO, with different strongest areas.
My much smaller town has awful transit, with expensive buses that don't go very many places very often, and still lots of waiting for transfers.
Wait, wait... anti-Soviets are... "leftist?"
In what country? I'm an American. "Leftists" are Pink-Communists from Central and South America here. I don't think there is any "leftist" group even active in my whole country, and yet you pick out a fairly mainstream "1st world" position on Neo-Soviet propaganda as being... communist.
Presumably you stumbled over your talking points, I guess accusing people of using talking points in on your list?
Every time you're not benevolently sexist enough*
"SJW"s get their bad rep not for being egalitarian but for demanding benevolent sexism and decrying anything less than that as hatred of women.
I'm glad we cleared that up. Now we know that there are almost no "SJW"s[sic] in the world, and that the accusation is almost guaranteed to be raw pejorative without even being associated with any actual group of people.
Traditionally that is because the article links to low quality information sources, and the links to primary documents will be in the comments. I guess those traditions are before your time.
Press the quote button next time, Coward. D'oh!
None at all, but there is one between experience and knowledge.
That said, there is a known correlation between anonymous cowards and low IQ, which is perhaps why being a coward makes you feel Special.
They don't even need to be confused, or have doubt. They just need to know what the propaganda says, so they can parrot it and not have to move to Siberia.
Explosive machine gun rounds from the cannon would cause larger holes, not smaller ones. They're not big enough rounds to have both explosives and a bunch of shrapnel, like a grenade. And they wouldn't fly fast enough or far enough to be useful for dogfighting if they were that big. ;)
Keep trying though, maybe Puti will give you a big bare bear hug for thanks.
So they decided on sanctions. Apparently the sanctions are pretty effective, because there's no good economic news out of Russia.
The Russian military seems to have lots of money, for things like sending gear along the Ukrainian border. So I guess we are punishing the Russian people only for the military shooting down a civilian plane?
Yeah those sanctions are working GREAT.
Yes, that is exactly how sanctions work. They take time, and they put pressure on the people to put pressure on their government. You've got a user id lower than mine and you claim not to know even something basic like that? I would say you are just a liar, playing stupid, to defend Puti. No way somebody that stupid would spend over a decade on slashdot.
Did anybody even read the minimum requirements before buying? And if they did, and saw that only a couple people they even know have that expensive of a machine, did they buy it anyways and just say, "gee, I'll turn down the settings a little. Good on them for being aggressive! grar!" LOLOL
Obviously they bungled the whole thing. But that doesn't mean they didn't also tell people what they were buying...
Linux user calling in to say, "hey that isn't a windows issue, it is a limitation of the API version everybody has unless they bought a graphics card more expensive than an entire `gaming PC.'"
The reason it is a "driver issue" is because the API versions each rely on hardware support. The bottleneck actually happens in the driver, but it is due to how the whole technology fits together. It is not a bug and it would not be changed with a driver update. Instead, the game needs to be altered so that it can run well on the technology that consumers have in the year the game is being released.
I doubt the consoles have substantially new code in the drivers. I suspect that an optimized driver is made by taking a regular desktop driver, and pulling out all the functionality that is not used. The parts that are still there will run faster, but have similar limitations per API level.
No, we need a law that forbids all this 'release broken shit for money, fix it later' syndrome.
Why? Isn't taking someone's money and then not giving them what you promised already illegal?
Yeah, but it turns out they got exactly what they were promised, they were just promised a bunch of intangibles like "fun," and minimum system requirements most "gamers" don't have. But I'm sure buying it anyways and whining will teach those awful meanies! Oh, wait...
OK, so in your mind, the solution to sucky institutional games is to ban indie software, and require corporate software to complete a checklist.
Wow, that is just a mind-numbing example of not understanding industrial regulation. Game quality is subjective, get it? They can still have the same opinions after the testing as before. So you lock out all individuals and small shops, and you actually get no benefit at all. All it does is force developers to hire a giant array of hosts, and vent heat for a couple months. That is it.
Wait, you want a law to protect yourself... from yourself... no. Just, no.
If the mean evil company is abusing you, just don't buy their crap. It is not an essential service, you're not obligated to buy it, and they didn't mislead you. Everybody is talking about the pre-release loaner terms, and consumers will either care, or not.
There is no problem here, except perhaps some video-game addiction problems that affect people just "have to" buy something before there are even reviews of said thing published!
If we were going to pass a law, it would be more like a $5 tax on games with the proceeds going to an addiction counseling hotline for gamers.
I love my A-series! I don't have to buy an overheated energy pig PC just to be able to do 3D editing and development using current APIs. And, Tuxracer never looked better.
Running a 3d game my CPU fan spins loudly, but running business apps it slows down to the lowest speed, I can't even hear it.
Obviously, it is a low to mid priced CPU, and considering the GPU, it is very low cost. And yet, it is much faster in every area that a similarly priced CPU+GPU from anybody else. It wins all the way from low end, "I do want 3d sometimes but I don't want to pay extra" up to "I want something pretty good at both, but I don't want to buy an overpriced `gaming' machine." Also if you don't use 3d at all, then you can get a slightly faster CPU for the same money.
For most tasks it stays close to idle and uses almost no power.
their stance so far is that there would be no benefit using Mantle
The article points out a contradiction that isn't, there is no point in supporting Mantle when all relevant low level features will be accessible using the next versions of already existing APIs (OpenGL/DirectX). That the mantle specification is under AMD control makes support for Mantle a gigantic risk with no gain.
So you'd have them wait until the average consumer has the "next versions" of APIs. OK. You should be advised that each new numbered "version" of those APIs are actually new things that typically require new hardware. This isn't a matter of waiting for people to update their drivers, you're talking about waiting until consumers have all bought new PCs. I don't see that helping their shipping schedule.
If they're shipping now, it should probably run well on current computers people already own. Golly gee.
The problem (or solution rather) is that developers don't want to write the same game 7 times.
As a business apps dev, it seems obvious that the correct number of different versions is dependent on client considerations and not on the desires of the programmer. If the client has 7 platforms, I might need 7 versions. In this case, the platforms are actually being chosen by the vendor, and so they can't complain about how many platforms they have.
It is funny because they make more money and have higher margins, so they should be more able to manage that. Plus, they choose what platforms their game targets and what the listed requirements are, so they can totally control this themselves. Wish I could do that!
It looks almost like the developers just didn't finish the product, and didn't even have time to "port" the main effort from the highest end machines to all the machines listed as targets. This has got to be some serious PHB horse-pucky right here, "ship it anyways, we can just patch it later."
There is nothing in the Constitution about using arms against our oppressively corrupt government. You are thinking of the preamble of the Declaration of Independence.
Yes, I was. Which I consider a part of the constitution, because without the DOI, the constitution is null and void.
What is or isn't part of the US Constitution is fact, not a matter of opinion. And the Declaration of Independence is not part of it.
Since much of the discussion mentions the 2nd Amendment, I'll just point out that many of us Americans are willing to take up arms, if need be, to defend the Constitution from the addition of new extra parts and conditions that have never been ratified.
Nobody cares what you "consider." What Americans care about is what is actually in the Constitution. This isn't England, we don't have a whimsical "unwritten Constitution." We have a written one. And we know what words are in it, and what words are not in it.
While I applaud your interest in the Constitution, I'm not sure it says what you imply it says.
It just says that armies raised by Congress have to have a new budget written up every 2 years. This means that every newly elected House will have a say in continuing or changing the budget. One Congress can't set aside money for 10 years and send them off on an unpopular mission. The military budget has to be on the same time scale as House elections. That is it, that is all. There is nothing there about how much Congress should spend, or anything that would limit the size of the army.
Reading the Constitution: Good. Ignoring what it says and making up a whole new interpretation where no interpretation is even necessary: Bad.
She ignored the entire sexism of the male population in video games and focused on only the female side and acted as if that was the biggest issue. Is that the debate she refused to acknowledge?
Other people's speech doesn't need to acknowledge you. It is not a requirement of participation in society.
Even in a business setting where there is a conflict of interest concern, (this isn't one) they are still "accused" of doing things exactly correctly; they waited until after the professional relationship ended, and then were free to become involved. Even if one of them had the other's employer, this would be OK. If they were opposing lawyers in a trial, it would be OK, assuming appeals were exhausted. There is almost no limit here. The prosecutor and the acquitted would be weird, but ethically acceptable.
I think of lot of the "problems" that gamergaters have around sex and journalists could be resolved in an hour by an "escort" in glasses with a clipboard.
This is just incorrect. The "gate" part of Gamergate was the allegation that the developer had sex with some journalists in exchange for press. This is a direct criticism of the ethics of those journalists.
Except that that allegation is a known lie, and doesn't even represent the actual criticism. There was never any press given. There was only a scorned lover whose desire had dated an employee of a website about games. And a million single guys on the internet harassing her and a bunch of random women to "get even."
It is one thing to hold news journalists covering actual real-world news to high ethical standards. But the "JOB" of a writer for a website about video games is to write words that are on topic and sell advertising. Where did these people make some kind Hippocratic Oath for journalists? And what about the nature of their job implies that it has the gravitas to just guarantee that anybody who does it must have agreed to some such code?
They are obviously crappy websites if they agree to give information about a new game late, just to have more time to write the story. It seems like they could just buy the game when it comes out, play it for 3 hours, write for 2 hours, and scoop themselves. But that is just a reason not to go to that website. It isn't anything unethical. And nothing about a writers job is to "hold these [people] accountable and [random thing that doesn't exist in journalism]."
Perhaps it is just a simple vocabulary mistake. Perhaps you just confused the word "journalist" with "investigative journalist." And while an investigative journalist is a journalist, and a game magazine writer is also a journalist, there is very little actual overlap between investigative journalists and game magazine writers. Sorry.