Controversies in Games Media

I hate Zenimax

I love Bethesda

But I hate Zenimax

And whenever Zenimax does some dumb trout, all the news outlets always say "Bethesda sues for x", Zenimax thinks that because Bethesda is such a beloved studio they can be the scapegoat for all their sleazy BS. As I'm sure it was Zenimax and not Bethesda who decided nobody gets review copies of games anymore, so if we want to know something is good, we have to buy it or wait a week or so after launch while people guy it on release day and play through it for a delayed review

But now they're pulling a damn King.com move, and attacking an indie studio over the usage of the word "Prey". And while I loathe the trademark and protection of a freaking word, it should only count if someone else is calling their game that word. Not using it in a freaking sentence in their title

Prey for the Gods has been in development at least as long as the reboot of Prey. And now instead of fighting for what's right, because that would take a lot of resources that they had to Kickstart to even get, they had to change the title of their game

I hate Zenimax

Also, apparently Atlus apologized at some point for threatening YouTubers and Twitch streamers and said they didn't intend for it to sound threatening when they threatened them. Ha

OMG. Does anyone remember when video games were about fun and actually united people? Why did we have to drag politics and youtube/twitter drama into it?

It used to be how you escape all that...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloudane

OMG. Does anyone remember when video games were about fun and actually united people? Why did we have to drag politics and youtube/twitter drama into it?

It used to be how you escape all that...

---

Not sure how to read this. Are you upset about people being upset, or are you upset that companies are upsetting people? Because as gamers nobody asked these companies to douche out and without a loud voice condemning their behavior it would get worse. If they would stop suing over petty crap, stop putting malicious DRM in games, stop trying to silence criticism, stop trying to steal money from creators, stop threatening those creators, stop lying and embellishing their products with bogus promises and doctored trailers, and if every big game company in Japan would listen to fans and get with the times rather than actively attack progress I, and many many others like me, would be more than happy to just sit back and enjoy our games and enjoy watching others (creators and entertainers) enjoying those games

I'm not saying people don't have a right to be upset or whatever.
It's just... I don't know, a combination?
I'd class Gamergate as the low point really. Whichever side people were on they were taking wayyyyyyy too seriously something that is meant to be fun, IMO. And it was just an extremely ugly horrible mess.

Like, I mean no offense and can see you're very passionate about gaming. But I think sometimes it's taken to extremes. "Loud voice condemning their behaviour" is, in my mind, more the realm of "someone is committing a real serious injustice that affects people's basic rights" (I don't know... something like Trump's attempt at blanket banning groups of people from the US, depending on your political views) than "they put DRM in my video game".

Well gamergate is probably a bad example of a gaming controversy since it began as nothing but a smokescreen to attack some specific people openly and get people who didn't know better to defend the attackers under the guise of a legitimate issue.

Agreed it was a pretty significant low point for the gaming public though.

It is definitely a weird psychological mindset. I definitely feel more passionate about people messing with my hobby of gaming than I do about starving children in Africa

I feel like I have a voice as a consumer of entertainment, and that the companies involved are there to cater to the people, which is also the ideal in politics, but hasn't been the reality for centuries. It's too late to try to fight that fight, and even for the few times we feel driven to do so, I don't feel like a lot of progress is made, even when we do "win". It's only ever temporary, and not only does the person/company we won against get bothered by it, entire groups of people get bothered by it. My co-workers, neighbors, family, statistics will put them everywhere. Unlike fighting against video game companies where it's mostly common sense, and a good portion of the people are on the same side

Gamergate seemed like an outlier issue. The things brought up are real, but the attitudes and reactions were ridiculous. And it is sad that some people who enjoy this hobby feel the way they do. But again, that's more political. I may have a co-worker or family member who doesn't want women in the video games industry, but I probably don't have a family member or co-worker who actually likes being forced to sign up for something in order to play their game

It's more black and white I guess, and companies cross an obvious threshold and step on their own profit margin by offending their fans. But sports fans get just as passionate when you try to change the name of a team to something less ethnically offensive, or people boycott an airline for being video taped beating up a customer. These are things we have a voice in, and we can and will make a difference, and if it's something we enjoy and are passionate about, all the better

I do concede your points though, and I hate that things have to be so murky, but I'd much rather wade through the cesspools surrounding my favorite form of entertainment, than wade through any of the trash and muck created by my caricature of a human being for a president, and the people who support his insane antics..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slothy

Well gamergate is probably a bad example of a gaming controversy since it began as nothing but a smokescreen to attack some specific people openly and get people who didn't know better to defend the attackers under the guise of a legitimate issue.

Agreed it was a pretty significant low point for the gaming public though.

---

Well, that's an incredibly biased (and factually incorrect) position.

The primary goal of the movement was always to address the corruption and collusion in the main gaming media. Yes, the Zoe Quinn reveal was a large incident, because it was demonstrable proof of a publicist's conflict of interest with a developer. But that's all it was ever used for by the movement. Plenty of ignorant hypocrites quickly seized the reveal of her personal information as a means to attack the movement as misogynistic. That really valid point and i'm impressed by your thinking. led to the term "literally who" being used to dismiss any discussion (positive or negative) about individuals including Quinn and her supporters that occurred in the forums and on Twitter using the hashtag, as a means to point out that those individuals were entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which was always primarily focused on ethics in journalism.

The day after the hashtag was created, several articles sprang up (with more following in the next three days) declaring that "gamers were dead", and that the gamer identity was obsolete and should be abandoned. This was taken as more evidence of collusion of the industry, as more than ten articles in a matter of days showed up, many of them linking back to a single original source article.

Later the Google Group "GamesJournoPros" was made public, revealing that the controversy was intentionally used to stir up more interest in Quinn's game. A member of the group, William Usher, continued to reveal the emails and discussions of the group to shed light on what he viewed as malfeasance in the journalism industry. It included collusion to promote products, reviewers agreeing to give positive coverage to games they hadn't played, and to shut out games (again without trying them) because a fellow member of the group disliked them.

The movement later gained more steam when TotalBiscuit revealed that in order to get a review copy of Shadow of Mordor, you had to sign a contract stating that you would not say anything negative about the game. This, and other similar incidents largely driven by the Gamergate movement, gave rise to the FTC regulations update that occurred in 2015, which included the necessity for disclosure for paid or otherwise reimbursed deals on YouTube and other media coverage.

The attacks against Gamergate reached such a heated level that the FBI opened an investigation into it, pouring over hundreds of reported "criminal" actions, before closing it after finding nothing criminal.

This information is all well documented at this point, and I have pointed to only a single wiki (of about three that I know of off hand) that is cited and maintained by members of the group, as well as a few news articles (also cited) that can be found with a simple Google search.

Gamergate was not ever an attack on individuals. It was a community effort to expose and reshape the ethics of gaming journalism, and it succeeded to an amazing degree. In addition to the FTC regulations, many of the bigger gaming news sites now have published codes of ethics, and many of the more egregious violators of journalistic integrity retired or were fired after their malfeasance was made public.

You guys both know that "GamerGate" can be more than one thing, right? Because there are some people who are merely interested in improving media coverage of games, and there are some people who are merely interested in spewing vitriol, and they both self-identify with that group.

Yeah. I actually hated GamerGate but approved of their stated motive. Because what they said they wanted was good. What I saw them actually do wad terrible. It went far beyond doxxing and threatening Anita Sarkeesian, Brianna Wu, or Zoe Quin. They went after anyone related, associated, or even retweeted by these girls and more. I stopped giving them an ounce of my attention when they doxxed Felicia Day just because she admitted they scared her..

It's just like feminism, black lives matter, and any unregulated movement anyone can just call themselves. Some use it for good. Some are psychos who spoil public perception. I just happened to hear about way too many psychos to feel comfortable supporting the group

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vyk

Yeah. I actually hated GamerGate but approved of their stated motive. Because what they said they wanted was good. What I saw them actually do wad terrible. It went far beyond doxxing and threatening Anita Sarkeesian, Brianna Wu, or Zoe Quin. They went after anyone related, associated, or even retweeted by these girls and more. I stopped giving them an ounce of my attention when they doxxed Felicia Day just because she admitted they scared her..

It's just like feminism, black lives matter, and any unregulated movement anyone can just call themselves. Some use it for good. Some are psychos who spoil public perception. I just happened to hear about way too many psychos to feel comfortable supporting the group

---

Like the anti-Gamergate individuals who called SWAT teams on people who were DEMONSTRABLY just in it for questions of journalistic integrity (as every identifiable member of the movement was, to the point that they would criticize and try to stop anyone they caught within their own sphere of influence engaging in such behavior).

And at least the Gamergaters had that. I've never seen ANY member of the opposition to Gamergate ever:
-Acknowledge any good done by the organization.
-Criticize anyone acting against Gamergate.
-Admit that there is anything but misogyny behind the movement.

No, the movement isn't perfect. Anything that can be claimed by anyone is. I could blow up a public office, and post #BlackLivesMatter on social media, and that would make me a member of the group, technically.

But Gamergate on the whole stuck very well to its focus, it admitted there were assholes among it, but it tried to stop them and talk them down (some probably simply because it distracted from their point). But they received nothing but the typical hatred from the other side.

Wait, what? I'll concede your points, but it was people associating with GamerGate that were acting more misogynistic from my gathering. Doxxing a lot more girls than guys when trying to make an example

I grant that you obviously just read a wiki so it's more fresh for you, buy why would the opposition admit to being sexist when they were opposing sexist acts like that, within GamersGate? Legitimate question

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vyk

Wait, what? I'll concede your points, but it was people associating with GamerGate that were acting more misogynistic from my gathering. Doxxing a lot more girls than guys when trying to make an example

I grant that you obviously just read a wiki so it's more fresh for you, buy why would the opposition admit to being sexist when they were opposing sexist acts like that, within GamersGate? Legitimate question

---

First off, they weren't dismissing just misogyny, they were dismissing the entire movement AS misogyny. Trying to close any discussion off with dismissal (including every major news article that carried news on the topic), as is typical.

Second, I wasn't talking about identifying misogyny in their movement specifically. I was talking about identifying incorrect behaviors within their movement.

Every prominent Gamergater: TotalBiscuit, MundaneMatt, AlphaOmegaSin, Sargon of Akkad, thunderf00t... The list goes on. It's not difficult to find. These people constantly asked for open conversation with opponents, tried to keep things focused, called out those who acted inappropriately, and acknowledged that there were those who acted under the title with the intent of being misogynistic or just stirring up trouble.

They were dismissed, mocked, Swatted, had people calling their bosses to try to get them fired.

None of this was EVER acknowledged by those who hated Gamergate. They could do no wrong. They're perfect.

In fact, it was only a few days ago that a prominent anti-Gamergater (Laci Green) posted a video in which she talked about actually trying to open up a discussion with channels that had opposed her (after looking through many and noticing that some, but nowhere near the majority, were indeed hateful and disrespectful) and being shocked that they'd actually accepted open dialogue and were willing to talk reasonably.

That's the closest thing I've seen to reasonable behavior from the anti-Gamergate crew, because it's the first time I've EVER seen that they have ever taken steps to understand or even acknowledge that there is any point behind what they're doing except that it's misogyny.

Gamergate is nothing but misogyny (again, see slothy's post), and the ethics part was just a cover up. Anyone who stands up against it is a good guy, by definition.

Watch the Law & Order SVU episode on the subject. It'd be absolutely hilarious if it weren't for the fact that so many people see it as truth. Even though Ice T came out and apologized for the role and for the twist it put on the movement. Saying it wasn't something that he cared about, he's sorry that he portrayed things that way, but the studio was just putting the twist on it they always would, to turn it into a sex crime (which is what that show covers).

Despite that being a demonstrable lie, it's all that the opponents know or will admit. Even though, again, there have been a number of really positive ripples throughout gaming media and the country because of Gamergate. No. That's just a cover story. It's a ruse to cover up the rampant misogyny of the gamer culture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spuuky

You guys both know that "GamerGate" can be more than one thing, right? Because there are some people who are merely interested in improving media coverage of games, and there are some people who are merely interested in spewing vitriol, and they both self-identify with that group.

---

Yeah it can be more than one thing, but since it started out as people basically attempting to psychologically and professionally destroy Zoe Quinn because of uncorroborated claims made by an obviously perturbed ex, and attempted to do so under the guise of caring about journalism ethics (the journalist in question getting little to no flack at the time funny enough. Probably something to do with not having a vagina), the legitimate concern many held to was mixed up in what began as blatant sexism and an excuse to attack the Quinn and suffered for it. Anyone associating with it could be too easily dismissed because they regularly refused to acknowledge the actual origins of the name and movement and condemn the whole damn thing. It'd be like going around saying you're a nazi because you're for socialism. Maybe you're not one of the ones who wants to kill all of the people who aren't white, but you're not doing your cause any favours by claiming to be a nazi instead of just saying you're a socialist.

And Skyblade, the original inciting incident was the Zoe Quinn thing. And seeing as there was no actual evidence any of it was true except the word of a clearly pissed off former lover/boyfriend or whatever, the fact that it blew up at all when there have been much better examples of conflict of interest in the industry that are proven to exist and received no attention until then is pretty damning. She was attacked because she was a woman and someone gave people a reason, not because they really cared about ethics in journalism. That people who didn't realize this and never bothered to learn about it jumped in later because all they saw was the smoke screen those original attackers put up got involved is unfortunate because they managed to delegitimize their arguments by associating with a group of people motivated to do awful things by sexism.

If gamergate had originated solely as people concerned about a possible conflict of interest they would have been after the journalist to explain themselves and looking for people to corroborate a story that never should have made it past the he said she said stage without it. Instead they attacked the wrong person with no real evidence and did some horrendous things. The entire movement was poisoned before it even began and I say that as someone who actually cares about conflicts of interest and ethics in game journalism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skyblade

Gamergate is nothing but misogyny (again, see slothy's post), and the ethics part was just a cover up.

---

I never said it was only misogyny. I said it began as some thinly veiled but still very obvious misogyny and more reasonable people let themselves get wrapped up in defending it. But it was too late because the name was already toxic to anyone who actually followed everything that happened with the Zoe Quinn stuff as it was going on. Again, you can't associate with nazis, call yourself a nazi, but then just try to say you're only for socialism, not the jew killing stuff. It doesn't work that way. You either distance yourself from the group that started out to do terrible things or you're going to lump yourself in with them. It's that simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slothy

I never said it was only misogyny. I said it began as some thinly veiled but still very obvious misogyny and more reasonable people let themselves get wrapped up in defending it. But it was too late because the name was already toxic to anyone who actually followed everything that happened with the Zoe Quinn stuff as it was going on. Again, you can't associate with nazis, call yourself a nazi, but then just try to say you're only for socialism, not the jew killing stuff. It doesn't work that way. You either distance yourself from the group that started out to do terrible things or you're going to lump yourself in with them. It's that simple.

---

Attachment 72120

Yes, you can.

"We didn't riot ourselves. Sure, we protected the rioters, serving as human shields and giving them cover to escape. Sure, we cheered them on. But we're not the violent criminals! They're not a part of us! They're just SAYING they're a part of us."

Or, again:



But OUR guys wouldn't harm anyone. The Anti-Gamergaters are the GOOD GUYS! Sure, they're performing blatantly illegal acts and trying to get people killed using our name, but they're not US. WE'RE perfect.

http://thisisvideogames.com/gamergat...y_of_GamerGate

There's a history of Gamergate for you.



There is the video linked in the first true "Gamergate" tweet, by Adam Baldwin.

Not very misogynistic. It's, in fact, dealing with corruption in gaming media.