Journalism and sexism in the games industry

[Blarghagh]

Who knows? I'm not really interested in the bastard, I'm interested in how it's being handled and responded to. Jenn didn't seem upset about it, she just laughed at him and told him she enjoyed dramatic fiction.

[BruceVC]

 

 

Yeah, coming from somebody making the point that nobody is really censoring GTA he sure is censoring it by not buying the product.

 

I think I'm going to go back to my earlier stance of not engaging with Bruce about this subject.

 

Oh you must be relieved, you have found a justification to also jump on the " lets ignore BruceVC on this thread bandwagon " 

 

And the reason, well its very serious. He used the word censorship in the wrong context !!!! 

 

I meant to say you are avoiding/boycotting/ignoring certain websites and that means you aren't getting a balanced view of certain topics. Exactly how I cannot explain to you properly  about removing the hookers in GTA, you don't understand my reason and you refuse to read the link which explains the point 

 

But I get thats not really important to most people on this thread, whats more important is a medium so you guys can vent and express outrage. But you aren't really interested in dissenting opinions, which is why you will notice that very few people outside of the normal contributors  are active in this discussion

 

But at least you found a way to ignore my posts, that pesky word " censorship ", well done   

 

 

Listen closely, because I am only saying this once. I do not appreciate that implication in there that I am somehow hypocritical because I am now censoring you, so here's some education: If I decide to not respond to you, but leave your posts intact, that is a boycott. If I were to remove your posting ability, which is actually well within my powers, then I would be censoring you. I would never, ever censor your opinions or those of anybody else here - I am only here to enforce forum guidelines, and in fact I am going to be letting other mods handle the occassional beef with you from now on since my extreme frustration with you constitutes a serious conflict of interest - but that doesn't mean I have to take them all seriously.

 

As for jumping on a bandwagon, I believe I started the bandwagon since we had this discussion before. I can find the posts where I resolved not to speak to you on this subject three months back, if you want. I just changed my mind because I felt bad about ignoring you since I believed you were discussing this in good faith. Clearly, that was a mistake. It has nothing to do with your opinions, I can respect some of your opinions. In fact, I'd be the first to admit that most prostitutes are, in fact, victims of society. You don't even know how much you are understating some of that when you claim that legalizing prostitution would solve the problems. It's legalized here, but at most it mitigated some of the problems. A large share of "legal" prostitutes in Amsterdam here are foreign women who were lured here with the promise of a dance career and forced into prostitution by circumstance or threat. Not to say that it isn't a huge improvement, most of them get healthcare and fewer have drug addictions and in fact the lion's share of prostitutes are in there by choice (though whether they like it or not is up to them). You assume I, being a part of "you guys" as if we were a single unit, disagree with you on everything and that simply isn't true.

 

Also, I read that article two threads back when it was first posted as an archived link and in fact the two of us discussed it then. At length. Again, you can literally look back and find the posts. I wasn't even participating in this discussion about prostitutes in GTA this time around since we already had it, literally you and me. In fact, we drove around in circles about it several times. We discussed the idea that adding male prostitutes might be a solution, though that probably would just add gay-bashing to the list of complaints since male prostitutes mostly service men.

 

We argued about how GTA is an exaggerated representation of US street crime and for it to be so prostitution is a neccesity. We bandied back and forth if being a "victim of society" was a worthwhile reason to censor them in art as street gang youths are just as much victims of society and you could say that soldiers are victims of society and their PTSD means that any war game would be insensitive on the same grounds (thinking about it, war games have been shown to help soldiers deal with PTSD and there is a correlation between video game sales rising and crime rates dropping so until we have more information, the logical conclusion would be that censoring any of these could be harmful to society rather than beneficial). You didn't agree with some of the points I made, though you conceded on others yet you are making those same points again now. I am not interested in dissenting opinions? You've literally said "I haven't thought about it that way" on some of the things you said then and yet you're back now with the same points still not having thought about it, instead derailing the thread to make the same points again and again and again.

 

It's not your use of the word censorship. It's the fact that we've explained how you're wrong about what is or isn't censorship a million times in long, drawn out discussions and you simply do not care. It's not any of your opinions that are the problem, it's your debating style, memory span, manipulation and all around acting on bad faith. There is simply nothing to gain from discussing with you. I might as well try arguing with Oby. Do you not see how frustrating you are being that in almost every thread you participate in a lot people eventually decide you are a troll that should be ignored? This thread isn't even the worst one, as it's not about RPG romance. I consider Longknife to be one of the most interesting of the newly active members, even when I disagree with him (which happens plenty of times) his posts are always interesting and he puts the sincerest effort into it - he just had the same breakdown I had with you three months ago - a breakdown of frustration because you ignore everyone that puts effort into their posts in favor of engaging with Volourn. Just three days ago, you told me "you made good points, I'll respond later since I have to respond to these other people first" and you have yet to do so. I haven't been counting, but thinking back there were at least six other instances of you doing this to me alone, and you have done it to other people too. You never end up responding to what you consider to be "good points".

 

Thank you for post, I'll go through your comments and respond later as I need to respond to others views now

 

There's also the use of "you guys", implying this is some sort of echo chamber, when not three pages back you liked one of my posts for disagreeing with someone else here. We're constantly arguing amongst ourselves, about whether femfreq should be ignored, about how much of feminism is toxic and how much of gaming is toxic, whether male privelege is or isn't a viable reason to discount male opinions, about whether the latest GG scandal is worth attention or not, even about why we are in this (I am in it for free speech, others for taking down specific targets that offend them, and still others just hate hipsters from San Francisco and want to rant on the internet). The reason very few other people participate in this thread is because they a) don't care that much and b) they always stop by making some wild accusation, of course the pro-GG people will defend themselves. When Tale did it, I gave his arguments the time of day and responded in great detail, did I not? I responded rudely when he started in a rude manner, but once he decided to actually argue his points I respected his opinions and gave my counter argument and I'll very much agree to disagree and I've been proven wrong on certain issues in this thread and conceded several times.

 

I am not discussing the prostitutes in GTA now and your link isn't relevant to me also because I don't see the point of discussing it with you again. What is relevant is pointing out that GG is a consumer boycott on moral grounds at it's very core and your response is "psh it's easy to make an exception, your boycott hasn't done anything anyway". I'd hate to see you actually champion a cause you believe in if that is your attitude, you'd give up in a day. Which seems about your track record, anyway, considering how highly you seem to value the victimhood of prostitutes when your male urges come a-knocking.

 

If it's so important to you that we read that link, we told you exactly what you had to do: Provide an archived link. In the amount of time you spent writing posts about it since, you could have done that a hundred times over. It's obvious you do not want anyone to actually read the article, you just want to derail the thread (since this is the umpteenth time you posted the same article) and you find your hook to do so by judging us for not doing it on your terms. But here's a newsflash, your terms are not more important than a legitimate consumer boycott. Judging from your posts, you seem to have less respect for people using peaceful consumer means of protest than you do the people who harass, as at least you recognize their dedication. Why would I waste my time on you if you can't even respect any of my (or Nonek's, or kirottu's) peaceful means and aren't willing to use a minute of your time making an archived link?

 

There is no reason to engage with you. There is no point to it. There is nothing to gain, nothing to learn and no way to convince you since you conveniently just forget when you changed your mind. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results - I'm done. I should have stayed done three months ago. When Zorapter or Hiro or Longknife say you're a troll, a couple of months ago I would have disagreed. I enjoy some RPG romances and agree with the vast majority of SJ causes (if not the toxicity of a lot of the groups that espouse it) and because of that I'd never been on the receiving end of your bad faith, manipulative style of debate. Now? None of those guys would be able to convince me that someone else is a troll. You did. Especially when you started throwing around "whore" as a derogatory term to try and troll Volo where you perceived his weakness to be - female loved ones. You aren't here in good faith, you're here to get a rise out of people and I commend you because you're very effective at it.

 

 

Thanks for explaining, I do appreciate the effort you put into responses. I dont agree with certain things you said, it would be a very different  discussion if you had just said in the beginning " I've read this link " but you insisted on me either explaining it to you or posting it under the archive link

 

I also told you I did use the word censorship in the wrong context, but you still feel the need to explain it me again, as if I still don't know what the word mean

 

But anyway lets just move on now, I have no issue if you dont  want to debate with me on any topic, thats the beauty of the of forum where we have free choice of who we speak to

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Why base bonuses on score and not sales success directly?

There is a belief that a high score can result in many more copies sold if marketed correctly. Whether this is a bit after release or on release is unknown.

 

Of course, it's probably just corporate stupidity.

[Blarghagh]

I believe it's Larian that claimed a high metacritic score for an RPG means many more players, and I figure they know what they're talking about. Honestly, I think gaming requires their own version of Rotten Tomatoes to go about. Metacritic is too limited and looks solely at numbers and should not hold this power. This is one of the reasons I feel games reviews need to be divided in consumer advocacy (numbers) and culture criticism (sociological examination) - or do away with scoring altogether. Because places like metacritic picking up scores given by culture criticism pieces and pass them on as consumer advocacy and like in the Obsidian situation with New Vegas Metacritic scores can seriously affect developers.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

In the meanwhile, #GamerGate continues to denounce harassment but none of the opposition denounces Jenn of Hardwire getting horrific kidnapping, rape and death threats because #GamerGaters deserve it or something. Twitter removes someone calling FemFreq a fraud in two minutes, but this has been up for four hours despite constant reporting.

 

Warning - Extreme Language: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B7EVmSTCAAANsYQ.jpg:large

That's some really ****ed up stuff.

[Nonek]

Yes the claim that anti GG is really about stopping the harassment of women is looking more and more ridiculous. It's becoming more and more obvious that it's an anti consumer movement, and especially minority or non traditional consumers.

Edited January 11, 2015 by Nonek

[Oerwinde]

TotalBiscuit was right way back before he officially came out in favor of GG. The atmosphere is just radicalizing both sides. At this point the trolls have made everyone not on our side completely dismissive of our arguments no matter how good, the media bias has solidified the anti-gg side as some sort of righteous crusaders, and the lack of reasonable people on the anti-gg side due to this has made the gg side care more about taking down the crusaders than fighting corruption in meaningful ways.

 

Anti-gg had some good points that were handwaved right from the go. When they accused GG of not really caring about ethics because they weren't taking the publishers to task. The correct response to this should have been a "that's right, lets incorporate that" instead of justifying not doing anything and continuing to focus on the indie side. There are enough of us, with the majority just signal boosting, that some of us could have tackled that.

 

I think that one article at the beginning of the fight holds a lot of truth on both sides now. How the anti-gg side had some good points but there was no way we were going to accept any sort of morality criticism from people as morally bankrupt as them, and sadly that's happened to our side too. We have a lot of good points, manymore than the antis, but the media nias has framed us in such a way that no one is willing to listen to the "trolls and misogynists"

[Volourn]

"Anti-gg had some good points that were handwaved right from the go."

 

No, they didn't. Don't lie. It's rude. Any 'good' point they have made was stolen from the GG side or so vague it's ahrd to take seriously.

 

There entire point was gamers are racist sexist straight white males which is complete bullocks. How could we ever take them seriously? Espcially when the GG side has more females and minorities than they do. And, the anti GG freaks  have a nasty habit of tagerting women and minorities non stop. Anti GGs like Bruce continually mansplain why it is acceptable for a man to tell young women what games they can and cannot play.

 

\That's why it's easy to handwave.

 

Not to mention the constant death threats and premature celebration of my death. This just shows how delusional they are.

[Nonek]

Anti-gg had some good points that were handwaved right from the go. When they accused GG of not really caring about ethics because they weren't taking the publishers to task. The correct response to this should have been a "that's right, lets incorporate that" instead of justifying not doing anything and continuing to focus on the indie side. There are enough of us, with the majority just signal boosting, that some of us could have tackled that.

 

 

The thing is that none of us do trust publishers, we allready know through their numerous actions that their bottom line is profit, that is abundantly clear and nobody faults them for that as that is their purpose. However we should have an independent media that warns us of anti consumer practises and seves the public interest, that is games journalisms purpose, but they are simply unfit for it. Rather than embrace ethics and serve and inform the public, they feel that their purpose is to preach at and condemn the very people who have given them a job. It is not our job to watch over publishers, that is the game journalists, and they choose to reject an ethical and public serving duty over a multi billion dollar industry in favour of telling millions of perfectly inncent people who happen to play games recreationally that they're dead and inconsequential.

 

The focusing on publishers deflection was just that, an admission that they're neither fit for purpose, capable of doing their jobs or even surviving without the symbiotic relationship with the medium they should be judging objectively.

Edited January 11, 2015 by Nonek

[BruceVC]

TotalBiscuit was right way back before he officially came out in favor of GG. The atmosphere is just radicalizing both sides. At this point the trolls have made everyone not on our side completely dismissive of our arguments no matter how good, the media bias has solidified the anti-gg side as some sort of righteous crusaders, and the lack of reasonable people on the anti-gg side due to this has made the gg side care more about taking down the crusaders than fighting corruption in meaningful ways.

 

Anti-gg had some good points that were handwaved right from the go. When they accused GG of not really caring about ethics because they weren't taking the publishers to task. The correct response to this should have been a "that's right, lets incorporate that" instead of justifying not doing anything and continuing to focus on the indie side. There are enough of us, with the majority just signal boosting, that some of us could have tackled that.

 

I think that one article at the beginning of the fight holds a lot of truth on both sides now. How the anti-gg side had some good points but there was no way we were going to accept any sort of morality criticism from people as morally bankrupt as them, and sadly that's happened to our side too. We have a lot of good points, manymore than the antis, but the media nias has framed us in such a way that no one is willing to listen to the "trolls and misogynists"

 

This is a very insightful post. It soberly and accurately captures the current state of GG

[Blarghagh]

Yeah, for months I've been hoping GG is going to move on to the publishers. It's actually been happening a little bit - GG, following TotalBiscuit's lead, has been ripping UbiSoft a tiny new one. It's just not enough. Still, enough of GG is solidifying into a media watchdog that I feel this will happen eventually. Baby steps.

[kirottu]

Data analysis of people who use #GamerGate.

 

Gamergate has been keeping up a steady population of almost 150,000 distinct, individual contributors. Both the average ages of the users’ accounts and the fact that subtracting accounts that have been created since the emergence of the hashtag are inconsistent with the hypothesis that a large number of sockpuppet accounts would participate in Gamergate.

 

A Kotaku employee is a horrible person.

 

If a man would say those things about women, he would get fired.

[Oerwinde]

 

 

Anti-gg had some good points that were handwaved right from the go. When they accused GG of not really caring about ethics because they weren't taking the publishers to task. The correct response to this should have been a "that's right, lets incorporate that" instead of justifying not doing anything and continuing to focus on the indie side. There are enough of us, with the majority just signal boosting, that some of us could have tackled that.

 

The thing is that none of us do trust publishers, we allready know through their numerous actions that their bottom line is profit, that is abundantly clear and nobody faults them for that as that is their purpose. However we should have an independent media that warns us of anti consumer practises and seves the public interest, that is games journalisms purpose, but they are simply unfit for it. Rather than embrace ethics and serve and inform the public, they feel that their purpose is to preach at and condemn the very people who have given them a job. It is not our job to watch over publishers, that is the game journalists, and they choose to reject an ethical and public serving duty over a multi billion dollar industry in favour of telling millions of perfectly inncent people who happen to play games recreationally that they're dead and inconsequential.

 

The focusing on publishers deflection was just that, an admission that they're neither fit for purpose, capable of doing their jobs or even surviving without the symbiotic relationship with the medium they should be judging objectively.

Its not just taking on publishers, its that the entire focus seemed to be on games media's relationship with indie devs, while the relationship with publishers was just kind of handwaved away as "just the way things are done"

[Meshugger]

It's quite simple, the AAA-publishers are not attacking their customers so there has been no big pushback since the dorito-pope event. Also, they know how to cover their tracks.

 

Think of it as the difference between the mafia and the local crack dealer.

[Blarghagh]

That's a highly simplified view, Meshugger.

 

Obviously the majority of gamers already knew they couldn't trust games journalists when it comes to AAA titles. It's been that way since most modern gamers were little kids, since the early print magazines. Gamergate became such an explosion because people thought they could trust journalists when it comes to indie titles, so that revelation hit most a little harder. The view was always that publishers have a bit of a stranglehold on journalists, but when it comes to indies it's entirely voluntary.

 

It also happens that when publisher related stuff happens, such as the Jeff Gerstmann situation where he got fired from Gamespot over giving Kane & Lynch a low score when Gamespot was heavily pushing advertising of the game and the publisher pulled that advertising, other games journalism websites ate them alive. Not even just publisher stuff, look at this screenshot of a Kotaku article from '10: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B7CMYw_CYAAwFm_.png:large Yeah, KOTAKU cared about ethics.

 

If you did something unethical as a games journalism website, the other websites you were in competiton with would goddamn murder you and never look back. Now Kotaku has an editor that when asked by TotalBiscuit why they don't have a proper ethics policy, it's because it would take away the journalists' freedom and no other website even cared. That, to me, is the surest sign that these websites are working together. If there was no collusion, these guys would still be at each other's throats and rightfully so, because competition breeds excellence. It's grown into an incestuous mess of freelancers that survives on clickbait and it needs to change.

 

Of course, like I said, that stranglehold that publishers have on journalists is a major problem so I do want GG to move on and set the fire to their toes as well. Sometimes I wonder if journalists get in bed with indies (figuratively) and undeservedly promote them to compensate, and honestly I kind of understand that outlook even if it isn't ethical. And obviously, this is the reason the publishers have been silent on GG on a whole - because gamers are fed up with unethical behaviour, so they have to stay on their toes. They know full well they are in danger and it takes only one wrong move to set both sides off against them.

 

This is also why YouTube personalities are much more trusted than games journalists - it's harder for them to grab hold of YouTubers since they rely on YouTube's advertisements, not specifically from those publishers. Even when they try, a YouTuber like Total Biscuit comes along and blows the whistle which leads to his significant subscriber base tearing them an unholy new one such as with the Shadows of Mordor brand deals situation. What is the line? "The cynical fleet has arrived"?

Edited January 11, 2015 by TrueNeutral

[Keyrock]

You can't take on every foe at the same time.  Big Publishers have big lawyers and tons of money to throw around.  Taking on corrupted press AND SJWs (they are somewhat intertwined) is hard enough.  Taking on the press, the SJWs, AND the publishers all at once would be folly.  As much as it pains me to say it, you gotta pick your battles.  For what it's worth, I battle the big publishers personally by no longer purchasing their games in many cases (Haven't purchaed an Activision game in 4 or 5 years, haven't purchased an EA game in at least 2 years, haven't purchased an Ubisoft game since Child of Light, so 8 months).

Edited January 11, 2015 by Keyrock

[Zoraptor]

Its not just taking on publishers, its that the entire focus seemed to be on games media's relationship with indie devs, while the relationship with publishers was just kind of handwaved away as "just the way things are done"

 

 

I'd handwave much of the stuff publishers do as 'just the way it is done' because it is true. Publishers do not have any 'moral obligation' to fairness any more than department stores or supermarkets or politicians do. A publisher's obligation is to sell their product, and to do so using whatever techniques they think work and are legal. Morality only comes into it when it collides with public perception, so DMCAing bad reviews for using copyrighted material may remove the bad review but will court a huge backlash/ Streisand Effect while supporting charity or offering free upgrades is due to Good Will, not good will. Ultimately publishers are not your friend, they are not your buddy and they will exaggerate, obfuscate and spend influence to get what they want. Large corporations are basically sociopaths, they exist to make money first and foremost, everything else is window dressing. Anyone thinking different is living in fantasy land.

 

Journalists on the other hand do have a moral obligation. The difference between a journalist and a PR agent is that a journalist is meant to look at things objectively and resist any blandishments and influences thrown their way by the PR agents- who are expected to try and influence the journalists as it's what they're paid for, as part of influencing the consumer- look at things subjectively and offer such blandishments as they can get away with. If a PR agent does that stuff they are doing their job, if a journalist falls for it or worse, encourage and actively/ passively condone it then they are not doing their job. Practically speaking expecting journalists to behave as they are supposed to may be fantasy land, but it is a fantasy land they theoretically do exist in.

 

Indie studios do not have a moral obligation either, except in so far as they are happy to label themselves as being Independent rather than being Large Evil Corporate Publishers and setting themselves up on the moral high ground. Practically though there is little difference between a small company and a large one in those respects, Indies love playing the free thinking underdog precisely because it is good PR, and they're not big O Obligated to be hypocrisy free. For example Brain Fargo trashes publishers because his consumers lap that up- but if the KS dollars dry up and he cannot self fund does anyone seriously think that those 'principles' will be worth the photons used in sending this post and he won't go looking for a publisher?

 

And that, really is why not focussing on publishers is by and large the right approach. They're just doing their jobs, if you get taken in by them then diddums, you should always take what they say with the proviso that their only real aim is to sell you stuff. OTOH journalists are supposed to be sceptical themselves, and are supposed to be impartial, if you get taken in by them or find their conduct to be disgraceful (for want of a better term) you have a right to be angry even if you know practically that many don't live up to those standards.

Edited January 11, 2015 by Zoraptor

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

I'd handwave much of the stuff publishers do as 'just the way it is done' because it is true. Publishers do not have any 'moral obligation' to fairness any more than department stores or supermarkets or politicians do. A publisher's obligation is to sell their product, and to do so using whatever techniques they think work and are legal. Morality only comes into it when it collides with public perception, so DMCAing bad reviews for using copyrighted material may remove the bad review but will court a huge backlash/ Streisand Effect while supporting charity or offering free upgrades is due to Good Will, not good will. Ultimately publishers are not your friend, they are not your buddy and they will exaggerate, obfuscate and spend influence to get what they want. Large corporations are basically sociopaths, they exist to make money first and foremost, everything else is window dressing. Anyone thinking different is living in fantasy land.

 

Journalists on the other hand do have a moral obligation. The difference between a journalist and a PR agent is that a journalist is meant to look at things objectively and resist any blandishments and influences thrown their way by the PR agents- who are expected to try and influence the journalists as it's what they're paid for, as part of influencing the consumer- look at things subjectively and offer such blandishments as they can get away with. If a PR agent does that stuff they are doing their job, if a journalist falls for it or worse, encourage and actively/ passively condone it then they are not doing their job. Practically speaking expecting journalists to behave as they are supposed to may be fantasy land, but it is a fantasy land they theoretically do exist in.

 

Indie studios do not have a moral obligation either, except in so far as they are happy to label themselves as being Independent rather than being Large Evil Corporate Publishers and setting themselves up on the moral high ground. Practically though there is little difference between a small company and a large one in those respects, Indies love playing the free thinking underdog precisely because it is good PR, and they're not big O Obligated to be hypocrisy free. For example Brain Fargo trashes publishers because his consumers lap that up- but if the KS dollars dry up and he cannot self fund does anyone seriously think that those 'principles' will be worth the photons used in sending this post and he won't go looking for a publisher?

 

And that, really is why not focussing on publishers is by and large the right approach. They're just doing their jobs, if you get taken in by them then diddums, you should always take what they say with the proviso that their only real aim is to sell you stuff. OTOH journalists are supposed to be sceptical themselves, and are supposed to be impartial, if you get taken in by them or find their conduct to be disgraceful (for want of a better term) you have a right to be angry even if you know practically that many don't live up to those standards.

 

 

What I don't get, though, is why are you so willing to accept the status quo on the publisher side while railing against it on the journalist side.

 

I mean, nobody ever took games journalism seriously before gamergate. The popular opinion was that they're useless as a source of reliable information, and it's always been that way. Then they write a piece about the era of the gamer stereotype giving way to a more diverse market which gets misconstrued as an insult against gamers and then they suddenly matter?

[Blarghagh]

I bet you can ask a hundred GamerGaters that question and you'll get a hundred different answers. I took games journalism seriously when it came to indie games, myself. They're also a good source of news about upcoming games. I think some of it was like you said, just a case of it being the "straw that broke the camel's back" so to speak. Games journalists have been a spectrum from snide to openly hostile to their core readerbase for far longer than this and they were pretty widely seen as being terrible, as you said, and then they made it "personal".

 

Although honestly, to say the articles were what set gamers off is probably incorrect. I think it's mostly the censorship, the censorship on gaming forums, on game sites' comment sections, the censorship on Reddit, and the radio silence that followed. It's got all the hallmark symptoms of Internet Backdraft via the Streisand Effect. Even as early as the "Quinnspiracy" incident that preceded it. Even if there was no collusion, no conflicts of interest whatsoever (which I find unlikely considering the amount of other cases that have been uncovered) I think the removing of all discussion of it was enough to make the majority of people trying to verify their own information think it was all true. I maintain that early on, stopping #GamerGate was just as simple as allowing moderated discussion and updating a few basic ethics policies.

 

I'm pretty sure that in the entire history of the internet, trying to censor it has never paid off. It always does the exact opposite of what you intend. It was, simply put, by far the most stupid thing anybody could have done and they all did it.

[Nonek]

Yes the popular opinion is and was that they are corrupt and unfit for purpose, but going further and accusing millions of innocent recreational gamers of being dead, inconsequential and a lot worse was simply the straw that broke the camels back, as we have stated dozens of times on this very thread. We accept that publishers are primarily interested in profit, that is their purpose, and let the buyer beware. We accept that game journalism is corrupt, regressive, unethical, actively trying to prevent diversity in the gaming genre and contemptuous of those whom have provided it an occupation. But to then bite the hand thats been feeding them, and adopt a holier than thou judgemental attitude that's a little much, in my opinion.

 

Edit: Not to mention they make no effort to police themselves leading to the harassment of women and minorities that we have seen repeatedly, the neo nazis membership and the idiotic ramblings of regressive trailblazers, such as Mr McIntosh.

Edited January 11, 2015 by Nonek

[Blarghagh]

I don't accept that publishers have journalists in their pocket. I accept that it's what they want, but it's still the wrong situation to be in and in the long run hurts the publishers because it destroys trust in the journalists that they paid so much to pocket. I think games journalism would never have gotten this way if the publishers weren't such dicklebags. Plus, if we remove the old there's nothing to stop the publishers from turning the new into the same damn thing. There should be some kind of ombudsman to prevent this stuff from happening, which is why I'm hoping the smarter elements of #GamerGate will continue the slow development into a media watchdog and take on the publishers.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Yes the popular opinion is and was that they are corrupt and unfit for purpose, but going further and accusing millions of innocent recreational gamers of being dead, inconsequential and a lot worse was simply the straw that broke the camels back, as we have stated dozens of times on this very thread.

 

And as I've stated a dozen times in response, that simply didn't happen.

 

It's a popular myth propagated by gamergate, but that doesn't make it true. There were 12 articles written on the subject, with only one of them using the phrase "gamers are dead" - and that was a post on a personal blog. Also, one of them was titled "the death of gamers", but haven't used the phrase in the article itself.

[Nonek]

 

Yes the popular opinion is and was that they are corrupt and unfit for purpose, but going further and accusing millions of innocent recreational gamers of being dead, inconsequential and a lot worse was simply the straw that broke the camels back, as we have stated dozens of times on this very thread.

 

And as I've stated a dozen times in response, that simply didn't happen.

 

It's a popular myth propagated by gamergate, but that doesn't make it true. There were 12 articles written on the subject, with only one of them using the phrase "gamers are dead" - and that was a post on a personal blog. Also, one of them was titled "the death of gamers", but haven't used the phrase in the article itself.

 

 

But it did happen by your own admission, gamers are dead means quite simply that recreational gamers are dead, there is no arguing this fact. You admit it yourself, and all of that structured attack on consumers bore the same message in different prose.

 

@TrueNeutral: Yes I agree an idependent Ombudsman would be the ideal solution, but publishers are currently fit for purpose in making games and a profit, while game journalism simply is not. Thus as I see it the anti consumer and pro corruption remains of the current media model must be swept aside before a new model can be pioneered. As they see no need to represent the customer or even posess ethics for a multi billion dollar industry, they cannot be changed.

Edited January 11, 2015 by Nonek

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

Yes the popular opinion is and was that they are corrupt and unfit for purpose, but going further and accusing millions of innocent recreational gamers of being dead, inconsequential and a lot worse was simply the straw that broke the camels back, as we have stated dozens of times on this very thread.

 

And as I've stated a dozen times in response, that simply didn't happen.

 

It's a popular myth propagated by gamergate, but that doesn't make it true. There were 12 articles written on the subject, with only one of them using the phrase "gamers are dead" - and that was a post on a personal blog. Also, one of them was titled "the death of gamers", but haven't used the phrase in the article itself.

 

 

But it did happen by your own admission, gamers are dead means quite simply that recreational gamers are dead, there is no arguing this fact. You admit it yourself.

 

 

If it's published on a personal blog instead of an online gaming publication, that usually means it's one person's opinion that doesn't reflect on the wider journalistic community.

 

Also, there's a little thing called "context". It generally tends to have an effect on how you're supposed to interprete something.

Edited January 11, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Nonek]

 

Also, there's a little thing called "context". It generally tends to have an effect on how you're supposed to interprete something.

 

 

Exactly and the context of those twelve coordinated articles was anti consumer and pro corruption, a direct attack on gamers for daring to ask for an industry that was fit for purpose, following a proven case of unethical behaviour.