Journalism and bias in the gaming industry.

[Meshugger]

To put everything into a perspective. Gaming used to be a hobby practiced by the social outcasts that had problems with interacting with people. They were mocked for their hobby all the time and stories about finding the dream girl being someone shared this hobby with them were quite a lot (it says quite a lot about their social status). Later, it grew and the more people started to play video-games as a hobby. Still, it was a hobby outside of the mainstream and games could be just about anything without little to moral judgement on the content. It was games after all, no one took them seriously. 

 

Then it got big, really big. The game companies and distributors became big, and if not bigger, than Hollywood. AAA games and dubious review scores seemed to go hand in hand, but nothing could really be proven. Thus, the first schism had started between gamers and the journalists. Rumors about payed hotels and "events" involving strip-clubs, drugs and escorts flourished, but again, never proved. Now we have this Jack Thompson who wants to ban murder-simulators. But the industry quickly responded, even the Dorito-Pope himself and journalists alike and defended it to the bone. 

 

And still within the gaming community, no one took the content of the games seriously. They were games after all.

 

Then the indie-scene started to flourish with small, cheap games that had their own little charm. A new segment in favour on the ever growing budgets of the AAA-counterparts, which was good, everybody won. Somewhere down the line people started to show up, mostly in the indie-scene, that thought that the only way for gaming as hobby to be taken seriously, was that it was elevated to an art. Most people didn't care that much, but it was still quite the debate and reached to such a level that even Roger Ebert had to weigh on his opinion about it (He didn't think that games ere art).

 

Still, these people were on the fringe and no one really took them seriously. They were games after all. In a world filled with war, famine and lies, games were that something childishly innocent and pure.

 

Then more reviewers started to switch gears and take the content in games seriously, critics arose (like Anita) and suddenly the moral narrative of a game was something that had to be analyzed, dissected and critiqued. At first, most people again didn't care that much and thought that it was quite stupid. It's a hobby after all, why take it seriously? Then almost unknown games started to get awards, and when playing them, gamers quickly noticed that they were simply not good games, or even games at all (see Mountain). Why on earth are these games being championed among the great pool of what's out there? Why are complete unknowns attending big panels at different cons, talking about "toxic" and "problematic" themes, diversity in representations and other nonsense. Why are reviewers acting like critics and are talking about how games made them feel as a person as to what the game is about? 

 

Games were no longer ha hobby, they were art. Gaming as a whole had to grow up. Gaming was a serious business. 

 

All that frustration, all that brewing contempt for the journalists and the industry as a whole grew and grew and suddenly gamers were banned on the big sites, threads locked and they were told that they were misogynists for they talked about a sex scandal involving an indie developer and a journalists. That was the last drop. Not even gaming can be a safe haven from everyday corruption anymore. Gamers wanted their hobby to be legitimized as a fun past time, but clearly that was too much to ask. The innocence is gone, the childish fondness for an adventure is now an examination of gender and identity politics in post-colonial society of oppressive systems. No wonder gamers are now just saying "**** OFF" as rabid dogs, because their fantasy is no longer there to wander off to.

 

All we ever wanted was to be left alone playing our games.

 

Thank you for listening & believing.

[Fighter]

You did say "Here is a funny thing, a lot of the stuff I will defend tooth and nail I don't even like." Presumably this includes "bile filled crap".

 

It means I don't like it. There are many things I don't like that are not "bile filled crap".

 

So I'll say again, you support creators being able to create what ever bile filled crap they want but if someone has the audacity to critique it in a way you dislike they must be silenced.

 

You quoted me saying I don't want Anita to influence media and game design. Then you said I don't want people to criticize 'bile filled crap'. So you think the content Anita criticizes is bile filled crap.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 She has made claims about how the developers intended something to be interpreted, not how it is perceived through a wider cultural lens. 

 

Oh my, it's almost as if it's always one or the other, and there is no place for a case-by-case analysis.

 

Oh wait, that would be stupid. 

 

Still, point conceded re:"never" assuming authorial intent. (I'll assume in good faith that you could find me an example if I asked for citation.)

 

(I maintain it's a rare occurance, though.)

 

Some which accuse the developer of promoting violence against women(being misogynistic). 

 

...That sounds like an enormous misreading, though. You seem to be ignoring the possibility of games promoting violence against women as an emergent feature of gameplay, due to the mechanics being set up in a way that makes violence the only meaningful way of interaction with the gameworld. This requires no authorial intent, merely thoughtlessness.

 

Other times its the disingenuous claim that women are underrepresented or relegated to secondary roles on what are clearly male driven stories. The analogy of complaining about how men are represented in romance novels and films has been used to contrast this point.

 

I think the logical basis of the statement "the claims of a genre having an inherent gender imbalance regarding representation and importance are refuted by pointing out that a completely different genre has a similar, but inverted gender imbalance" is shaky at best.

 

As I've stressed earlier, misogyny is rarely the product of authorial intent. The gender imbalance doesn't go away just because it's an emergent feature of market forces (earlier) and cultural inertia (later).

 

There is still damage done by SJWs yet not to the same extent or level, so I would just say that is because I disagree with them. They have damaged and ended careers as well as swindled people from their money and damaged the relationship between consumer and the industry.

 

I'd be grateful if you could provide me with examples.

 

 

Which is weird, because on the other hand when you look at high-profile games being released, you also know how utterly powerless the SJWs are in promoting their agenda. I mean, one would think they'd be more efficient in achieving their aims if they had the influence you credit them with, don't you agree?

When the opposition ask for a termination of a successful business model you don't give them what they want. You make a half assed show of solidarity that makes it seem like you care. You know, just like now they treat cows humanely before they kill them because people don't want to feel guilty about eating them.

 

So even in your analogy (if I'm reading you correctly), you equate SJWs with cows and big publishers with being the butcher. This doesn't really reinforce your earlier claims of them wielding disproportionate influence. Actually, it's almost as if you were conceding my point of them actually not having any meaningful impact on big-profile game development at all!

 

 

Or maybe you're less objective than you like to think/operating on flawed data/etc. I mean, I know of no SJWs sheltering child porn enthusiasts, to mention just one notable point of difference.

 

Actually I visit 8chan frequently, child porn isn't allowed. What is found there in droves is child models posing and dancing in the same sexualized way that seems to be the standard of the adult fashion industry. 

 

You seem to be oddly unconcerned by the fact that the only people to whom sexualized imagery of child models appeals are the very child porn enthusiasts we're talking about. That said, "sheltering" was a poor choice of words on my part; should've said "pandering to".

 

BTW, I do know of SJWs sheltering child porn enthusiasts and people who were into bestiality, it was a hot topic a while back on 8chan.

 

You mean "the very website we just agreed on is pandering to child porn enthusiasts". I mean, I can understand the mentality of "it takes one to know one", but maybe that community shouldn't be treated as a reliable source on the matter, given the stigma involved with this particular fetish and the corresponding strong interest in "evening out the score", so to say, by "proving" that the opposition is just as dirty.

 

Also, the info I've gotten has been from interviews of game developers who speak of how SJW have attacked them or made them feel threatened within the industry.

 

Well, I don't mean to sound insensitive to the plight of game developers (and I'm fully aware that SJWs can have mind-bogglingly idiotic complaints at times), but just because SJWs have "attacked or made them feel threatened" doesn't really mean it was objectively as big a deal as they're making it sound like. I mean, I remember the plight of the Larian artist who cried censorship and feeling threatened over being asked by his superiors to re-draw a concept art, an occurance that, I'd hazard the guess, is pretty commonplace in the industry for non-SJW-related reasons.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

All that frustration, all that brewing contempt for the journalists and the industry as a whole grew and grew and suddenly gamers were banned on the big sites, threads locked and they were told that they were misogynists for they talked about a sex scandal involving an indie developer and a journalists. 

 

 

Gross misrepresentation. Anybody who actually read that thread and had a shred of human decency would have made the same call. Back then, it very much wasn't about "corruption" and "ethics". Most of the talk was about the degree of sluttiness Quinn has exhibited, and whether the nude pictures somebody pulled from somewhere made her worthy of receiving the **** of the posters.

[Nonek]

Which all gamers everywhere did, the disgusting untermensch!

[Barothmuk]

It means I don't like it. There are many things I don't like that are not "bile filled crap".

And yet you will defend things you dislike, which given "GG" seems to present itself as "defending freedom" would include "bile filled crap".

 

So from what I can gather you'll defend the existence of bile-filled crap but condemn critiques you dislike or you, like Anita, will dislike the content of certain things, the difference being Anita will dislike sexist content whereas you seem to support it.

Edited March 7, 2015 by Barothmuk

[Meshugger]

 

 

All that frustration, all that brewing contempt for the journalists and the industry as a whole grew and grew and suddenly gamers were banned on the big sites, threads locked and they were told that they were misogynists for they talked about a sex scandal involving an indie developer and a journalists. 

 

 

Gross misrepresentation. Anybody who actually read that thread and had a shred of human decency would have made the same call. Back then, it very much wasn't about "corruption" and "ethics". Most of the talk was about the degree of sluttiness Quinn has exhibited, and whether the nude pictures somebody pulled from somewhere made her worthy of receiving the **** of the posters.

 

 

I was talking about other forums, as this one had mods that were sensible to understand that hot topics do not go away by shutting down all discussion about them. Of course there was nothing about ethics back then since the GamerGate didn't exist yet. Finally, i can just as easily remember people talking about being appalled on what kind manipulating sociopath she was and how hilarious it was for Kotaku trying to brush it away. 

[Nonek]

Personally i'm fine with Ms Sarkeesian serving as a mouthpiece for Mr McIntosh's idiocy, however what i'm not content with is the fact that no one seems to challenge or critique her/his obviously moronic statements and fallacies. The gaming press are of course unfit for purpose, this is obvious, but there seems to be an almost industry wide reluctance to call out the lies and cherry picking she regularly spews. Good criticism can exist and will remain relevant, but poor criticism must be brought to light and its flaws highlighted, or we get a poor public perception being worsened by an idiot and an actress' lies.

 

Let them all exist, but don't zealously defend one as untouchable and beyond reproach when it is untrue tripe.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

i can just as easily remember people talking about being appalled on what kind manipulating sociopath she was

 

Yeah, that too.

 

Which is doubly hilarious because it hinges on taking at face value the account of a person who, by his own admission, posted the entire screed with the explicit purpose of encouraging MRA-types to doxx and harrass her - something I'd definitely categorize as manipulative and sociopathic.

 

 

That said, I'd still assign a non-zero probability to her being a thoroughly unpleasant person to be in a relationship with, but given that this particular problem does not concern me in any way, shape or form, I consider it to be irrelevant.

 

 

Which all gamers everywhere did, the disgusting untermensch!

 

Please don't do this. I made it quite clear that I'm talking about the original thread on some gaming journalist site that was closed because the posters were being horrible, not because it contained evidence of collusion. Strawmanning lowers us both.

Edited March 7, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[licketysplit]

 

 

 

Even if he is wrong on his conclusions, the whole gaming journalist- and the industry in general, treat the paper as a framework for how gaming "identity" should be treated. 

 

 

 

[citation needed]

 

Edit: I mean, his problem was that the evil, evil feminists were "hiding the research away because it didn't fit the narrative". You can't simultaneously do that and "treat it as a framework for how gaming identity should be treated"! It's either one or the other.

 

 

 

Games shouldn't be something, they just are IMO. Therefore, all this forced diversity is just another form of authoritarian social engineering.

 

 

You mean, all the horrible, horrible forced diversity like... urm... what exactly? I literally can't recall any high-profile games with "forced diversity" in them. Then again, it's not like I follow high-profile gaming too closely, so I'm honestly curious.

 

 

There is no forced diversity, there's incessant whinging and pressure from journalists to coerce developers. It's a crusade to these people, and they won't leave well enough alone. 

Edited March 7, 2015 by licketysplit

[Malcador]

Still strange, that shutdown of conversation about it on some sites, where things about the same significance don't.

 

Amusing to think "human decency" is relevant to that kind of action, heh.

Edited March 7, 2015 by Malcador

[Nonek]

 

Which all gamers everywhere did, the disgusting untermensch!

 

Strawmanning lowers us both.

 

 

Indeed it does.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Still strange, that shutdown of conversation about it on some sites, where things about the same significance don't.

 

Well, certain sites are more permissive about discussions regarding the sex lives of private individuals than others.

 

Personally, I can see no way how a discussion about the perceived tightness of Ms. Quinn's vagina (based on the nude photos that were posted) has any inherent value for any site, but obviously, I'm not a moderator at the sites in question.

 

 

 

 

Strawmanning lowers us both.

 

 

Indeed it does.

 

 

Then I hereby clarify my point a second time: I was talking about the original thread on Kotaku or the Escapist or whichever site has ended up banning the discussion first, and apologize for any confusion that might have arisen from me not being clear enough.

Edited March 7, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[licketysplit]

 

Still strange, that shutdown of conversation about it on some sites, where things about the same significance don't.

 

Well, certain sites are more permissive about discussions regarding the sex lives of private individuals than others.

 

Personally, I can see no way how a discussion about the perceived tightness of Ms. Quinn's vagina (based on the nude photos that were posted) has any inherent value for any site, but obviously, I'm not a moderator at the sites in question.

 

This is first I've read about her vagina, seems you're the one who just brought it up. But then, maybe discussing this at all should be banned, and your ad hominems are here to shut the thread down.

[Malcador]

Of course you would think it was like that. Fun dealing with you people, heh, but not all discussion on it was like that before policing. Hence why it was odd.

 

But I suppose the nature of the target may be it, industry "concern" of our times and all

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

This is first I've read about her vagina, seems you're the one who just brought it up. But then, maybe discussing this at all should be banned, and your ad hominems are here to shut the thread down.

 

 

Meshugger made a post about the ancient history of the whole Quinn business before Gamergate was even a thing, which gave off an impression that discussion on corruption was unfairly closed down, much to the chagrin of ethically-minded people everywhere.

 

I pointed out that back then, the discussion was less about ethics and more about the sex lives of certain people, a discussion I find not-unreasonable to close, because seriously, have some respect for privacy, people.

Edited March 7, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Fighter]

And yet you will defend things you dislike, which given "GG" seems to present itself as "defending freedom" would include "bile filled crap".

 

So from what I can gather you'll defend the existence of bile-filled crap but condemn critiques you dislike or you, like Anita, will dislike the content of certain things,

 

The "existense"? Absolutely, I will defend the existence of bad fiction. Anita can say what she likes. But I will oppose her views taking over mainstream gaming press and games' writing.

 

the difference being Anita will dislike sexist content whereas you seem to support it.

 

No... Just because I support something she dislikes doesn't mean I support something sexist. Who the hell made her the judge and jury?

Edited March 8, 2015 by Fighter

[Nonek]

Of course you would think it was like that. Fun dealing with you people, heh, but not all discussion on it was like that before policing. Hence why it was odd.

 

But I suppose the nature of the target may be it, industry "concern" of our times and all

 

Oh it was definitely the industry closing ranks and trying to cover up Mr Grayson's unethical behaviour, the sexist talk about Ms Quinn's own self admitted rape and adultery was just a convenient scapegoat, as we've seen the sexism and harassment of a few used to condemn the many by game journalists throughout this. They wrongly believed that a good offense is the best defense, but unfortunately after years of corruption and collusion they had not a leg to stand on when self righteously preaching and judging others, whom they held to be untermensch.

 

One could say that sexists and harassers spoiled the legitimate grievances we held, but this was proven untrue when GG tried to stop them but anti-GG embraced harassment and intimidation.

[Meshugger]

 

 

 

i can just as easily remember people talking about being appalled on what kind manipulating sociopath she was

 

Yeah, that too.

 

Which is doubly hilarious because it hinges on taking at face value the account of a person who, by his own admission, posted the entire screed with the explicit purpose of encouraging MRA-types to doxx and harrass her - something I'd definitely categorize as manipulative and sociopathic.

 

 

That said, I'd still assign a non-zero probability to her being a thoroughly unpleasant person to be in a relationship with, but given that this particular problem does not concern me in any way, shape or form, I consider it to be irrelevant.

 

 

[citation needed]

 

But regardless, that train has gone long ago. This ride however, will never end.

 

 

 

have some respect for privacy, people.

 

I fully expect you to abide by the same ethos when next sex-scandal between a politican in Brussels and a wife of a lobbyist of an Israeli arms dealer breaks the news.

Edited March 8, 2015 by Meshugger

[Whipstitch]

I chuckled a lot recently when it was revealed in a recent interview that most of the characters in a game panned by certain revieSJWers for misogynism were written by a woman.

 

I know it's been a week, but saying such things as if it's particularly relevant is a personal pet peeve of mine.

 

Being part of a category does not mean that you are immune to being prejudiced against that category. Heck, the SJW as an archetype is often viewed as an example of whites hating on whites so this should not even come as a surprise to most of the people in this thread.

Edited March 8, 2015 by Whipstitch

[Blarghagh]

No, it's just ironic that the people making the complaint about game dev being a boy's club are the same ones that attack women's games.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

No, it's just ironic that the people making the complaint about game dev being a boy's club are the same ones that attack women's games.

Yeah I don't want to touch that with a ten-foot pole.

 

So anyone want to talk about the return of Kern's League for Gamers?

[213374U]

 

have some respect for privacy, people.

 

I fully expect you to abide by the same ethos when next sex-scandal between a politican in Brussels and a wife of a lobbyist of an Israeli arms dealer breaks the news.

 

I'm thinking that discussing some of the explicit details of DSK's and Berlusconi's parties would get a thread locked down faster than you can say "bunga bunga", here or elsewhere. With good reason, too. Scrutiny of that sort of details belongs in a court of law, and only insofar as it's needed to determine if they constitute a criminal conduct...

 

(thanks for the writeup back there, btw. After reading through 10+ pages I still had no idea what this thread was about, and now I can safely ignore it for good. #firstworldproblems)

Edited March 8, 2015 by 213374U

[Zoraptor]

 

 

As you said yourself, it does imply causation, though it certainly doesn't prove it. (...) This was a developer supporting a 'movement' that a lot of journalists loathe with a passion and allegedly getting decreased coverage as a result. While it is effectively impossible to prove that any lack of coverage was related to support for GG it does make sense and does follow a logical train of thought, indeed it follows a logical train of thought whether it was a deliberate/ organised act (ie actual blacklisting) or just a subconscious 'asterisk that guy and his game'. So the implication does have a logical basis to it

 

 

It totally does!

 

But then again, so does "game journalism has a finite amount of resources, and when a large-ish portion of those resources is tied down in documenting the minutiae of the ongoing drama, coverage of somewhat obscure indie games is the first thing to get the shaft". Or "this guy behaved like an irredeemable ****ing **** in the process of voicing his support for GG, so maybe we shouldn't give him exposure" (different from being blacklisted for a pro-GG sentiment itself [although, if you'll forgive me for saying so, behaving like an irredeemable ****ing **** and being pro-GG seems to have an unusually large rate of coincidence, so it might seem tempting to conflate the two]).

 

 

Yep. Which is why it (can be interpreted so as to) supports both sides' arguments with the same general level of correlation or logic. How it's interpreted is based almost entirely on what pre existing position the arguer has, and what weights they put on things like the gamesjournospro list and the like as evidence of journalistic collusion vs someone who follows Vavra/ Kingdom Come looking for information ad being disappointed there isn't any and looking for reasons for that.

 

I personally don't agree that Vavra got blacklisted for being outspoken as I don't see sufficient evidence for it; but it is a believable interpretation, as are alternatives. A pro GG person will likely think it was blacklisting, conversely an anti won't; so it's just about the perfect encapsulation of why the wider argument is largely intractable/ insoluble.

[Orogun01]

Oh my, it's almost as if it's always one or the other, and there is no place for a case-by-case analysis.

 

Oh wait, that would be stupid. 

 

Still, point conceded re:"never" assuming authorial intent. (I'll assume in good faith that you could find me an example if I asked for citation.)

 

(I maintain it's a rare occurance, though.)

Sure, here you go

http://youtu.be/4ZPSrwedvsg?t=22m8s

 

Is only a rare occurrence because Tropes vs Women has not delivered on all those videos that where promised, despite having 2 years since they were first uploaded (coincidentally that's accurate to the date) Tropes vs Women has only released 7 videos.

Throughout the whole video she disingenuously makes claims as to what you can do to women and then disclaim that these mechanics are not exclusive to just female NPCs. The argument is set up in such a way that makes it seem that gamers are meant or forced to kill and torment women and then it has a small disclaimer explaining how the game actually works after having shown a lot of footage of PC killing female NPCs. It is intellectually dishonest.

 

 

...That sounds like an enormous misreading, though. You seem to be ignoring the possibility of games promoting violence against women as an emergent feature of gameplay, due to the mechanics being set up in a way that makes violence the only meaningful way of interaction with the gameworld. This requires no authorial intent, merely thoughtlessness.

I will key in a few words of your statement, emergent, intent, thoughtlessness. What you're saying makes sense but the problem comes from the cultural lens and subjective interpretation. I have no soft way to put it, the interpretation of sandbox mechanics as misogynistic is ****ing insane. It asks to assume the position of an insane person and treats it like that is the norm.

To put in an example; if an insane woman started complaining about the fact her daughter's doll can be used as an adult toy and then decides to try sue the toy company for what is clearly "emergent" uses of their toy, claiming they "intended" it because the toy does not prevent this usage and that they are "thoughtless". Any reasonable person would tell that crazy lady to **** off.

 

My point is that makers shouldn't be held accountable for the ways that insane people interpret or use their work. (sorry about all the unpleasant imagery)

 

 

 

I think the logical basis of the statement "the claims of a genre having an inherent gender imbalance regarding representation and importance are refuted by pointing out that a completely different genre has a similar, but inverted gender imbalance" is shaky at best.

 

As I've stressed earlier, misogyny is rarely the product of authorial intent. The gender imbalance doesn't go away just because it's an emergent feature of market forces (earlier) and cultural inertia (later).

 How about consumer intent then? Extreme liberals will have you believe that gender is a social construct and it bears no consequence on will(unless we're talking about that "Toxic masculinity") But gender differences do create taste differences, which explain how some genres become gendered.

 

 

 

 

I'd be grateful if you could provide me with examples.

Brad Wardell has become a notorious example

http://wiki.gamergate.me/index.php?title=Brad_Wardell#cite_note-1

There is the scandal of judges having financial ties to games that they judge at the IGF

https://archive.today/04Qsh

 

So even in your analogy (if I'm reading you correctly), you equate SJWs with cows and big publishers with being the butcher. This doesn't really reinforce your earlier claims of them wielding disproportionate influence. Actually, it's almost as if you were conceding my point of them actually not having any meaningful impact on big-profile game development at all!

Whoa, way to miss the point.

The cow example was meant to point out how industry make half measures to deal with negative public opinion, in that case humane treatment of cows to cater to people who like meat but are very sensitive about animal abuse. Which was meant to tie into the larger point of game publishers making half measures but still sticking to what they do.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You seem to be oddly unconcerned by the fact that the only people to whom sexualized imagery of child models appeals are the very child porn enthusiasts we're talking about. That said, "sheltering" was a poor choice of words on my part; should've said "pandering to".

It isn't sheltering or pandering so much as selling a house to a convicted pedophile is. While it is disturbing, it also legal (which shouldn't be IMO, not just the possession or distribution but mainly the manufacture) If you believe the extreme that pedophile should be executed even when they haven't had any sexual relations with children then there isn't any room for compromise. But as a reasonable person I understand that free speech will support some expressions that I find negative. Yet the legality of it isn't my expertise or burden and I try not to impose my morals on others.

As to how it discredits GG, it would be the same as saying that because you live in the same neighborhood as a pedophile then you must support him/her as you haven't kicked him out.

 

 

You mean "the very website we just agreed on is pandering to child porn enthusiasts". I mean, I can understand the mentality of "it takes one to know one", but maybe that community shouldn't be treated as a reliable source on the matter, given the stigma involved with this particular fetish and the corresponding strong interest in "evening out the score", so to say, by "proving" that the opposition is just as dirty.

 I didn't agree to anything and I'm concerned that you want to carry this conversation both ways.

The community just provided the links to forum posts made by known SJW activist on which they claimed to have engaged in said acts. I will however agree that two wrongs don't make a right but the association of 8chan as larger website with /gg/ as a board is a false equivalency.

 

 

Well, I don't mean to sound insensitive to the plight of game developers (and I'm fully aware that SJWs can have mind-bogglingly idiotic complaints at times), but just because SJWs have "attacked or made them feel threatened" doesn't really mean it was objectively as big a deal as they're making it sound like. I mean, I remember the plight of the Larian artist who cried censorship and feeling threatened over being asked by his superiors to re-draw a concept art, an occurance that, I'd hazard the guess, is pretty commonplace in the industry for non-SJW-related reasons.

Well, you need to understand that developers suffer because games journalism decides to rip their games a new one on account of being misogynistic or not having PoC or women and then for not having the right ones. Games scores do affect sales and they have a hierarchical effect where investors get scared, stock drops, publisher puts pressure on both journalists and developers. But publishers and journalist have a strained relationship in which they depend on each other even when they sometimes loathe each other. Developers on the other hand are more reliant on publishers so they're more vulnerable.