Is #GamerGate misogyny posing as concern for ethics?

[Vendetta]

If they don't let people review their games, the company should just make an article about how they're like to have offered a review but couldn't. Then they can go on to explain why they were denied the review copy and how ethically they couldn't review the game under the conditions that would have allowed them access to said game. That's what TB does and he's not exactly hurting his view counts by doing so, so why can't other companies do the same?

Trouble is, their competitor already got all the ad impression money when people visited their website for the review. TotalBiscuit is not a good example because he has almost no competition in the general interest gaming youtube sphere, given that most youtube gamers are more like Jontron or PewDiePie who make the majority of their money squealing at a webcam for the enjoyment of 13 year olds.

These review sites have the power to shine a light on these games either before or just after release and often times they fail in this duty. Even if they're only allowed to release positive reviews about certain games, they can still give a low score and make any praise faint with hints as to what the issues are. If that causes the publisher to flip shit so be it, you can now freely pan their games and cost them money until they come crawling back to you. You can cut their ads and make sure that their ad money isn't tricking your customers into buying games.

Which means their ad money isn't paying your bills. Because internet gaming sites are wholly ad supported they are reliant on their advertisers, they don't have alternate revenue streams, if they piss off the people who advertise with them they're over a barrel. Ironically, GamerGate is highlighting the power of the advertiser to control editorial. Hooray for "ethics", when the next big publisher demands a handjob review they can point to this and say "this is the relationship your readers want, we decide your position for you".

It is easier for them to lean on game devs than it is for customers to do the same. Mainly because if I get suckered into a bad game I can't easily return it and I may like the next game that company makes so a boycott hurts me more than it hurts them.

Not really. It's impossible for them to lean on game devs because unless they all do it then the game dev can just walk over to their competitor and get the same coverage there, and cut them out of the page impressions and ad money. Consumers have all the power because you can buy different games. I won't be buying any Bioware games after they fucked Mass Effect 3 up so badly, but it doesn't matter because I can buy other games.

[Darth Yan]

1.)

Irrelevant, fucknut. How does this reflect on Zoe Quinn and not the journalists in question. If your answer is "it doesn't" (which would be the correct answer) then why did you bring it up in the context of a discussion about her if not to taint her by association with alleged misdeeds of others.

ie. you're a dishonest shitlord.

2.) It's annoying to see people claim she's a wholly innocent victim who's done nothing wrong.

Except when asked for evidence of what she's "done wrong" you lied out of your ass and reproduced things that were debunked literally months ago.

ie. you're a dishonest shitlord.

3.

Tu quoque fallacy, cut out the dishonest bullshit.

Proceed to gish gallop off a cliff, posting six articles as if anyone is going to rebut them here for you is twattery.

Bilateral rope asked for proof of my allegations. I supplied proof. The anti gamer gate also doxxed a twelve year old boy. I posted an article containing an interview with a female gamer hate member and an anti gamegater (the female came across as more reasonable).

Also the point was that Ben kuchera and his pattern work (which isn't preordering) implied he had compromised interests. Kuchera helped quinn raise money for a game that he reviewed. He was invested and the articles were stating that kind of connection is unethical. It is relevant.

2.) actually she did know graydon beyond being quoted on March 31, meaning the dude lied his ass off.

https://forum.encyclopediadramatica.se/ ... png.46673/

And the girlfriend of one of the guys she slept with directly called her out on it.
https://images.encyclopediadramatica.se ... e_Ring.png

https://forum.encyclopediadramatica.se/ ... png.46673/

3.) Also I linked those articles because they criticized sarkeesian without being sexist and even made the case that by painting herself as a representative of all feminism she hurts other more moderate feminist groups. The anti gamer gate crowd also harassed their opponents; one guy who says quinn raped him got attacked by Quinn's followers.

GamerGate could and should have jettisoned the sexist assholes who used it as a bandwagon; more organization and coherence would have helped too. However, Quinn isn't an innocent victim.

[bilateralrope]

1.) http://www.polygon.com/forums/meta/2014 ... on-support

http://kotaku.com/a-brief-note-about-th ... 1627041269

I'll go with Vendetta on this. It doesn't show that Zoe Quinn has done anything wrong.

2.) It's annoying to see people claim she's a wholly innocent victim who's done nothing wrong.

Or as the realclearpolitics article pointed out

"Of course none of this justifies harassment or threats toward Quinn. But the full story does not make her a very sympathetic figure.

Yet GamersGate keeps harassing her. Like they care more about her than they do about the serious issues of corruption, like the Shadows of Mordor deal.

3.) http://theralphretort.com/wp-content/up ... WDOXX1.jpg
(actually look at the image.)

How do you know that email is genuine ?
All I see is a screenshot of text. Anyone could have written it.

https://medium.com/@oliverbcampbell/whe ... 1f36421022

I saw nothing in there about him being harassed. Was this link relevant to me asking you to prove:

However does that change the fact that the personal information (address, name) of at least six prominent people in gamer gate (adam baldwin, milo yiannopolous, jontron shoe@nhead boogie2988 and eron gjoni) were released online, that they were accompanied by a list of "crimes" and that women and minorities who have spoken out in support of gamer gate have also been harassed or accused of internalized misogyny?

Here are some articles on anita sarkeesian btw

Tell me what point you are trying to make with them, then I'll read them to see if they prove your point.

The silence on the shadow of mordor deal is also damning. I also feel that a.) Some of the people involved really do care about integrity and are annoyed at corruption

Tell me, how many of those people that "really do care about integrity and are annoyed at corruption" have spoken up about the Shadows of Mordor deal ?

Of those that stayed silent, why should I believe that they "really do care about integrity and are annoyed at corruption" ?

[bilateralrope]

GamerGate could and should have jettisoned the sexist assholes who used it as a bandwagon; more organization and coherence would have helped too. However, Quinn isn't an innocent victim.

Why would GamersGate ever jettison the attitudes that set it off in the first place ?

As for Quinn not being innocent, that doesn't matter. What matters is that GamersGate keeps making false allegations against her while ignoring the ethical issues they claim to care about.

[Jub]

Trouble is, their competitor already got all the ad impression money when people visited their website for the review. TotalBiscuit is not a good example because he has almost no competition in the general interest gaming youtube sphere, given that most youtube gamers are more like Jontron or PewDiePie who make the majority of their money squealing at a webcam for the enjoyment of 13 year olds.

And people aren't visiting your site for the 'review' you've posted? You're still creating content, it's just that said content isn't really a review because you weren't sent a review copy. Plus, you'll have a review up after the game comes up where you'll now be free to tell it like it is. So in the near term people will be mad, but once it becomes clear that your reviews aren't biased garbage you can start to grow a new user base.

Which means their ad money isn't paying your bills. Because internet gaming sites are wholly ad supported they are reliant on their advertisers, they don't have alternate revenue streams, if they piss off the people who advertise with them they're over a barrel. Ironically, GamerGate is highlighting the power of the advertiser to control editorial. Hooray for "ethics", when the next big publisher demands a handjob review they can point to this and say "this is the relationship your readers want, we decide your position for you".

Then advertise for gaming merchandise and accessories instead, webcomics are also on the same revenue model and they don't just advertise other webcomics. Yes that might be slightly less lucrative overall in the near term, but long term they might find an even better sponsor. If they don't they will always be at the mercy of the devs anyway.

Not really. It's impossible for them to lean on game devs because unless they all do it then the game dev can just walk over to their competitor and get the same coverage there, and cut them out of the page impressions and ad money. Consumers have all the power because you can buy different games. I won't be buying any Bioware games after they fucked Mass Effect 3 up so badly, but it doesn't matter because I can buy other games.

It isn't impossible to tell a dev you won't cover their shitty game, it's called having integrity and not jumping off a bridge because all the other kids have just done it. Shift to providing better coverage and more in depth coverage of other games, go for a narrower focus and partner with devs that aren't assholes, maybe pick up a few extra stories on Indy games. Networks have all the power to shift focus away from one company and onto another or even to shift focus from a wide range of products to a smaller range. Bigger isn't always better and if getting bigger costs your journalistic integrity it isn't worth it.

[Vendetta]

[
Bilateral rope asked for proof of my allegations. I supplied proof. The anti gamer gate also doxxed a twelve year old boy. I posted an article containing an interview with a female gamer hate member and an anti gamegater (the female came across as more reasonable)

Also the point was that Ben kuchera and his pattern work (which isn't preordering) implied he had compromised interests. Kuchera helped quinn raise money for a game that he reviewed. He was invested and the articles were stating that kind of connection is unethical. It is relevant.

Except this still has nothing to do with Zoe Quinn

Do you understand that? Is it sinking in? She did not control the actions of those journalists when they decided to contribute to her crowdfunding campaign, therefore any ethical concerns are about them and them alone. Bringing them up is irrelevant in a discussion about Zoe Quinn (which you started by posting untrue allegations about her) except as a tactic to tar her by association.

But this kind of tactic is common for people attacking her, when it turned out that she didn't actually do any of the things she was accused of clutch at straws but somehow insinuate that she was the machiavellian manipulator behind it all so she's totally a bad person really.

2.) actually she did know graydon beyond being quoted on March 31

Holy shit people know each other shut down the internet everything is biased! The videogame journalism industry is remarkably small, and indie developers are far more likely to know journalists because they are also their own publicists. This does not actually say anything at all about ethics in videogame journalism.

And the girlfriend of one of the guys she slept with directly called her out on it.
https://images.encyclopediadramatica.se ... e_Ring.png

What relevance does this have? How does it help your case that Zoe Quinn is a cause of ethical problems in the videogame industry. Her personal life is not relevant no matter how much you keep trying to drag it back to being so.

3.) Also I linked those articles because they criticized sarkeesian without being sexist and even made the case that by painting herself as a representative of all feminism she hurts other more moderate feminist groups. The anti gamer gate crowd also harassed their opponents; one guy who says quinn raped him got attacked by Quinn's followers

So, a style over substance fallacy (whether Anita presents herself as "representative of all feminists" or not is irrelevant to the content of her arguments, which is never addressed), and yet another tu quoque.

Try harder.

Also, present your own arguments if you want to, but do not engage in further gish galloping, posting a mess of links as if they constitute an argument and presumably feeling like you scored a point when they are not all refuted in detail is dishonest fuckery.

[Terralthra]

Also the point was that Ben kuchera and his pattern work (which isn't preordering) implied he had compromised interests. Kuchera helped quinn raise money for a game that he reviewed. He was invested and the articles were stating that kind of connection is unethical. It is relevant.

You will, of course, point to this review he purportedly wrote...oh wait, he didn't actually write any sort of review of the game. He wrote an article about her harassment that included a link to the game. Where's the ethics violation again? He supported an indie developer and then used his soap box to condemn people harassing said indie developer. How unethical!</sarcasm>

2.) actually she did know graydon beyond being quoted on March 31, meaning the dude lied his ass off.

https://forum.encyclopediadramatica.se/ ... png.46673/

And the girlfriend of one of the guys she slept with directly called her out on it.
https://images.encyclopediadramatica.se ... e_Ring.png

https://forum.encyclopediadramatica.se/ ... png.46673/

Here, Darth Yan demonstrates that they are incapable of distinguishing between two people that know each other and two people that are in a relationship. I mean, for fuck's sake, really? How dishonest can you get?

3.) Also I linked those articles because they criticized sarkeesian without being sexist and even made the case that by painting herself as a representative of all feminism she hurts other more moderate feminist groups.

Please, point to Anita Sarkeesian asserting that she is representative of all feminism.

[Vendetta]

And people aren't visiting your site for the 'review' you've posted? You're still creating content, it's just that said content isn't really a review because you weren't sent a review copy. Plus, you'll have a review up after the game comes up where you'll now be free to tell it like it is. So in the near term people will be mad, but once it becomes clear that your reviews aren't biased garbage you can start to grow a new user base.

You're creating content, but it's not content that's going to draw people to your site. And after the game comes out (probably several days to a week after given the lead time on reviews) your review is no longer relevant, people won't read it and you won't get page impressions, and that means you don't get paid.

It's a card you get to play a very limited number of times before your readership tanks and you get fired (because these sites are companies which have people like shareholders and parent companies to answer to).

Then advertise for gaming merchandise and accessories instead, webcomics are also on the same revenue model and they don't just advertise other webcomics. Yes that might be slightly less lucrative overall in the near term, but long term they might find an even better sponsor. If they don't they will always be at the mercy of the devs anyway.

Webcomics?. Find me a webcomic with 400 employees like IGN and then we'll talk. Webcomics are not even nearly the same size enterprise as a major videogame review site. They aren't even slightly comparable.

It isn't impossible to tell a dev you won't cover their shitty game, it's called having integrity and not jumping off a bridge because all the other kids have just done it. Shift to providing better coverage and more in depth coverage of other games, go for a narrower focus and partner with devs that aren't assholes, maybe pick up a few extra stories on Indy games. Networks have all the power to shift focus away from one company and onto another or even to shift focus from a wide range of products to a smaller range. Bigger isn't always better and if getting bigger costs your journalistic integrity it isn't worth it.

It's not impossible, but it's something you get to do a very limited number of times before devs you haven't pissed off yet won't talk to you because you're "difficult", which basically demotes you to hobbyist blog not professional coverage because you have to do all your coverage either second hand because you don't get previews or press access or after release when everyone who wanted to read a review has already read someone else's and you're shit out of luck.

This is the reason that review embargoes exist, by the way. It's so that review sites don't engage in a race to the bottom to shout "FIRST!" on the internet without having the time to actually play the game. Because getting your review out there first is massively significant to the number of eyeballs it's going to get and hence the number of impressions and clickthroughs that the ads running on it will get.

[bilateralrope]

Here is a long blog post titled Ten Short Rants About #GamerGate by someone calling out the stupidity from both sides of the GamersGate issue.
I'm only quoting the part that highlights why I find it so easy to believe that GamersGate is about misogyny, not ethics:

2. Timing Matters. So Does Your Chosen Vehicle.

At least some advocates of #GamerGate tell us that it's about ethics in game journalism. I'm willing to accept that some people saying that are sincere, and don't associate themselves with the hashtag because they like demeaning women.

But here's the thing: people will draw conclusions about your motives based on your timing and your chosen vehicle.

Video game journalism has been ethically troubled for decades. There was controversy in the 1980s, when I was reading Computer Gaming World on paper like a caveman, over game magazines reviewing the same games that they were advertising. Suspicion that dollars drive game reviews have persisted, and with good reason.

So if you choose this particular historical moment to become Seriously Concerned About Journalistic Ethics, and your timing just happens to coincide with a related pushback against women's activism in the gaming community, and just happens to be triggered by a campaign against a particular controversial woman, and just happens to be congruent with 4chan's declared campaign against "SJWs," people are going to draw conclusions about you. This is especially true if your sudden fury about ethics in journalism appears to focus on the coverage of tiny indie games instead of big-money games, which is just odd. It also doesn't help when your lists of demands for ethics reforms sound suspiciously like "apologize for hurting my feelings and only report on the things I want."

It's reasonable for people to draw conclusions from timing. If, immediately after the shooting of Michael Brown, I started a vigorous campaign calling on society to protect convenience-store clerks from assault, people would reasonably suspect that I had a political agenda related to the shooting, not a sincere concern for the welfare of convenience store clerks.

Moreover, if you chose the label #GamerGate as your vehicle, people are going to draw conclusions. If I put a Westboro Baptist Church bumper sticker on my car, people will draw conclusions no matter how carefully I explain that their children's choir program is awesome. That's because the Westboro Baptist Church label is very specific. It's not something broad like "Baptist" or "Agnostic" that you'd expect to encompass a wide range of views. #GamerGate is very specific too. The label #GamerGate has its origins in a freakout over a woman in particular, and gender issues in general. If you decide to adopt it, people are going to wonder if you mean to associate yourself with its origins, in a way they wouldn't if you chose a broader label.

When people complain that they are being associated with misogyny and threats for waving the #GamerGate banner, I feel (on a different scale) about the way I do when people complain that they are being misjudged for flying the Confederate battle flag. Sure, maybe it means Southern pride and heritage to some of them. But I'm not sympathetic when many see it another way based on its history. If you fly the Confederate battle flag, people may reasonably think you intend to send a message that contradicts your spoken claims of harmony and equality.

[Vendetta]

It's also worth noting that Statistically, GamerGate is about harrassing Zoe Quinn, Brianna Wu, and Anita Sarkeesian. More tweets about them specifically and more negative tweets.

And also who is involved, and what they get up to.

[Darth Yan]

and what about the fact that at least one case where she did sleep with someone in a relationship (i linked the girlfriend calling quinn out on it). There seems to be a situation where if someone expresses dubiousness at what Sarkeesian says they are instantly accused of sexism. Other feminists have criticized her and zoe quinn.

I'll admit that the ten list gives compelling arguments. My main point is that gamer gate does have elements that are concerned about ethics mixed in with the bullshit. The movement was very poorly organized and more could have been done to get rid of the sexists. However, there was nepotism amongst the gaming community.

[Terralthra]

Darth Yan - did Zoe Quinn cheat on you?

Was someone Zoe Quinn may or may not have slept with cheating on you?

Then how is it your fucking business?

[Jub]

You're creating content, but it's not content that's going to draw people to your site. And after the game comes out (probably several days to a week after given the lead time on reviews) your review is no longer relevant, people won't read it and you won't get page impressions, and that means you don't get paid.

It's a card you get to play a very limited number of times before your readership tanks and you get fired (because these sites are companies which have people like shareholders and parent companies to answer to).

Yet these sites aren't playing it at all and they're getting walked all over. Publishers aren't going to change because this system of lying to people and putting out iterative bloatware is working for them and people are people, look at the entire media industry and you'll see people getting entertained by dick and fart jokes while better programming gets cut for costing too much for the viewers they get. So if you want to see integrity you have to inconvenience both the consumer and the publisher to some extent.

Is it a risk? Sure, but if the issue is ethics then you may have to hurt the bottom line to get them because the people on both ends of you don't care one bit about ethics until it hurts them.

Webcomics?. Find me a webcomic with 400 employees like IGN and then we'll talk. Webcomics are not even nearly the same size enterprise as a major videogame review site. They aren't even slightly comparable.

The point is you can find other sponsors and sell different ads. Plus IGN and their rancid incestuous ilk have blown goats for well over a decade and I wouldn't shed a tear if they went the way the dodo.

It's not impossible, but it's something you get to do a very limited number of times before devs you haven't pissed off yet won't talk to you because you're "difficult", which basically demotes you to hobbyist blog not professional coverage because you have to do all your coverage either second hand because you don't get previews or press access or after release when everyone who wanted to read a review has already read someone else's and you're shit out of luck.

This is the reason that review embargoes exist, by the way. It's so that review sites don't engage in a race to the bottom to shout "FIRST!" on the internet without having the time to actually play the game. Because getting your review out there first is massively significant to the number of eyeballs it's going to get and hence the number of impressions and clickthroughs that the ads running on it will get.

Yet nobody does this even once and we all pay for it. If it can be done then it needs to be done.

[AniThyng]

On a tangent regarding review scores, what then is the "#Gamergate" position on Destiny's mediocre reception from the gaming press? I glanced over comments back when it was released and was amused by people going on about how it totally deserved a 9, "how dare they!".

[Jub]

On a tangent regarding review scores, what then is the "#Gamergate" position on Destiny's mediocre reception from the gaming press? I glanced over comments back when it was released and was amused by people going on about how it totally deserved a 9, "how dare they!".

I personally hate review scores just because it gives fanboys an easy target and doesn't provide the user with anything reading/watching the review wouldn't. Plus, you should have a sort of relationship with the reviewer to the point where you know what game styles and genres that reviewer likes. They might rate a game a 9 and you may still dislike it because it's a style you dislike and they enjoy. This is where conglomerates fail, on a site like IGN they have so many reviewers you never get a feel for what they like aside from seeing that they nearly always give AAA titles great scores.

[Darth Yan]

Darth Yan - did Zoe Quinn cheat on you?

Was someone Zoe Quinn may or may not have slept with cheating on you?

Then how is it your fucking business?

If she slept with someone to get something out of it (like influence or a better score) than yes it totally is relevant. She slept with at least one person, which means the five guys claim might have partial truth. At the very least sleeping with a person she KNOWS is in a relationship is a scummy thing to do.

[AniThyng]

On a tangent regarding review scores, what then is the "#Gamergate" position on Destiny's mediocre reception from the gaming press? I glanced over comments back when it was released and was amused by people going on about how it totally deserved a 9, "how dare they!".

I personally hate review scores just because it gives fanboys an easy target and doesn't provide the user with anything reading/watching the review wouldn't. Plus, you should have a sort of relationship with the reviewer to the point where you know what game styles and genres that reviewer likes. They might rate a game a 9 and you may still dislike it because it's a style you dislike and they enjoy. This is where conglomerates fail, on a site like IGN they have so many reviewers you never get a feel for what they like aside from seeing that they nearly always give AAA titles great scores.

IGN gave destiny 7.8, which I think would effectively correspond to a failure for an AAA title...

[TheFeniX]

Vendetta stole my post. Normally, I'd complain, but it saved me a lot of typing.

Yet these sites aren't playing it at all and they're getting walked all over. Publishers aren't going to change because this system of lying to people and putting out iterative bloatware is working for them and people are people, look at the entire media industry and you'll see people getting entertained by dick and fart jokes while better programming gets cut for costing too much for the viewers they get. So if you want to see integrity you have to inconvenience both the consumer and the publisher to some extent.

So, if the same thing that works for Publishers works for the reviewers: what incentive does either have to change? Also, I'll never understand people who think avoiding dick and fart jokes makes them better or something: funny is funny. Spaceballs ranks as one of my favorite movies as well as Saint's Row delivering the laughs and IDGAF what anyone thinks of that. This whole "super-serious writing to take gaming seriously" shit needs to die. It's why GTA is nothing but an insomnia cure ever since IV.

Yet nobody does this even once and we all pay for it. If it can be done then it needs to be done.

This would take a dedicated move by a majority of review sights avoiding only bashing safe targets and forgoing making money hand-over fist in the process. And just like any other industry: money left on the table will be picked up by someone else. To dump this responsibility on them alone doesn't pan. If anything, the consumer has to realize the whole process is bullshit (which I had hopes Brink and Alien: CM might take a crack at it: I was way off) or government is going to have to step in and say "you can't fucking lie to people like this." For example, Congress had to step in because American auto-manufacturers were flat-out lieing about real world gas mileage on vehicles. Last I heard, they were finding new ways to cheat the system, so you have to keep kicking their ass.

But American's don't bother with consumer protection laws for entertainment (unless it's wasting time on if some baseball player is doping). Unlike the UK, which forces distributors like Steam to do returns. A system like this in America, where I could get all my $60 back for the shitty shitty shitty broken Brink game would clean this hell-hole up real fast. And that's really the point: there is WAY to much fucking money to be made by pushing pre-orders, bribing reviewers to give solid enough scores, and leave any backlash until AFTER you've shoveled all your money into the bank.

[Terralthra]

Darth Yan - did Zoe Quinn cheat on you?

Was someone Zoe Quinn may or may not have slept with cheating on you?

Then how is it your fucking business?

If she slept with someone to get something out of it (like influence or a better score) than yes it totally is relevant.

A claim you keep resorting to, but one you have yet to offer any evidence for that isn't transparent bullshit and/or debunked months ago.

She slept with at least one person, which means the five guys claim might have partial truth. At the very least sleeping with a person she KNOWS is in a relationship is a scummy thing to do.

Indeed, if she'd cheated on me, or seduced a partner of mine, I'd be very unhappy. Since she didn't, it has fuck and shit to do with my life, and certainly has absolutely nothing to do with "ethics in video game journalism".

[Jub]

So, if the same thing that works for Publishers works for the reviewers: what incentive does either have to change? Also, I'll never understand people who think avoiding dick and fart jokes makes them better or something: funny is funny. Spaceballs ranks as one of my favorite movies as well as Saint's Row delivering the laughs and IDGAF what anyone thinks of that. This whole "super-serious writing to take gaming seriously" shit needs to die. It's why GTA is nothing but an insomnia cure ever since IV.

I used lowbrow humor as an example, 16 and preggers isn't funny nor is half the reality show shit people spend hours drooling over. The average joe has poor taste in media and is letting companies shovel samey shit at them at the expense of better written programming and quality educational documentaries. I can recall when TLC was the surgury theater channel and discover was nothing but science related programming and you can't tell me those channels are improved with their current line ups.

This would take a dedicated move by a majority of review sights avoiding only bashing safe targets and forgoing making money hand-over fist in the process. And just like any other industry: money left on the table will be picked up by someone else. To dump this responsibility on them alone doesn't pan. If anything, the consumer has to realize the whole process is bullshit (which I had hopes Brink and Alien: CM might take a crack at it: I was way off) or government is going to have to step in and say "you can't fucking lie to people like this." For example, Congress had to step in because American auto-manufacturers were flat-out lieing about real world gas mileage on vehicles. Last I heard, they were finding new ways to cheat the system, so you have to keep kicking their ass.

But American's don't bother with consumer protection laws for entertainment (unless it's wasting time on if some baseball player is doping). Unlike the UK, which forces distributors like Steam to do returns. A system like this in America, where I could get all my $60 back for the shitty shitty shitty broken Brink game would clean this hell-hole up real fast. And that's really the point: there is WAY to much fucking money to be made by pushing pre-orders, bribing reviewers to give solid enough scores, and leave any backlash until AFTER you've shoveled all your money into the bank.

Yeah, but as I said neither the Devs nor the consumers care and the consumer won't care unless the reviewers bring it to their attention. It's not solely an issue of bad reviewers, but they have the best position to change things if they're willing to take a short term risk.

[TheFeniX]

I used lowbrow humor as an example, 16 and preggers isn't funny nor is half the reality show shit people spend hours drooling over. The average joe has poor taste in media and is letting companies shovel samey shit at them at the expense of better written programming and quality educational documentaries. I can recall when TLC was the surgury theater channel and discover was nothing but science related programming and you can't tell me those channels are improved with their current line ups.

Here's the point you're missing: it sells like a motherfucker!

Welcome to mainstream gaming.

Yeah, but as I said neither the Devs nor the consumers care and the consumer won't care unless the reviewers bring it to their attention. It's not solely an issue of bad reviewers, but they have the best position to change things if they're willing to take a short term risk.

No. The market has to get so completely innudated with shit that even the most casual of gamer realizes that it's not worth the time and money and the market craters. The big dogs cash their chips in and go off to fuck some other industry up and people who want to make video games are the only ones left. Honestly, gaming is way to big for that to happen again. So... we're pretty much just like television, music, Hollywood, and just about everything else that's popular: mountains of shit with gems sprinkled here and there.

The good news is I got most all of my competitive and single-player gaming out of my system over the last 20 years, so (since almost anything with good people is fun) co-op gaming should be enough to get me by. I just had a great game of Starcraft 2 VS AI with Kyle. I informed him that I was going to forge fast-expand and pump Void Rays, then shift into carriers. He responded with "I have no idea what any of that MEANS!" and had his entire army wiped out by Seeker Missile spam.

[Guardsman Bass]

Indeed, if she'd cheated on me, or seduced a partner of mine, I'd be very unhappy. Since she didn't, it has fuck and shit to do with my life, and certainly has absolutely nothing to do with "ethics in video game journalism".

It's kind of funny watching Dumb Yan's shifting rationalizations for bringing up allegations that Zoe Quinn may have cheated on a boyfriend, when GamerGate ostensibly has nothing to do with her private sexual liasons and more to do with "corruption in game journalism" (worth noting, as has been pointed out many times, that even if Zoe Quinn did try to sleep with a guy to get a review*, that means he's the problem with corruption, not her). It mirrors #GamerGate in general's shifting rationalizations for slut-shaming her and attacking her with misogynistic slurs over the past two months.

* which of course she didn't.

[Darth Yan]

Well if she did sleep for reviews it shows she was willing to seduce people to get ahead.

I'll admit I'm not certain whether or not she slept with other men for reviews anymore so I'll concede that point. However, she still engaged in other forms of unethical behavior (the "young capitalists", exploiting robin william's death to gain support for her game, lying about wizardchan raiding her, claiming to be doxxed (the info was false, seeing as she lives in massachusetts but the info led to hawaii). Her followers have still also been very abusive themselves and have no claim to the moral high ground.

[Terralthra]

Oh, surprise, more nonsensical and debunked bullshit accusations. Everything you've said before has been shown to be bullshit. Don't you have even an ounce of self-reflection?

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

@Darth Yan: Whether Zoe Quinn is a good person or not is completely irrelevant as a justification for a witch hunt. Even if someone's personal conduct is atrocious, who the fuck are you to wag the fickle finger of shame from afar as if you've never stunk up a bathroom before? Zoe Quinn's (or Bill Clinton's, or anyone else's) sex life is nobody else's business, and I'm tired of people thinking they have the right to feed the shame machine based on rumors about people they don't know engaged in relationships they know nothing about. Maybe Zoe Quinn stole someone's boyfriend, maybe she didn't. Maybe said boyfriend was being abused by a sadist who branded her initials onto his scrotum and shoved pool cues up his ass. Maybe you and all the other busybodies should just shut the fuck up about Zoe Quinn and live your life.