Controversies in Games Media

Anyone want to talk about controversies? Probably not. But I just found out that Playtonic, the company about to release Yooka-Laylee, and their publishing house (Team 17 I think?) have PR and social media people being complete douche bags and banning, blocking, moving threads, and making fun of people over the JonTron debacle, which is a controversy itself, which probably only stemmed from the PewDiePie fiasco a while back

It reminds me of an issue that sprang up in Pillars of Eternity, where certain backers were able to put some text in the game, and people took offense at the joke one person put in, a poem about a womanizer getting drunk and accidentally sleeping with a man and then killing himself in shame. And instead of immediately replying to the PR disaster brewing, removing content from a paid backer, trout-talking that backer and disassociating and alienating them; they instead waited for the storm to calm. They thought out what they should do. They didn't jump to any conclusions, they kept up discussions with this backer, and then said backer willingly and voluntarily changed what was in the game. He wasn't alienated and made fun of for it by the people he helped pay and support. And then it was over. Obsidian was calm, patient, understanding, and reasonable

Playtonic and Team 17 are being absolutely ridiculous. And then banning people calling them out on it and asking for a refund. I am astonished. These people basically had a unicorn bring them a pot of gold. All they had to do was make a good game. And that's what they did. And they were too afraid to leave well enough alone. Their PR people are obviously way too green; to be promoting instant knee-jerk reactions against criticism. Learn some damn restraint...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRNDnR9Za4M

Here's the video that tipped me off to this stuff. At first he sounded like thunderf00t or ReviewTechUSA, both of which I usually abhor the work of, but as the video went on, he reminded me more of Jim Sterling in his presentation and humor mixed in with real journalism and examples to support his claims. And also, like, reasonable arguments. Even if they are made with snark. First time I've seen this guy. He may be full of trout, but none of what he says surprises me since it concerns NeoGAF, and like I said, he shows evidence. Anyway. Rant over. Anyone else got any beef with games media/journalism/etc. or this topic?

Not exactly video game related, but as someone who works in Internet marketing, I can tell you that clients often panic in the face of any negative feedback and will actively hijack their social media accounts (which we manage at that point) to delete those responses or react in a really bad way, thinking people won't notice jos scummy they are.

I think this is the matter of us still adjusting to how the world works now and how big a part of the marketing process social media and online press is, and in general how accessible data is. As you pointed out, some companies managed to adjust immediately, while others can't really think ahead


It's mad, can't deny that. But I think it's a phase we'll all grow out of one day

Ah, yeah, I guess I get it. Any one person would want to find a remedy as immediately as possible. But in that regard it seems that people need to disassociate from their company. Companies shouldn't need to find a remedy immediately, and companies should be open to critique. I guess this is probably their baby and they just caught a glimpse of it being on fire and wanted to douse it as fast as possible. But if this gets any worse, then they probably just doused it in gasoline rather than water

wait


what jontron thing? I can't watch that linked video unfortunately. You're gonna have to give me a run down of the internet dramas

he's a racist, sexist pos

http://kotaku.com/yooka-laylee-ditch...per-1793570816

I honestly don't know the JonTron thing, only that he was in an interview with someone and I guess made some white supremacy jokes or some crap. People are now calling him a bigot and a racist, even though he's from middle-eastern descent and has a foreign surname (Jon Jafari)

So the internet blows up about him secretly being a bigot, the hate train rolls in, and then NeoGAF is like "hey, I just remembered, he voiced a small part in some video game, they should remove him and teach him a lesson". So there's a stirring hate campaign to pressure Playtonic to remove/replace his bit, which they do. It's dumb, but its' their thing. Jon even tweeted that it sucks, but no hard feelings and wished them luck

After that backers and pre-orders started to wonder if that was the best decision and if they could get a refund if they disagree. And instead of talking it out, giving refunds, delaying refunds, or even outright refusing refunds, they decide to instead ban people off steam conversations for talking about wanting a refund. Topics get locked, or moved, people get kicked or banned, and Team 17 start making fun of those people and JonTron himself, and his fans on Twitter (the videos showed 3 people's tweets involved, two of which were from Team 17, one was liking and retweeting another fan making fun of the situation)

And that's pretty much where it stands right now. The video I posted was just uploaded today, and the it's an ongoing story, Playtonic pulled the plug on JonTron without thinking it through or even wanting to discuss the idea, and their press release says that even though the game is done (his part being in-tact on release) they are set to release a day one patch to remove him, another reason why people want a refund. A patch that removes content. And their publishing department and PR and social media people on Twitter and Steam (and likely elsewhere) are shooting themselves in the foot, and making Playtonic and Yooka-Laylee look like a trainwreck just a few days before release

That's completely over-simplifying it. It wasn't just a random joke or something he made. He went on multiple massive twitter rants basically troutting on all people of color and how white people are soooo victimized. Yes, he is of Middle Eastern descent so I'm not sure where this is coming from. And yes, he can still be racist against people of other ethnicities regardless of whether or not he himself is a person of color/is of POC descent.

As for the whole Yooka-Laylee stuff, this is the first I've heard of it (even the bit about him being involved with the game!) but a company is well within their rights to remove a collaborator that does not align with the company's values, especially when that collaborator is giving them negative press.

They probably aren't handling it well. They should have made their definitive statement about JonTron not representing the views of the company, why he was being removed from the game, and then not replied in any way (including not deleting comments). For good PR purposes, they probably should give refunds/returns to those who don't want the game now--as long as the person who wants a refund no longer has access to the game.

tl;dr They could be handling it better from a PR point of view, but they made the right decision. A decision that they are well within their legal rights to do.

FROM MY POINT OF VIEW THE JON TRON IS EVIL!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sephex

FROM MY POINT OF VIEW THE JON TRON IS EVIL!!!

---

Doesn't sound like they're handling it that well THEN AGAIN

I have seen how smurfing insane entitled opinionated gamers get. If they were bitching and whining as much as I expect them to have been, I wouldn't be against locking and shutting threads down. Yooka-Lalyee's team could handle the PR aspect better it seems but I don't think they are in the complete wrong with removing him after what i'm seeing now (As you guys have informed me and I'm looking up)

still being handled better than no man's sky tbh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jinx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sephex

FROM MY POINT OF VIEW THE JON TRON IS EVIL!!!

---

---

That was a prequel meme reference, you dolt!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sephex

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jinx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sephex

FROM MY POINT OF VIEW THE JON TRON IS EVIL!!!

---

---

That was a prequel meme reference, you dolt!

---

I don't know what the Jon guy said and I don't really care. If they want to take him out of their game because of some racist views he has then that's their business. If people want to not buy a game due to that one decision then that's also their business. That should be the end of it, so I'm not sure why people at the company are banning or making fun of or whatever. I can however see internet folks going crazy over this so I'm not sure how Playtonic didn't see this. I mean, male + racism + banning is like the perfect formula for stupid internet controversy.

I've been looking forward to this game and who they have as voice actors does not really matter to me. I mean, it's a platforming game about a lizard and a bat. Jon whatshisface is an insignificant part of this project. I appreciate them standing up for their company's core beliefs or what have you but if you are going to shut out every racist from media then you won't be left with much talent. It's full of racists.

Jon's a piece of trout who sympathizes with white nationalism so he and his career can get smurfed. This isn't merely a disagreement of opinion, he actively spouts white nationalist rhetoric and the responsible thing to do is to make him irrelevant so odious people like him don't become normalized.

This is coming from a guy who was a huge fan of his.

My problem is the anti-customer attitude. I would have been fine at the point where they removed him and he said "that sucks, but okay", and that was it. But that wasn't it

Don't get me wrong (I've just now researched what was actually said) I don't agree with Jon, and I am fine with a company making decisions for their company. But that company got paid by backers and fans. And what Jon has expressed in the interview is sadly not very different from what a good portion of people in the United States feel/fear right now. We have elected a president with hugely and dangerously overblown opinions of a very similar nature to Jon's. Those opinions are not as rare as we'd like them to be. A good portion of America feels that way, and therefor it stands to reason that a good portion of Yooka-Laylee's fans and backers agree with Jon. As wrong as they may be, it's their right to have that opinion, and if the company gets to make a political stance with the money they gave them, then they should have the right to get that money back as their own political stance is called into question

If you don't want to have the support of a "white supremacist", then you should also be happy to give back the money given to you by white supremacists

But still, even beyond all the political BS, I am still on the grounds that anti-customer behavior is ridiculous for a company. And as someone who works in customer relations, and a gamer, I know how fanatical gamer customers can be. And you don't want to pander to every snot-nosed entitled little trout that comes knocking. But the worst thing you can do is turn away even the most mild-mannered customer asking for a refund. Customer relationships are important. And Playtonic may not need to rethink their political stance, but they sure need to rethink their customer stance

Ahhh no. Nope. No.

You don't get to say "Well I made you! You have to do what I want you to do or give me my money back!"

That's not how that works. You donate for whatever reasons and then that's it. You're not giving them money so you get to say how they act. You're just donating it because you liked the thing they presented to you.

I think you're right, Vyk. You have the right to remove him from your game and his racist fans have the right to not want to buy your game anymore too. If you really want to take a stand against racist dickheads then you should absolutely refund the smurfers and tell them you don't want people like them supporting your business. Instead, by axing JonTron and yet still taking the money, it looks like the original act wasn't done to take a stand against bigoted supremacy but a cynical attempt to cash in on the controversy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freya

wait


what jontron thing? I can't watch that linked video unfortunately. You're gonna have to give me a run down of the internet dramas

---

http://www.thejimquisition.com/youtu...rndest-things/

Jim smurfing Sterling son did a nice piece on what he said and the backlash. It's more about youtubers being celebrities of a sort these days and being just as fair game for criticism as any other celebrity, but he uses jontron as an example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freya

Ahhh no. Nope. No.

You don't get to say "Well I made you! You have to do what I want you to do or give me my money back!"

That's not how that works. You donate for whatever reasons and then that's it. You're not giving them money so you get to say how they act. You're just donating it because you liked the thing they presented to you.

---

That may be the original idea, but precedence has been set previously, unfortunately. People have "withdrew" backing from projects, I'm not sure how it works, and refunds have previously been given, and again I'm not sure how that works. But now that it's been allowed elsewhere, people should be allowed to expect the same

Even still though, I guess my problem is not even having a conversation about it. If they want to refuse refunds altogether, I don't agree but I'd be fine with that if they'd just say that. In that regard I do not believe they are doing better than No Man's Sky, the game may end up being better, for sure. But I think silence is better than a negative reaction. Telling someone "no" to their refund request would be better than blocking or banning them

I'm honestly not sure why I'm so worked up about this though. I didn't back the game, I was only recently considering buying it when it came out. I haven't watched JonTron in months, I don't agree with his stance. I should be fine with everything honestly. I just hate seeing a game that should be amazing to fans waiting for a resurgence of the golden days of 3D platforming getting tarnished by such ridiculousness

Even if he is of Middle Eastern descent, he most likely is seen as white. To me, he is just a light skinned Iranian but to many Americans if he didn't have an Iranian name on first sight he looks like a white guy. And besides, the United States legally considers Middle Easterners white and I have seen many join white nationalist groups.

I'm not sure I understand. The game is not out so I assumed the refunds are for pre-orders? Of course you should refund those since the purchase was not yet fulfilled. However, if people are asking for refunds of donations they provided in a gofundme or something like that then, hell, you don't get that money back! That's not how these sites work or how investments in general work. Unless they did something illegal with your money you are pretty much out of luck if you don't agree with the direction they took their company. If I were them I wouldn't ban anyone or try to repress the dialogue but I would release a nice lawyery statement about how you invest money at your own damn risk. Shoot, this isn't even a risk. It's just stupid people using excuses to get their money back.

Pre-orders yeah, refund that. But agreed with del. If they're asking for donation refunds, that's not how donations work.

I think you're looking at it the wrong way, you're looking at it from the point of view of the donators who believe they are entitled to a refund. I agree that's not how donation works but that's missing something important. Look at it as if you were the company. If you find racism to be so abhorrent that you will cut all business ties with an outspoken racist, why would you want to keep donations from other racists? Where's the consistency?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Murder

I'm not sure I understand. The game is not out so I assumed the refunds are for pre-orders? Of course you should refund those since the purchase was not yet fulfilled. However, if people are asking for refunds of donations they provided in a gofundme or something like that then, hell, you don't get that money back! That's not how these sites work or how investments in general work. Unless they did something illegal with your money you are pretty much out of luck if you don't agree with the direction they took their company. If I were them I wouldn't ban anyone or try to repress the dialogue but I would release a nice lawyery statement about how you invest money at your own damn risk. Shoot, this isn't even a risk. It's just stupid people using excuses to get their money back.

---

This is exactly my stance, Del, and I'm glad you posted this because when I spoke earlier about them refunding money, I was speaking only about pre-orders.

Not donations or investments. Anyways, that money is gone now. It went to creating the game. And as you said--that's not how donations work anyways. Especially on Kickstarter, where the donator usually gets some sort of reward for x amount of money donated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psychotic

I think you're looking at it the wrong way, you're looking at it from the point of view of the donators who believe they are entitled to a refund. I agree that's not how donation works but that's missing something important. Look at it as if you were the company. If you find racism to be so abhorrent that you will cut all business ties with an outspoken racist, why would you want to keep donations from other racists? Where's the consistency?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jinx

Not donations or investments. Anyways, that money is gone now. It went to creating the game. And as you said--that's not how donations work anyways. Especially on Kickstarter, where the donator usually gets some sort of reward for x amount of money donated.

---

Basically what Jinx said, Psy. What are you going to give the donors back? You used their money to make the game. The game is about to come out. Any money they refund them would be from profits of game sales and preorders and not the donor's money. So are they just supposed to give donors some of their profit money? So they'll have to sell the game to then give out money to people? Yeah, no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psychotic

I think you're looking at it the wrong way, you're looking at it from the point of view of the donators who believe they are entitled to a refund. I agree that's not how donation works but that's missing something important. Look at it as if you were the company. If you find racism to be so abhorrent that you will cut all business ties with an outspoken racist, why would you want to keep donations from other racists? Where's the consistency?

---

I guess we differ as to what those donors actually are. I don't think they are also racists. I think they are just idiots. Or maybe both, but at least publicly they are just being idiotic. And I'm perfectly fine with a company keeping idiots' money. Hell, without idiots' money no company in the world would be profitable. Without racists' money either to be honest...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freya

Basically what Jinx said, Psy. What are you going to give the donors back? You used their money to make the game. The game is about to come out. Any money they refund them would be from profits of game sales and preorders and not the donor's money. So are they just supposed to give donors some of their profit money? So they'll have to sell the game to then give out money to people? Yeah, no.

---

I figured that might be the response. I get it, but I'll refer you back to my initial point that the choice of money over morals when it's inconvenient suggests it was a calculated act rather than an act of conviction. Doing the right thing is rarely ever the same as doing the easy thing. So, yes, there is a price to pay for taking a stand. And I'd have more respect and admiration for the company if they chose to pay that price.

There is a way to have your cake and eat it too. You could say that you had refunded the donations of the jerkbutt hordes and now the game is short of funding and may be delayed. We do of course appreciate all of the kind donations from our incredible community and we'll still be working around the clock to make up for the funding gaps! Then you sit back and watch even more donations roll in due to the free publicity. Moral dilemma avoided, hurrah! Of course, that is even more cynical and calculating. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Murder

I guess we differ as to what those donors actually are. I don't think they are also racists. I think they are just idiots. Or maybe both, but at least publicly they are just being idiotic. And I'm perfectly fine with a company keeping idiots' money. Hell, without idiots' money no company in the world would be profitable. Without racists' money either to be honest...

---

I agree that they're idiots, although I think it's a nuanced situation. We can't definitely say they're all racists and I am sure many are not. With that said, having done a bit of digging and read some of the comments and tweets, there are numerous ones that definitely are.

Well, if they want to publicly come out and say 'yeah I hate Mexicans too. You guys don't hate Mexicans? Well I demand my money back!' then yeah I'd probably give them their money back or tell them they can have it back but they have go retrieve it from a bank in Mexico. (I have no idea if this issue was about Mexicans or not. It was either them or Muslims going by the odds and I just picked Mexicans because I could really go for a taco.)

Oh, they both got it as did many more groups. Including your very own Italian-American heritage!

Could you still be called a racist if you hate everybody?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psychotic

I think you're looking at it the wrong way, you're looking at it from the point of view of the donators who believe they are entitled to a refund. I agree that's not how donation works but that's missing something important. Look at it as if you were the company. If you find racism to be so abhorrent that you will cut all business ties with an outspoken racist, why would you want to keep donations from other racists? Where's the consistency?

---

Only one of those things is a business relationship. If someone sends donates £20 to me, and it came with a note that says "BTW I hate jews," should I throw that money away? I don't see any reason to. I have more money and the racist guy has less, that doesn't seem like a bad thing. Giving money to someone is an implicit endorsement in a way that receiving money is not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

Only one of those things is a business relationship. If someone sends donates £20 to me, and it came with a note that says "BTW I hate jews," should I throw that money away? I don't see any reason to. I have more money and the racist guy has less, that doesn't seem like a bad thing. Giving money to someone is an implicit endorsement in a way that receiving money is not.

---

I don't think you can entirely write off a crowd sourced campaign to produce a specific product as not being a business relationship, particularly if, as in this instance, a donation also acts as a purchase of the product. It is not the same as a traditional consumer-business relationship, but I also don't think it's an equivalence to your anonymous anti-semite donor either. If you're struggling to eat then £20 is a lifesaver. If you're trying to make a professional video game, is £20 that big of a deal? Can you not be more discerning about where you accept backing from? Although for all I know, perhaps the Yooka Laylee developers are struggling to eat too.

To address your dilemma, we all have different standards. "BTW I hate Jews" might not be a red line for anyone reading this thread. But what if it had said "BTW I got this £20 from mugging a Jew"? Would we be so quick to pocket the cash then? Still, I don't think what I am saying is that radical. Here's an example of a cancer charity declining a donation from an EDL leader.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psychotic

I don't think you can entirely write off a crowd sourced campaign to produce a specific product as not being a business relationship, particularly if, as in this instance, a donation also acts as a purchase of the product. It is not the same as a traditional consumer-business relationship, but I also don't think it's an equivalence to your anonymous anti-semite donor either.

---

Maybe not a traditional consumer-business relationship or an anonymous donation, but I think in all three cases you, as the business, are perfectly in the right to accept payment from wherever it comes from. Refunding people you are not obligated to refund affects the development of your game. It potentially affects the quality of your game and your profit margins (after all - the backers you refund are unlikely to re-purchase it at retail), which can in turn affect the job security of the people working there. £20 isn't much, but that's more than 2 hours of my salary. 4 people backing out could employ me for a day. How many until it does become a problem?

Personally if I were Playtonic my view would be thus: these people knew what they were getting into. They handed over the money of their own free will - it's ours now. If they wanna be mad at anyone, why not be mad at JonTron for being such a jerk?

Quote:

---

To address your dilemma, we all have different standards. "BTW I hate Jews" might not be a red line for anyone reading this thread. But what if it had said "BTW I got this £20 from mugging a Jew"? Would we be so quick to pocket the cash then? Still, I don't think what I am saying is that radical. Here's an example of a cancer charity declining a donation from an EDL leader.

---

Money obtained through a confessed crime is kinda different. That's not theirs to give away so yeah, in that instance I may take issue with it.

And honestly I'm coming down against the cancer charity on this one. If a jerk does a good thing then it's still a good thing​. Use the damn money to help someone with...I dunno... cancer or something.

I preferred the days when BIG GAMING CONTROVERSY meant Diakatana being trout or Lord British being killed rather than today's world where not a game seems to go by without some kind of trout-slinging row about its quality or creative direction.

I AM THE MEDIA. BLAME ME.

Why the smurf is this my username

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XxSephirothxX

Why the smurf is this my username

---

First time you've posted in a while? Welcome back lol

That JonTron though, amirite

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pumpkin

That JonTron though, amirite

---

What you mean?

I hear tell that PeanutbutterGamer tried to put him in his place on Twitter, and they got into a huge argument, and people went to Reddit to hide and talk about it, saying it's like watching their mom and dad fight. It's so weird. I feel weird about this now

I was also just reading (how do I keep coming across this stuff?) about how a native american person was offended by Horizon: Zero Dawn using terms like tribe, savage, primal, and brave(?). And appropriating native american cultures (because those are apparently the only tribal societies Gorilla games could have drawn inspiration from?), and wrote some long essay about Gorilla and the Atlanta Braves. I'm about done with the internet for a day or so

I love PBG, he's so adorbs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vyk

I hear tell that PeanutbutterGamer tried to put him in his place on Twitter, and they got into a huge argument, and people went to Reddit to hide and talk about it, saying it's like watching their mom and dad fight. It's so weird. I feel weird about this now

I was also just reading (how do I keep coming across this stuff?) about how a native american person was offended by Horizon: Zero Dawn using terms like tribe, savage, primal, and brave(?). And appropriating native american cultures (because those are apparently the only tribal societies Gorilla games could have drawn inspiration from?), and wrote some long essay about Gorilla and the Atlanta Braves. I'm about done with the internet for a day or so

---

On JonTron and PBG, they had a falling out before JonTron started to go nuts on Twitter. Also, despite that, PBG apologized to Jon since he did admit he called him out for no real reason (at the time he did Jon wasn't really posting anything political and this was before the stream fiasco). Jon accepted the apology and suggested that they chill sometime and have a beer. Doubt that is going to happen, but kudos to them for being reasonable for at least one moment in this whole mess.

While I don't agree with a company mocking others, I see no problem in them moving and blocking threads. When one partakes in someone else's domain, one either respects their rules and go by them or the person doesn't associate themselves with the organization within the organization's own domain. I am sure ALL VA's in a professional setting sign some form of contract that details what can and can not be done. Why do you think VAs often avoid talking about things that would be spoiler for an upcoming game? The gameplay remains the same and changing one VA isn't that impacting on this type of game. If the game itself were to be different, then perhaps my outlook would be different.

An individual that hates everyone can still be prone to show discrimination if that hate steams from outer appearances that can't be changed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Murder

Could you still be called a racist if you hate everybody?

---

Yes, I am still a racist

And now Atlus has threatened YouTube and Twitch users to not stream their game or face legal action if they go past a certain point, and/or have their livelihood in that medium threatened by spurious claims and strikes against their channels and accounts

People guffaw at the idea of making a living on streams and lets play or really on any kind of content creation medium, but it's still a job, it's how people eat and pay bills, and if I want to watch someone play a game for me, and pay them to do so, then it's bulltrout to threaten them with only the explanation that they don't want to spoil the game for me. If I'm watching someone else play your game, then I'm not buying your damn game, and therefor don't care if it gets spoiled

Now, I do plan on buying Persona 5, and am seriously considering buying it used in order to speak with my wallet. And the funny thing is, it's worded that "our masters in Japan" have made it this way, so the American Atlus team probably has no say in the matter whether they agree with it or not, and it'll be their finances that are on the line, since they're the ones publishing it here. This may be one of those situations like with Activision and Transformers, or BioWare and Mass Effect, where you buy the game, but don't let that money talk for you and throw a big enough hissy-fit that they never consider pulling a stunt like this again

You get one mistake like this, Atlus. Just one. Having a company that only makes niche games, stab their niche community in the back is damn near suicidal. This isn't Nintendo, this is a fairly small crowd. It doesn't take many of them to be offended to have a big impact. Maybe next time just stick with the requests and check the threats at a the door

As always, I agree with Jim Sterling. It's a noble goal to try to prevent spoilers and if you'd asked people not to show them I think you'd have seen people a lot more accommodating. To threaten to misuse copyright law to shut people down is heavy handed and wrong.

Of course, we all know it's not actually about spoilers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vyk

And now Atlus has threatened YouTube and Twitch users to not stream their game or face legal action if they go past a certain point, and/or have their livelihood in that medium threatened by spurious claims and strikes against their channels and accounts

People guffaw at the idea of making a living on streams and lets play or really on any kind of content creation medium, but it's still a job, it's how people eat and pay bills, and if I want to watch someone play a game for me, and pay them to do so, then it's bulltrout to threaten them with only the explanation that they don't want to spoil the game for me. If I'm watching someone else play your game, then I'm not buying your damn game, and therefor don't care if it gets spoiled

Now, I do plan on buying Persona 5, and am seriously considering buying it used in order to speak with my wallet. And the funny thing is, it's worded that "our masters in Japan" have made it this way, so the American Atlus team probably has no say in the matter whether they agree with it or not, and it'll be their finances that are on the line, since they're the ones publishing it here. This may be one of those situations like with Activision and Transformers, or BioWare and Mass Effect, where you buy the game, but don't let that money talk for you and throw a big enough hissy-fit that they never consider pulling a stunt like this again

You get one mistake like this, Atlus. Just one. Having a company that only makes niche games, stab their niche community in the back is damn near suicidal. This isn't Nintendo, this is a fairly small crowd. It doesn't take many of them to be offended to have a big impact. Maybe next time just stick with the requests and check the threats at a the door

---

I think this is worth a watch on the subject. See the perspective from the point of view of a copyright lawyer (and who has tended to side on the gamer side of most of the legal copyright issues).

OVERALL, I actually think this is a good thing. Simply because it's an attempt by a company to make an effort into understanding and addressing the matter. Given that no one is even attempting to push the matter of revamping the DMCA to their representatives, this is literally the only way progress on this front will ever be made.

There are clear guidelines set forth for how they expect the content to be used. You can't upload videos where the sole focus is on the cutscenes (ie: no "Here's this story event" cutscene videos that are rampant for many games on YouTube, like the "FFXV as a movie", for example, which fairly clearly violates copyright). I think that's an understandable restriction. What's more, it offers clear and explicit authorization to make the content. Most videos are made under the defense of it being Fair Use, whether said content is Fair Use or not. However, this is an explicit authorized derivative work. This is, in itself, a good thing. It should mean LESS legal trouble going forward for those who make such work, and the copyright owner themselves, as the authorization is explicitly given by the copyright holder.

As such, if you are making a work, not as an expression of Fair Use (which again, requires the work to be transformative, used for educational or critique purposes, etcetera), but as an authorized derivative work, then this gives a fairly clear cut set of restrictions for the authorization, as well as sides with the YouTuber on one of the more vague restrictions ("use your best judgment").

I don't find it at all surprising that the only companies I know of which have made an attempt to address this issue come from Japan (Nintendo with the Creators program, and now ATLUS), as they are attempting to address a clear gap between legal systems and expectations, as well as the gap between consumer behavior, that exists between Japan and the West. I think attempting to shut down these efforts entirely is going to have an ultimately negative affect on the YouTube and streaming space going forward, if it convinces companies that such services are only going to treat them with enmity even if they try to take a step forward, which ATLUS is doing.

I honestly don't even think that any of their restrictions go too far, I just think that some comment should have been made regarding Fair Use, a warning to ensure that your content IS Fair Use if it goes beyond the bounds of these restrictions, and that ATLUS would consider whether or not the content is Fair Use before issuing a strike, as required under the Lenz vs Universal Studios court decision.

Is this an ideal? Nope, not by a long shot. But it's better than we've had in many cases, and I think it's something that can be worked with to help ensure Japanese developers that streaming and videos are not a threat to their business, and that hopefully in the future less restrictions could be needed.

I actually just watched that video and legal standing aside, there's still a lot of gray. And I'm not sure what you're talking about? Nintendo and now Atlus are the only companies from Japan FIGHTING fair use, not fighting for it. There are very few, if any, western developers having any problems with how fair use is being implemented by streamers and lets players. The only time something comes up is in games like GTA where a copyrighted song plays during a stream, and even that lawyer draws questions in regards to streaming, where you're supposed to black out your stream during a boss fight or cut scene, which is ridiculous, and the fact that they've blocked UI sharing, so it's obvious the only reason these guidelines exist is because they know they can't outright block it because the technology exists to usurp that and get a capture card. Because without that technology we'd have no options, and they'd obviously be fine with that. Technology is forcing them to play the game at all. Otherwise we'd just be screwed. So no, I don't believe they're being forward thinking. And I think Nintendo is bat-trout crazy for their creator program, and as Jim Sterling pointed out, if EA had came up with Nintendo's content creator rules, and was stealing money from YouTubers, I have no doubt people would have eaten them alive and they would have been in a PR disaster until they relented and gave up on the damn thing. Nintendo is not right. They're just not EA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vyk

I actually just watched that video and legal standing aside, there's still a lot of gray. And I'm not sure what you're talking about? Nintendo and now Atlus are the only companies from Japan FIGHTING fair use, not fighting for it.

---

I didn't say they were fighting for Fair Use. They're not. They're ignoring it completely (and they are wrong to do so). They are, however, fighting for the future of videos and streaming, by attempting to find a common ground where the rights of both parties are clear.

Quote:

---

There are very few, if any, western developers having any problems with how fair use is being implemented by streamers and lets players.

---

You clearly follow a very different section of YouTube than I do, because I hear about invalid copyright strikes all the time. Heck, need I remind you of the spat between Jim Sterling and Digital Homicide? These are NOT uncommon events at all.

Quote:

---

The only time something comes up is in games like GTA where a copyrighted song plays during a stream, and even that lawyer draws questions in regards to streaming, where you're supposed to black out your stream during a boss fight or cut scene, which is ridiculous, and the fact that they've blocked UI sharing, so it's obvious the only reason these guidelines exist is because they know they can't outright block it because the technology exists to usurp that and get a capture card. Because without that technology we'd have no options, and they'd obviously be fine with that. Technology is forcing them to play the game at all. Otherwise we'd just be screwed.

---

No, it's not technology, or at least, not solely technology. It's technology combined with Western copyright law, and the popular rise of streaming and videos as a form of media consumption. This is something that Japanese developers dealing with Japanese customers simply do not have to deal with, as Japanese law is much more draconian in favor of the publisher.

And, yes, it is forward thinking. Because, believe it or not, the technology doesn't stop them. They could, if they so desired, put up a copyright strike on every single video that has any content (or any content they particularly desired to hide) from the game, they could have that strike carried with full weight thanks to the way the DMCA rules, and shut down anything regardless of how much technology people used to try to evade it.

Quote:

---

So no, I don't believe they're being forward thinking. And I think Nintendo is bat-trout crazy for their creator program, and as Jim Sterling pointed out, if EA had came up with Nintendo's content creator rules, and was stealing money from YouTubers, I have no doubt people would have eaten them alive and they would have been in a PR disaster until they relented and gave up on the damn thing.

---

Jim Sterling also pointed out that disagreeing with Nintendo gives you the right to pirate their games, so you'll excuse me if I don't put too much weight into his opinions, especially on legal matters.

Also: Are you implying that this ISN'T a PR disaster for ATLUS? Because it is. The commentary on it has been almost wholly negative, and centered around how unfriendly to consumers this has been.

Quote:

---

Nintendo is not right.

---

I never said they were, I said that I think the program is a step in the right direction.

Quote:

---

They're just not EA

---

Thank goodness for that.

I guess my problem is I'm partaking of a copyright argument when this has nothing to do with copyright. I concede all your points, and pre-emptively apologize, because I honestly thought you'd come back differently than that, and defend their way of thinking. It's a moral vs legal issue, much like your Jim Sterling argument. Jim feels that Nintendo is morally bankrupt in regards to allowing people experience their backlog, but legally they are allowed to do so

And how I wish this were just about copyright, but I know it isn't, everyone here knows it's not about copyright. Its not about fair use. And it's definitely not about spoilers

It's a bunch of suits in Japan, feeling like they're losing control, feeling like the western audience is an entitled nuisance, they're mad that we don't (and don't want to) play by their rules, and they want to "compromise" and make new rules. They see streaming and let's plays the same way they see piracy, fangames, and bootlegs. As lost revenue. They feel that anyone watching a let's play will not buy their game. And honestly, a lot of the time, they may be right. But mostly for people who were not going to buy the game in the first place. I watch let's players for the let's players, not for the games that they're playing. And if anything, they've convinced me to buy more games, not less. But these companies don't see it that way. They feel they're being robbed. And instead of opening their eyes to what's really going on, they want to be the kid who wants to take their ball and go home, because you want to play HORSE instead of Basketball. And they can't take their ball and go home. They just sold it to you. So instead, they want to run their tractor over the field and ruin the experience for you, and for anyone who was going to enjoy watching you

It doesn't help that I have no doubt that they'd ignore fair use if given the opportunity considering the threats. As stated in the video, if something happens after 7/7 that inspires a social commentary, they'd probably put a strike on the video talking about it. Atlus are now SEGA, and SEGA have copyright claimed fair used material before just to get it off of search results, to make way for the release of the sequel to whatever it is (Shining Force being the biggest example)

And what's worse, is Atlus's press release stating "our masters in Japan", because they know Atlus Japan is being crazy, they know it's a bad move, they're effectively asking forgiveness and diverting attention to the real people causing the issue

Bottom line I guess, if they want to call Let's Players theives, then they may as well just come out and say it and deal with the issue directly, where we can have a real talk about what's really bothering them, and stop hiding behind Mommy & Daddy Copyright

And PS, you're right about Western Developers calling all kinds of copyright claims, I guess when I made that statement I was thinking about actual legitimate developers. The whiny childlike asset-flippers who try too hard to do damage control when they get found out aren't really considered legitimate development studios by me. Digital Homicide, Dentola Studios, the Gary's Bad Day (or whatever it was) douche bags, and Stckli games and the like are all posers to me

I didn't bother looking into how long the Atlus thing would last, but I'm going to assume it was put in place as an attempted counter measure for people that get a copy and make vids/streams before the street release. If big gaming sites aren't allowed to talk about certain things until a certain point, I don't an issue with putting restrictions on the general public as well. If every store respected street date releases, this probably wouldn't be a problem.

Yeah, my argument was based in copyright and law, not the morals of it. Currently, Let's Plays exist in a sort of legal grey area, and I do view this as one of the only ways they'll step out of that nebulous status and into something with some solid legal basis and understanding, which I view as a good thing.

Morally, it's more complicated.

I can understand where ATLUS is coming from. They're scared, and I think there is some justification in them being so.

On the whole, I personally think that Let's Plays are good for gaming. They're advertising, and they help build a solid and long lasting community for a game.

But, there is also a danger to them, especially with story heavy games. If you watch a Let's Play of, say, Until Dawn... You've seen 90% of what the game offers. There's really no reason or incentive to buy it for yourself. Yes, you can make a couple different choices, and see what relatively minor things have changed. But, on the whole, you've experienced the game, and might not buy it for yourself.

One of the big reasons why people buy the Persona games is story and characters. If those are all put up online, free to access, and shown to people, ATLUS is scared that those people will go "okay, that was a great story, great characters... But I've seen it, I'll go buy another game".

This is, in my opinion, a perfectly reasonable fear. This is one of the things that copyright law is actually supposed to help with, by controlling the delivery of media, and making sure that the copyright holders don't lose out on potential revenue because people are buying from illegitimate sources.

Does this make ATLUS right for being so overly protective of it? No, no it doesn't.

But it's understandable to me. And it makes me want to work with them, to help them understand our position, to see the other side of things, and hopefully see a more reasonable path going forward.

If we, as gamers, Let's Players, and people who watch Let's Plays can allay those fears, show a bunch of incredibly conservative Japanese businessmen that our activities and interests can help their business, promote it and strengthen it, then we can, eventually, create a mutually beneficial relationship.

I don't think they've taken the right path. I don't think they have the right mindset. But I do understand their position, and I'd like to help them to understand ours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vyk

And now Atlus has threatened YouTube and Twitch users to not stream their game or face legal action if they go past a certain point, and/or have their livelihood in that medium threatened by spurious claims and strikes against their channels and accounts

---

Eh, people have been streaming the game on Twitch and Youtube anyways. Even since the Japanese version came out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skyblade

But, there is also a danger to them, especially with story heavy games. If you watch a Let's Play of, say, Until Dawn... You've seen 90% of what the game offers. There's really no reason or incentive to buy it for yourself. Yes, you can make a couple different choices, and see what relatively minor things have changed. But, on the whole, you've experienced the game, and might not buy it for yourself.

One of the big reasons why people buy the Persona games is story and characters. If those are all put up online, free to access, and shown to people, ATLUS is scared that those people will go "okay, that was a great story, great characters... But I've seen it, I'll go buy another game".

This is, in my opinion, a perfectly reasonable fear.

---

I actually kind of disagree. My reason being that I don't actually think people who would be willing to buy the game if the story and characters interest them will watch an entire LP before buying the game. Most who would buy it would probably watch part of an LP, decide the game looks good, and go buy it or wait until they can go buy it and play it to continue the LP. I actually think that an LP is very different from playing it as well. The player will do things you wouldn't, and often you're not just watching for the game but for the commentary and reactions of the LPer.

So ultimately I think people who would watch the whole thing without buying the game will do it because of the latter reasons rather than decide not to buy it because they saw everything. It's similar to my thoughts on piracy actually. There's this weird and counter intuitive phenomena where people who pirate seem to actually spend more on media rather than less. I imagine some of it comes down to being able to try things they may not have, like it, and then buy it, or buy the sequels, or a spin off or another thing from the same team, etc. There seems to be this belief by businesses that if people pirate they make less money because it's a zero sum game, but the reality may actually be quite a bit different.

So overall, like you, I think that LP's are ultimately good for the industry and for sales. Hopefully if Atlus takes anything away from this, it's that their overreaction has actually lead directly to people sharing as much as they can, and that doing it has meant that all the praise for Persona 5 in the media is largely being overshadowed by talk of their not so veiled threat. Like you, I can see why they thought it was the right move, but I think their understanding of the situation is simply too flawed for them to have made the right choice.

Yeah, I agree with Slothy. Until Dawn is an interesting example to bring up, because I saw an LP of the initial section of Until Dawn and thought it looked great. I stopped watching it and bought the game itself because I wanted to experience it for myself. I was right, as I bloody loved it. I watched the LP after I had beaten the game myself too because I wanted to see what the LPer did.

Most games developers, particularly with smaller indie games, show a spike in sales when the big YouTubers like PewDiePie, Markiplier, Jacksepticeye et al play their games.

That's pretty much where I'm at as well. I've refused to watch many LP's due to wanting to acquire the game myself. I've bought many games due to LP's. And any game I've watched an LP of and haven't bought, I wasn't going to buy in the first place. It's not a lost sale. it's a sale that was never going to happen anyway. But in turn, like say a game like Persona, if I were not into JRPGs, I could be drawn into the community, I could enjoy an anime follow-up, I might be convinced to buy it digitally just to support the company even if I never play it, I could buy it for a friend I know that loves JRPGs but has been short on cash because I know it's a good game due to an LP. It opens a lot more doors than it closes. And convincing a developer of this is paramount. But I've yet to see a Japanese developer be convinced of anything by a western audience that wasn't some big surprise phenomenon like Bravely Default levels of "I told you so"

Atlus is a very special and different company, and even in their statement, they make it apparent that they don't want to take this stance, but Persona 5 is a special case (somehow), so I'm willing to hold my breathe for them. Far more willing than with Nintendo, Squeenix, Capcom, or Konami. If anyone over there can get with the times, it'd probably be Atlus. So here's hoping

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psychotic

Yeah, I agree with Slothy. Until Dawn is an interesting example to bring up, because I saw an LP of the initial section of Until Dawn and thought it looked great. I stopped watching it and bought the game itself because I wanted to experience it for myself. I was right, as I bloody loved it. I watched the LP after I had beaten the game myself too because I wanted to see what the LPer did.

Most games developers, particularly with smaller indie games, show a spike in sales when the big YouTubers like PewDiePie, Markiplier, Jacksepticeye et al play their games.

---

Yep. I've honestly played a number of games because of seeing Day9 play them, then still watched his LP the whole way through (as far as he went anyway) because I'm not watching just for the game. His Dark Souls play throughs are the stuff of legend.

Yep, I often use LP's as a way of determining whether I want a game for myself or not, since you get to see a lot more than from reading text and looking at screenshots. I'll stop watching the LP while I play and resume later, like others have said. Heck, sometimes I watched an LP because I had no plans to buy a game and just wanted to see what it was about and watching the LP convinced me to buy the game. Until Dawn and Among the Sleep are great examples of this

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.

I can sense that this topic is going to be toeing some lines.

Remember to keep it civil guys, I don't want to have to start deleting posts.

Skyblade, I'm anti-GG because there is a demonstrably massive number of absolute troutheads who support it and use it as a weapon. But I acknowledge that the core concept that it allegedly represents is a good thing and that fighting for those ends is valuable and some members of the movement have accomplished good things.

So, there; you can't say you've never seen it, now. It's a movement whose stated principles are good but who are tainted by a significant majority of anonymous assholes.

People who still want to achieve further gains in the field should probably distance themselves from it for this reason; just as it is disingenuous to say "I use this swastika because of its long history as a symbol of luck in the eastern tradition" or "I fly this flag of the confederacy to represent honor," so it is with knowingly and intentionally tying yourself to GamerGate; these things are tainted by their association and it means enough of the wrong things to enough people that you know EXACTLY what you're saying to those people if you choose to use those symbols.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shauna

I can sense that this topic is going to be toeing some lines.

Remember to keep it civil guys, I don't want to have to start deleting posts.

---

Thanks Shauna. I like having my space to rant whenever a developer does something boneheaded, greedy, and anti-consumer. I'd hate to have that taken away by something as ancient as GamersGate

And while I do appreciate the history lesson, it's also definitely getting a little too heated

GamersGate is one of those things where if they want it to remain, and be seen as a positive, they'd have to "take it back". Whether they like it or not, public perception is negative. There's not a lot of widely known variables for the positive aspects. People know about the sexism, they know about the doxxing, the threats and bullying. And expecting us to dig farther than what tidbits the biased news outlets were providing is sadly asking a little too much

I'm sure there are likely one or two upstanding KKK members. But we shouldn't have to be the ones to find them. I wasn't aware TotalBiscuit was labeling himself as a GG. I appreciate his opinion and I know he's always wanted the things they're after. But he'd strive for that even without their movement. So I can easily see him outside the bad press

It's different with how I view feminists. Probably an exposure thing. The man-hating fem-nazis are way more rare in my experience than the level headed legitimate equality loving ones. And I also know tons of dude femenists who can't be fem-nazis. But I also know a lot of people want equality for women, but also hate feminists due to perception and believe most of them are crazy man-hating fem-nazis. Fortunately, it's kinda split. That's not a majority opinion, so feminists don't have to try too hard to "take it back". There's just a lot of outliers and misinformation

Obviously there's a lot of outliers and misinformation about GG. But unfortunately for them, they're not a big enough group for it to have the same situation as femenism. People in their group messed up and tainted the image. Somebody would have to try real hard to show positive examples of their cause, and wear the name like a badge and go on one heck of a campaign. And when GG "ended" I do recall a lot of people saying they appreciated what they wanted, but did not want to associate with the name and would find other means to strive for those goals rather than associate with that group/name

So likely this only got heated due to semantics. People don't like GG for valid and invalid reasons. But they do want transparencey and integrity and responsibility in games journalism

If there's one thing I learned from that whole mess (and the whole mess of SJWs and Alt-Rights that came at the same time and has snowballed way further than it should have since) it's that both sides can be approximately as bad as each other, and both believe that they're totally pure and innocent and the other is the personification of evil. Or at the very least that the other guys are "so much worse".
GG had a very legit official purpose that I actually agree with (though at the time I didn't dare say so because it'd get you dogpiled on most forums as "siding with misogynists" - this was the general, quite understandable "side with the one that looks more lefty by default" internet hivemind) but also a lot of very horrible people and actual misogynists who doxx and harass.
Anti-GG meanwhile, had some very legit complaints about GG, but also a lot of very horrible people and actual misandrists who doxxed and tried to get people fired from their jobs for saying something they disagree with.

If you're on a "side" and believe your side is completely innocent or is "nowhere near as bad as the other" and are about to jump on me wanting proof to be dug out for yours, you are part of the problem - that problem is tribalism. (With apologies to Zidane)
(Um, no offence though. Just try to see other people as human beings. I think it's like when we're behind the wheel, we're like "grrrr other guys is evil nasty stupid driver" and others are like that with us)

Yeah, fair or not, some things get taken over by people who use them for evil and it changes the public perception of that thing. Does that change the meaning of the thing? I think that is subjective and will depend on your point of view. It's a noble battle to try and fight that perception but it will be an uphill one with a small chance of success.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vyk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shauna

I can sense that this topic is going to be toeing some lines.

Remember to keep it civil guys, I don't want to have to start deleting posts.

---

Thanks Shauna. I like having my space to rant whenever a developer does something boneheaded, greedy, and anti-consumer. I'd hate to have that taken away by something as ancient as GamersGate

And while I do appreciate the history lesson, it's also definitely getting a little too heated

GamersGate is one of those things where if they want it to remain, and be seen as a positive, they'd have to "take it back". Whether they like it or not, public perception is negative. There's not a lot of widely known variables for the positive aspects. People know about the sexism, they know about the doxxing, the threats and bullying. And expecting us to dig farther than what tidbits the biased news outlets were providing is sadly asking a little too much

---

The problem with that is this:
The media hates Gamergate. Always did, always will.

The reason why that's all people know is because that's all news sites would report.

So how exactly can the group "take it back"?

The group could, and did, do positive things both during the controversies, and long after. These were just never reported.

Activities by the group were only reported on because they were bad.

It was, for example, reported that ToralBiscuot threatened Zoe Quinn in emails early on, on the basis of a claim she made. When he produced the emails in question, and they were merely an attempt at trying to find a way to de-escalate the discussion, and for advice and cooperation on how to shut down or shut out the haters to allow for civil discussion? Never reported. Except for by the Gamergaters (and the ones attacking Quinn and others also attacked TB for "supporting the enemy". Not that this was reported either).

When you are trying to point out corruption in the media, and most people learn of your movement from the media, how are you supposed to present a positive public image?

This was the single largest question in the movement outside of the direct ethical concerns. Yes, most people who did research it wound up seeing it for what it was. But when you're fighting the media, how do you fight the perception they give of you?

Any attempt to address the same issues now would be discarded in the same way. As the "remnants of Gamergate, struggling to spread their misogyny".

It's a moot point, as the movement is largely defunct now, because it achieved its goals. But if you do have an answer to this, I would love to hear it.