this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2026
69 points (100.0% liked)

PC Gaming

14826 readers
259 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
  10. Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 1 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Midnitte@beehaw.org 12 points 1 day ago

In at least one case, Ubisoft justified the embargo by saying that staff in Belgrade were still being informed at the time, according to reporters to whom Aftermath spoke.

Alright that makes sense.

But Ubisoft did, to a degree, put reporters in a bind, with some who agreed to the embargo telling Aftermath that Ubisoft did not specify the nature of the embargo before they said they’d adhere to it; the company only mentioned that it was going to announce something soon. Had reporters known more about what they were agreeing to, they might not have done so as readily, or at all.

Hey now what the fuck