Slashdot Mirror
Assassin's Creed: Unity Launch Debacle Pulls Spotlight Onto Game Review Embargos
RogueyWon (735973) writes "The latest entry in the long-running Assassin's Creed game series, Assassin's Creed: Unity released this week. Those looking for pre-release reviews on whether to make a purchase were out of luck; the publisher, Ubisoft, had provided gaming sites with advance copies, but only on condition that their reviews be withheld until 17 hours after the game released in North America. Following the game's release, many players have reported finding it in a highly buggy state, with severe performance issues affecting all three release platforms (PC, Playstation 4 and Xbox One). Ubisoft has been forced onto the defensive, taking the unprecedented step of launching a live-blog covering their efforts at debugging the game, but the debacle has already had a large impact on the company's share value and the incident has drawn widespread attention to the increasingly common practice of review embargoes."
Not harassing women or minorities. Any game journalist who signs a review embargo agreement is a part of the problem.
It's one thing to prevent game review sites from playing one-upsmanship over each other by "leaking" early reviews (that are often incomplete and based on beta versions of the game). However, once you can buy the "finished" product, the only reason to have a continuing embargo is that you know the product sucks but you don't want to share that information.
Another strategy: Have game review sites flat out say that an embargo for a certain game is NOT lifting prior to the game going on sale. I know lots of NDAs have Fight Club clauses (you do NOT talk about the NDA).. but a clever game review site could probably get around that without actually saying "The Assassin's Creed Embargo Does Not Lift Until 11PM" or something similar.
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
Does Bennett Haselton agree with this assessment? I can't form an opinion until he weighs in on this. He's a frequent contributor.
It is Ubi-soft wtf do you think is going to happen. Look what they pulled with there pc drm servers, you couldn't play for over a week when they moved there servers.
i read several reviews of both assassins creed games before the launch. I know some sites held them back, but really why? The reviews were mostly in line with others in the series. The only thing I can think is that there was a day one patch.
An indie developer having sex with a journalist.
Why mention a live-blog and not have a link?
I think this is it, correct me if I'm wrong.
http://assassinscreed.ubi.com/...
I’m not really a gamer, but while game review embargoes may be bad, how-about you don’t rush out on launch day to get it.
One of the highest correlated factors to success as an adult is delayed gratification as a kid. How about we all slow down and not have to be first. The game will still be available in a week and you’ll know if it is teh luz or not.
Letter To Iran
People are reporting same type of issues on X1. Reddit has a site going dedicated to issues people are reporting. http://www.reddit.com/r/halo/c...
With the big, nefarious, result of having their free game linked on a blog post list of free indie games that the author had heard of.
Sooooooooooooooooooo conflicty.
They released a half-finished game and KNEW it was half-finished. They'd hoped to ride on the sales and issue a patch later. They accomplished this with the review embargo, and they KNEW that was the purpose of the embargo - to allow them to get those initial sales out before the shit hit the fan.
There should be a lawsuit on this fairly soon, I'd imagine.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
You suggest preferential treatment of AAA titles is not a concern of GamerGaters, when they are shouting about it all the time.
Correction: an indie developer having sex with people potentially involved with the review of her games while lying to keep the whole ordeal a secret from people she knows (including her boyfriend), among a whole host of other things that are kind of standard with bat-shit-crazy women. Yes, the whole thing was/is blown way out of proportion, but she is simply not a very empathetic victim to rally around. She's like the crazy ex that we've all had at least once in our lives.
For that matter, quit buying them the first month or two. Let someone else debug them and when the game is worth actually playing, get it. Heck by then 1/2 the time the game has dropped in price 10-25% anyway.
I have given up on buying games before the first major patch, for that matter the first few if I am really interested and the reviews are that bad.
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
If that's true, where is the outrage amongst the GamerGate crowd? The BBC article was last updated nearly 6 hours ago so there would be plenty of time for it to be the talk of the Gamer Gate crowd and yet none of them seem to even care. As the person above me points out if you watch Twitter for #GamerGate it's not even mentioned once.
That if a company doesn't want publishers discussing how good its game is before release (i.e. free advertising), it's probably not very good.
Yes, a journalist who never reviewed any of her games and only mentioned here a couple of times in some articles that weren't game reviews.
Correction: an indie developer having sex with people potentially involved with the review of her games
But the person never reviewed her games. So why is this even still being brought up?
Yet the very same folks that got burned here will line up, again, for the next release.
Folks, until these publishers are punished ( by depriving them of your cash ), they won't change. It's up to each of you to STOP GIVING THEM MONEY.
Of course that will never happen. If gamers actually *learned* EA would have been out of business years ago.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
For once we have an article that has nothing to do with that idiotic subject and not only do you have to bring it up, but you also create a massive straw-man while doing so. Are you just trying to start a flame war or something?
Know as in know if there are too many new game problems, like the activation problems, crashes, DRM issues and whatever.
I personally wait until the game has been on the market for a while until buying them, that way I have a better understanding of what I am buying. (and often they also have come down in price as a bonus)
You can always tell when a movie is going to be - uh, "good" - when they refuse to show it to reviewers prior to it launching in theaters. Likewise, when a game has reviews coming out before it launches, you usually know it's going to be a good game.
Of course, the big problem with games is that for some crazy reason publishers rely on "preorders" to establish launch day sales. You get things like 10% off if you "preorder" the game instead of waiting for launch day, or you get special DLC that's only available if you preorder. I don't understand why publishers are so interested in preorders. But it's yet another way of trying to get people to purchase a product before they can review it.
Now if you don't mind, I need to stop my rant about preorders so I can go back another video game Kickstarter.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
The end result could have been very different.
What end result? She got a tiny bit of publicity along with a lot of other indie devs. Oh the humanity!
Do you normally assume that a potential conflict of interest (in anything) will end up being a non-issue, or do you acknowledge that it raises some red flags and more often than not leads to abuses?
Where was the conflict of interest? The guy mentioned her in a couple of articles before they even had a relationship.
http://kotaku.com/in-recent-da...
On March 31, Nathan published the only Kotaku article he's written involving Zoe Quinn. It was about Game Jam, a failed reality show that Zoe and other developers were upset about being on. At the time, Nathan and Zoe were professional acquaintances. He quoted blog posts written by Zoe and others involved in the show. Shortly after that, in early April, Nathan and Zoe began a romantic relationship. He has not written about her since. Nathan never reviewed Zoe Quinn's game Depression Quest, let alone gave it a favorable review.
Emphasis added.
The fact that you GamerGaters can't even stop lying about the situation with Quinn is why no one believes that your cause is about anything more than harassing women.
And I 100% agree. This kind of game review culture is toxic.
But any time someone in GG begins naming the names of the indie game developer and the feminist critic, this argument falls down. Either it's about ethics in journalism, or it's about two women who did stuff you don't like. Neither of the women are journalists.
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
Any game journalist who signs a review embargo agreement is a part of the problem.
So all of them? You do realize that embargos are an industry wide practice. They also serve a pretty useful function when used normally and appropriately. Also please point out who has ever in gamergate talked about review embargo policy.
Actually someone else brought it up first.
http://games.slashdot.org/comm...
They even got modded "Interesting".
Really if there hadn't of been an embargo everyone who got to review it would have had to guarantee great reviews.
You want to see how bad this is go to any site that ranks games and see how many complete turds have great rankings.
You can't use #GamerGate anymore, if you do you will just be accused of being a misogynous harasser.
The only people who are still using it are those that will be called that anyway.
Shoddy game journalism won.
Of course not. But a few people getting death threats in an industry hardly means the industry is messed up. It just means those people were targeted for a variety of reason. Hell, John Smedly had his plane diverted because someone called in a bomb threat, but people didn't raise pitchforks over that. They just took the 'blame the victim' mentality and joked about how he had it coming after killing Galaxies or whatever, which is kind of ironic considering they accuse others of doing just that to women.
You mean the gamergate guys who found the brazillian "journalist" who was attacking and doxxing anita? But she didn't want to do anything about it. Or people like geordie tait(who's anti-gg) attacking gamergate by calling for a new holocaust
Like the GG-harassment patrol which goes after anyone on both sides? Yep, nothing at all. Then again, I could ask where is the anti-side denouncing people like Briana Wu, Lee Alexander, or Mattie Brice.
Om, nomnomnom...
If you haven't seen the gamergater folks gripe about ACUnity then you aren't looking at twitter, that and 8chan are where they live
About 50% of the tweets are from GamerGate people, and the rest are from people who haven't figured out how to search twitter.
https://twitter.com/search?q=%23gamergate%20unity&src=typd
My personal favorite :
You can't use #GamerGate anymore, if you do you will just be accused of being a misogynous harasser.
Great. So where is the GamerGater outrage over this anywhere else?
The only people who are still using it are those that will be called that anyway.
No True Scotsman at its finest.
Shoddy game journalism won.
Probably because you guys were too busy harassing people who did nothing wrong.
I'm pretty sure i kan read was talking about any GamerGaters attacking the practice of game embargoes.
Oh you mean the article where Jimmy Wales had to step in and openly state that the article in question had no neutrality. Where he called out several senior editors for engaging in a edit war, skewing it out of neutrality. Where he had to step in to the Gamejournopros article, openly stating that there "was collusion, and at best it could be called denied not debunked." That same article, where he's now called on the pro-GG side to write their own article, because groups like project feminism and editors with no desire for objectivity have tainted the entire thing.
Yep, we sure do like facts.
Om, nomnomnom...
OK, try this. Go discuss these AAA review embargos on a bunch of game news websites' forums or article comments and see if the discussion is censored on almost EVERY one of them.
Now try to discuss Nathan Grayson or Patricia Hernandez and see how much censorship and pure venom you encounter, by contrast.
Also notice that this AAA corruption story was somehow not subject to a week-long, industry-wide news blackout in hopes it would go away. And that the people reporting on it aren't being called harassers or mysogynists or terrorists in an attempt to intimidate them and distract from the criticism.
It is the behavior of the press that is the difference. The popularity of Gamergate is the response to the gaming press's cover up of journalistic corruption and smear campaign against gamers. None the media's lies can ever change that fact.
P.S. Similar AAA review "agreements" (for youtubers, etc.) were majorly publicized by Totalbiscuit (a major pro-Gamergate guy) long before the journalists. You're severely misinformed or underinformed, or both.
If you haven't seen the gamergater folks gripe about ACUnity then you aren't looking at twitter, that and 8chan are where they live
I did look at Twitter. I scrolled about 36 hours of feeds and didn't see a single mention of Ubisoft or this game. Even your own search only shows like a couple of GamerGaters complaining where as most of the tweets in that search that are actually about the game are from people asking why no GamerGaters are complaining about the review embargo. Sorry, but I'm not very impressed by your attempt at showing me up.
Likewise, I wont buy any game until I see a review. especially now that games have jumped from $40 to $60+ not counting the added cost of DLC's.
Most single player games i wait till they have been out 6 months or so and then Steam has a sale with the whole game and all DLC's for 1/2 or less the cost of the base game when it originally came out.
Any game that doesnt have a review or is not at least 7.5/10 doesnt get a lick of my money...
1) They weren't invented crimes. They did happen, she openly admitted to banging 5 guys while in a relationship. Using her own definition of rape, she raped her current partner that she was in a relationship with.
2) No, getting ads pulled because they lied about the movement in the first place. This then further followed by Nick Denton supporting one of his writers stating to "bring back bullying, that nerds should be bullied" and so on.
3) So, critique is harassment? By the way, how does one harass someone when they refuse to debate something.
4) No one in GG has "pushed or published" a gamers bill of rights. That was the anti-GG sides attempt. However, dozens of sites and youtubers have changed their ethics and disclosure policies since GG has started. Including Escapist+8 other affiliate sites, IGN is working on an updated ethics policy, and so on. Youtubers like Total biscuit have also been more open, you might remember him--he's the one who broke the story on the Shadows of Mordor stuff.
5) No one is defending #1 or #3. Though they correct people like you who are getting their information from very specific sources. But it sure makes for a tasty story doesn't it.
Om, nomnomnom...
It was outraged two days ago.
Here:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Kotaku...
Kudos to IGN for criticizing Assassins Creed despite having advertisement for it on their site
Is the gaming media trying to hide behind the newest Assassin's Creed?
Assassin's Creed Unity press Embargo was, as expected, hiding significant performance issues on all platforms
Ubisoft make the new Assassin's creed embargo almost a full day after release (twitter.com)
Assassin's Creed Unity review copies featured no microtransactions in them whatsoever like the real game does for the public.
"I've told Ubi & will inform other PR: we won't accept a post-release embargo tied to a review copy again" -Stephen Totilo on AC:Unity
Why Assassins Creed: Unity matters to #GamerGate
On Twitter:
https://twitter.com/search?q=u...
Three primary places on internet for pro gamergate info: /gg/ on 8chan /r/kotakuinaction on reddit.
1. #gamergate
2.
3.
A lot of this was discussed two days ago.
It's not Gamergate responsibility to go after Ubisoft, it's the game press's. And there are plenty of pro-GG that responded favorably to Stephen Totilo pushback against the embargo.
1) They weren't invented crimes. They did happen, she openly admitted to banging 5 guys while in a relationship. Using her own definition of rape, she raped her current partner that she was in a relationship with.
Having consensual sex with someone is a crime? On what planet? Oh and [citation needed] for claim about what she claims is rape.
Ooo, ooo, I know, the link in your comment labeled Parent.
Gamers have been attacking this practice for goddamn ages, it just hasn't been called "GamerGate" until recently. And I can already tell from your other posts that no matter how much evidence gets presented you won't be swayed, so I'll just leave it at that. (Out of curiosity, what gaming website do you work for?)
Any major title is gonna see two things:
1. Patches.
2. Price drops.
So why not just wait for both?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Nvidia plays the game every bit as dirty as Intel. In this case, Nvidia has created something called 'GAMEWORKS'- a proprietary closed-source library of routines specifically designed to collapse the performance of games on AMD hardware (or older Nvidia hardware). Nvidia pays shills to counter information like this in forums like this one, so let me give you one example.
The best current ANTI-ALIASING is a FREE, OPEN-SOURCE collection of methods from Crytek (the people behind Crysis and the original Far Cry). Their methods run with excellent performance on older hardware, and slightly favour AMD (because AMD hardware is always more shader-powerful than Nvidia at a given class). Not good for Nvidia. So Nvidia 'invented' TXAA- an horrifically bad AA method both in appearance and 'hit' on performance- but a method that runs far better on new Nvidia hardware than it does on new AMD hardware.
Nvidia actually PAYS developers like Ubisoft to NOT include the best, SMAA methods from Crytek (remember, they are free for any publisher to use). Instead, Nvidia only allows FXAA (also Nvidia created, but lightweight on all hardware, at the cost of not being so good), MSAA (the old fashioned hardware anti-aliasing that comes with horrible restrictions), and TXAA (hated even by Nvidia fanboys because of its impact on performance). EVERYONE is asking where SMAA T2X is on Unity- but as I said, Nvidia paid Ubisoft to exclude it.
TXAA is universally loathed (even HardOCP- the elitist PC gaming site that insists on benchmarking games with every possible setting set to max, regradless of the trade-off- stated that TXAA was such an atrocity, they'd always use SMAA in preference), but for Nvidia it is the perfect model for how they seek to ruin the gaming experience of everyone, in order to synthetically make Nvidia GPUs seem 'better'.
GAMEWORKS increases the number of TXAA like performance destroyers in a modern engine (Xbox One, PS4 or PC) exponentially. Ultra slow GPU libraries to handle trivial things like particles, AI pathfinding, occlusion calculations and the like. Remember, gaming PCs and new consoles are CPU rich- with CPU performance going begging across the commonplace 4-7 cores. No serious PC gamer runs less than a 4-core i5. The consoles have 8-cores a-piece.
Nvidia literally doesn't care if bouncing ten simple particles on your screen uses 30% of your GPU performance, so long as the same effect on an AMD GPU takes 80%. Nvidia is this dirty.
Disgustingly, Epic have taken a large Nvidia pay-off to make Gameworks the EXCLUSIVE 'enhancement' library of Unreal 4 (the current most successful licensed engine), and the team behind Witcher 3 (the most anticipated open-world fantasy game ever) have agreed to ruin the performance of that game on AMD GPUs (when it is released early next year) in order to gain Nvidia funding.
Remember how a week back, more than a decade after the crime, Intel got a TINY court punishment for paying sites like Anandtech to use bent Intel benchmarks 'proving' that the putrid Intel Netburst x86 CPUs were 'better' than the vastly superior (at the time) AMD CPUs? The owner of Anandtech himself made a point of informing his readers that one core was better than two (when only AMD had gone dual core), that 64-bit was pointless joke (when AMD invented x64, long before Intel licensed the tech from AMD), and that Netburst's intent to reach 10GHz showed that only Intel had the right tech and ideas.
Nvidia no more fears punishment (in the courts or court of public opinion) than does Intel. Nvidia relies on the vicious trolling of its PR teams to hurt its opponents, and to fool the public.
For how Unity looks (far, far from remarkable), it should run at least THREE times faster on given hardware, with the most pointless settings notched down. Or, it could be THREE times better at the current framerates- and truly appear 'next-gen'. Nvidia steals our possible, doable gaming experiences to enrich itself. Just as Intel loves bloated abstracted, buggy junk like .NET on Windows, because it synthetically needs a much more expensive Intel CPU to run well.
Geezus, you're an idiot.
Great argument.
The news that most people reacted too came out two days (48 hours) ago in a Forbes article and subsequent game press articles.
And yet your own link shows that only a couple of gamergaters were even complaining.
So you wasted your time scrolling through 36 hours of tweets, lol.
Yeah, all of 15 seconds. That's practically a lifetime.
Seriously you SJW's really need to learn how to use a search engine properly, honey.
I'm a social justice warrior? In what way exactly?
Nice. The pro journalists get their paycheck, and when people call them out on it they can simply point at the big bad publisher that made them do it. Both are guilty and crooked.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
All the info you need is on the zoe post.
Then again, I'm sure you'll claim it's all fake, even though she never denied any of the things in that post.
One side wants to address issues with the entire gaming industry. Yes that includes corruption, sex, bribes, etc.
The other side wants to scream sexist as loud as possible so no real conversation can happen.
Signing it isn't the problem. Not leaking it anonymously is the problem.
Supposedly corrupt sites like Kotaku and Rock Paper Shotgun have been extremely critical of Ubi's review embargo. RPS in particular has been beating this drum for a long time now, of coarse that didn't stop them from being one of the first sites on GG's blacklist because "SJWs".
We don't need #GamerGate to discuss the problems in the industry, all it ever does is derail to conversation.
This company has a history of releasing draconian DRM and broken games. I wouldn't do business with them, personally. They're not a good company.
Ooo, ooo, another easy one. OK, so a bunch of the results are about this, but others are about Aliens: Colonial Marines and you can find articles defending the practice from even earlier than that. But here, have a bonus link from 2009 of a Slashdotter condemning embargoed reviews.
I mean, most of the complaints #GamerGate has aren't exactly new (have an article from 2006 complaining about corruption in game reviews), what's new this time is the vitriol and viciousness of the counter-attack that the video game journalism industry is waging against their own customers.
"invented crimes".
Perhaps if you actually looked through her twitter and saw the shit she has tweeted at people, especially during The Fine Young Capitalists, you would know what you were actually talking about. Christ, even the person that ran it was doxxed by them, all of that which was posted on twitter BY ZOE herself, then suddenly deleted after someone called her on it. She is covering shit up all the time.
You are familiar with basically nothing from that small laughable list.
Anita didn't criticize SHIT. She cherry-picked out the ass.
Every single issue she came up with has been beaten to death by others so many times it isn't even funny now.
NONE of her arguments have any logical foundations, they are all made up.
She got all that money to say a blatantly obvious thing, "derrr females are sexy in video games".
NOOOoo, really, just like how guys are totally immune to that.
I could easily go on. There are FAR more overly-sexual masculine characters than there are females.
There are PLENTY of regular females in games that aren't overly sexual, are main characters, are strong, fit, unfit and weak.
Literally no argument. At all.
Gawker have played a HUGE part in all of this as well, since they are the ones pushing it so hard, especially through the journalists circlejerk mailing list that was exposed. (and even got several people fired)
Many of their staff have FACTUALLY SUPPORTED Zoe on her Patreon. So much for integrity and neutrality.
Not only that, after some advertisers dropped, they started LOSING THEIR SHIT so hard on their site, their twitters and facebook profiles.
And not even making up coherent arguments, flat-out insulting advertisers for dropping them. Yeah, good luck ever getting those advertisers back, idiots.
Then they resorted to saying all kinds of messed up things about bullying others, people should be killed and so on.
TOTALLY SANE PEOPLE HERE.
Let's not forget that this whole thing exploded back when Anita held a conference at XOXO where a whole host of websites ALL PUBLISHED THE SAME(ish) ATTACK ON GAMERS AT THE SAME TIME(ish).
Totally not a huge collusion in the industry.
The fact that you are supporting these mentally unstable people is awful.
Is it harassment? Sure it is. Of people that are horribly cruel, harassing and manipulative, trying to force their pathetic corrupt agendas down yet another industries throat. Is it sexist? Is it fuck, it is attacking more guys than it is girls. It only started with them because they were the ones that stupidly leaked their OBVIOUS manipulation. In fact, Zoe only ended up happening because she pissed off the wrong guy.
I'd go on, but it is obvious you are already blinded by, hilariously and ironically, damsels in distress in need of help.
They don't need your help. Stop making them out to be weaker than they are. It is actually insulting to them. (for some reason)
They picked their battles. Let them have their equality. If they don't like it, too bad, this is the real world. They can piss off back to their tumblrs to whine about it.
Attacking gamers. Gamers. The people conditioned to want to win. That want to complete their mission, that want to get somewhere, and will LITERALLY SHIT THEMSELVES AND DIE if it means they can play a little longer. (silly MMO players)
They picked the wrong battle.
Having consensual sex with someone is a crime? On what planet? Oh and [citation needed] for claim about what she claims is rape.
Yep, according to her. If you're in a relationship with that person. Here's your citation It's long though. Really though, gamergate as a whole moved beyond this after about 5 days, when people kept digging and found exactly how much cross-collusion was going on. Anyone who's either in the industry, or has watched the industry has known for 20 years that there was "favors for friends" and collusion. This just broke the proverbial camels back.
Om, nomnomnom...
Only the young and / or inexperienced will buy a game on launch day. ( Or even worse, pre-order it )
Us old farts know it's best to wait a few months so they can get launch day Beta III out of the way, all the bugs fixed up in their super-sized patch and the login servers up to speed. Not to mention the reviews to see if the game is even worth all the pre-launch hype. ( Hint: Usually not )
If you wait a few months more, you'll not only get all the above, but you'll also get all the DLC thrown in for free and at half the price. You may also be playing it on a system that is a generation more advanced than what was intended, making the experience even more enjoyable.
Yes, I know you can't play MMORPG games this way as all your friends will have long since given up on it before you even start. My question to you all would be "When was the last time a decent MMORPG came out that was worth playing six months later ? "
I'm pretty sure the only reason AAA titles even still exist is because there is a never ending supply of young and inexperienced gamers out there who aren't yet jaded by the whole process that is launch day insanity.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Kotaku...
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
An actual issue involving ethics in games journalism and development comes up, and most of the comments here are about GamerGate and harassing women when the article isn't about either...
XDInd
Here, this link is actually really good. https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Zoe_Quinn
It's the JOB of the media to hold these companies accountable and to be transparent when they cooperate with these kinds of things. When the media does its job properly, as in this instance, you don't need Gamergate to do anything.
The fault in your reasoning lies in that you're expecting Gamergate to take over the job of these news outlets and to do their work for them. ABSOLUTELY NOT. Gamergate will continue to scrutinize the media for wrongdoing, and point them out when they abandon their responsibilities.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
So don't read the sites and don't give them clicks.
Don't pre-order the games and buy on day one if they're that terrible -- wait for patch 1 or the Steam discount.
If you think you can do better, start your own gaming site with reviews and such, or start your own gaming company.
If you can't, well, beggars can't be choosers, my friend.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
-- Arthur C. Clarke
No, it is not suspicious, you idiot.
UNless one of them is a time traveler? no? STFU
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
....if they don't want you to see reviews before it launches, it's going to suck.
GUARANTEED.
-Styopa
GG is not about misogyny.
Gamergate is about stupidity, the kind where a poster's diatribe claims to completely know the views of the opposition. The kind of stupidity that claims they don't even understand journalism.
GG is about arrogance and stupidity.
You must be new here, "SJW" is the new "liberal". As a straight white conservative male, everyone you hate is a obviously an "SJW", because it's just another synonym for evil, like liberal, progessive, gay or female.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
So what you're saying is, you are unable to make a point about ethics in game journalism without dropping a "SJW" or latently sexist "honey".
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Link to a single gamergate anything attacking this practice.
From this post and others, it's clear that you are horribly misinformed. But you should know that gamers weren't truly angry and forming a widespread movement immediately after Nathan Grayson's and Patricia Hernandez's journalistic corruption was exposed. There was still some good faith that the news sites involved had the shred of integrity needed to take responsibility and clean up their own houses.
Gamergate only exploded after the cover-up, week-long universal blackout, and finally the launch of the (still ongoing) coordinated smear campaign on August 28. None of that appalling gaming press behavior has happened with this embargo story, so there's nothing for Gamergate to point out.
In the unlikely event that almost every gaming site censors discussion of the embargos, enacts a news media blackout (a bit late for that), and then begins slandering anyone who even mentions the embargos as misogynists, harassers, and terrorists, then maybe a Gamergate-type revolt will be needed.
P.S. Similar AAA review "agreements" (for youtubers, etc.) were publicized by Totalbiscuit (a major pro-Gamergate guy) long before the journalists. No, Gamergate doesn't have any particular aversion to exposing indie or AAA corruption.
And I am one of many people who harp on the "Never preorder games!!" thing. So why do people do it? Two reasons:
One is they just get caught up in the hype. They are all excited and wanna have it as soon as possible. Silly, but human nature and it does happen time to time.
The other is that companies try to bribe you. They offer bonuses that you only get if your preorder, or that you have to pay for later. So there may be some day one DLC, but you can have it "free" if you preorder.
It is still, of course, and extremely bad idea to preorder and people should be talked out of it at every opportunity. Wait until it is out and reviewed, then decide if you want it.
So GamerGate is now Occupy, where it's about absolutely everything (even things that have been already an issue for years) and is thus about nothing at all?
Gotcha.
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
This is very easily fixed - don't pre-order games.
Problem solved. Now you can wait two weeks to let the suckers who did pre-order tell you if it's good or not. It doesn't matter what the publisher tries to do to slow down the reviews, since in that case the reviewers can just get a retail copy and review without interference.
The moral here is to not be a sucker by pre-ordering.
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
the draconic DRM schemes they employ
I here that.
I bought Far Cry 3 on Steam, thinking it would be tied into the Steam platform - (achievements etc, something I enjoy, you may disagree).
Instead, It forced me to install Ubi's U-play. Ok, not so bad I thought, I'll just launch U-play instead of Steam when I want to play Far Cry 3.
NOPE. If I launch U-play separate to Steam, it doesn't show me the game in U-play's library. I have to Launch Steam, Click 'Play' on Far Cry 3, which launches U-play, and then (login and) click 'Play' on U-play
It's about being open and transparent with your audience - that simple step is a catch-all for all this kind of crap. So in this case, if the gaming websites announced that they wouldn't be posting the review immediately due to a signed deal with Ubisoft, I think most pro-GamerGaters would be happy with that. How many review sites actually did that?
It's GNU/Linux dammit!
I take it you are not familiar with Andrea Dworkin and new wave feminism. Pretty much any heterosexual sex is rape. Now check your privilege and apologize for being born white heterosexual male, you rapist pig.
I take it you're not familiar with Camille Paglia, or Erica Jong, or Gloria Steinem, or Germaine Greer, or literally any second-wave feminist who isn't a radical feminist. Actually, I don't need to assume that. I know that, otherwise you wouldn't have confused the two. And I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that you're probably even less familiar with third-wave feminism.
Fun fact: Andrea Dworkin is the only radical feminist that most people have ever heard of. That's how marginal the movement was. If I had $1 for every time I've seen Anita Sarkeesian referred to as a "radical feminist", I'd be probably able to afford Bayonetta 2 including the Australia Tax.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
SEGA did something similar with Sonic Boom: Rise of the Lyric for Wii U, except that they just plain didn't send out preview copies at all:
...and they did so for pretty much the same reason:
I've seen just as many videos in the past three days of game-breaking, horrible bugs in Assassin's Creed Unity as I have Sonic Boom: Rise of Lyric.
Both games were hyped a lot by their respective companies, both games had no reviews available before they were released. I'm not trying to say that Ubisoft is somehow off the hook for Unity or diminish how bad the game's quality is, just that their game is not alone in these kind of shenanigans.
This is insightful? How about waiting to see if a game is good before you buy it.
Play Command HQ online
- http://xgamejournalist.wordpre... from September.
- http://nintendo3dsdaily.com/ni... from September.
Here's one of the bugs... http://spherical-sphinx.com/ac...
Nah, I think that's just what melee combat looks like. Games are pretty violent these days.
Buy your next Linux PC at eightvirtues.com
What a waste of a comment section. Both sides of this Gamergate issue can go jag off in a room somewhere together, I don't care to see it.
I wanted to read comments regarding the contractual agreement to delay reviews but instead I read a bunch of idiotic vitriol.
First, not a big deal - any sensible person who has control of their impulses can wait until reviews come out to buy a thing.
Second, grow up and learn to accomplish through polite discussion what you won't accomplish through vulgarity and senseless back and forth finger pointing. Both sides of the Gamergate debate (whatever both sides insists it embodies) are absolutely guilty of this.
On the one hand, that shows off an impressive level of detail, with the eyeballs (not just the very fronts of the eyes) as their own models, for example.
On the other hand, WTF? I mean, I've seen games with graphics glitches like that before, usually when there's a video driver issue, so maybe it's just that... but I would expect they could afford to test on the current swath of video cards and at least the most *common* driver selections...
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
So you're saying you're pro-corruption then? I have to wonder if you read the gamejournopros emails or not, they're just about as good as the journolist stuff--fun fact, same guy who started journolist started gamejournopros and then shit hit the fan there too. What is it about people who think that "hiding in the shadows to make a narrative" is a good idea.
Om, nomnomnom...
So why didnt GamerGate start the last time this happened? Instead GamerGate only started after a false story about a game dev sleeping with a journalist who did not actually review her game. People were perfectly fine to put up with crappy game journlists for decades and it only recently blew up.
So what's wrong with that? Even though the story is FALSE, it's still nothing to worry about because that journalist did not review any games by the author.
Of course, if it was a male game dev who slept with a female journalist, all the guys would be saying "Score!"
It's not suspicious, even if there were a relationship. And there actually was not a relationship it was just sour grapes from an ex boyfriend trying to get revenge.
But then again, so is any gamer who buys a game before reviews are available. It's doesn't exactly take Sherlock Holmes to deduce that a company that doesn't want their product reviewed is probably not competing on quality.
That this is an AAA game and part of a succesful series simply makes things worse, since it means if the company wants to push some anti-consumer move - a new form of DRM, in-game advertisements, whatever - they'll do it here and trust the brand to overcome the backlash to normalize it.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
So why isn't the fight about a few extremist feminists, why is it instead "gamer" gate? Why is every woman who speaks up on this being harrassed? This is nothing more than an anti-feminist backlash. Why would anyone send rape and death threats about Depression Quest? There are some sick sick guys out there and they've being apologized for and criticism being deflected away from them.
Even if all the accusations were true, which they are not, this should still be the smallest of all the small scandals.
So what? Men are allowed to be one sided but heaven forbid if a woman does the same thing? Video games ARE sexist for the most part. You can't deny that. The article just pointed out more of it. The reverse sexism against men is trivial and minor, to the point that it's not even worth talking about. Sexism against women IS a bigger issue.
And again, so what? If there is sexism against men then fight against that AT THE SAME TIME as fighting against sexism against women. Instead it seems like you prefer to deny any such thing as sexism against women unless and until some woman acknowleges sexism against men, which ultimately only serves the purpose of denying the sexism altogether.
Actually I'm pretty sure that SJW's are puritans in disguise at this point. Every time something comes along, the first thing they start screaming about is "sexism" or "muhsoggyknees." Strange that it just keeps happening over and over again, you know like with Matt Taylors shirt(who was made by a women). I'm sure though that you'll also find that the majority of people in gamergate are left-libertarians. And the majority of anti-gg are left-authoritarians.
Om, nomnomnom...
The bogeyman is real though which is why the topic remains alive and keep feeding itself. Anyone who denies seeing chauvinism in gaming either hasn't been gaming very long or is attempting to defend it.
Plus, the incident most likely never even happened, there is only one account from it and it's from someone with an axe to grind. But ya, all those GG people who refuse to believe that an jilted boyfriend would ever lie.
So then, since the customers were not able to see any pre-release reviews before purchasing, will Ubisoft refund their purchase price, or just flip them the middle finger and say, "Sorry suckers. We got your money. You know the industry standard is "No returns. Too bad so sad for you. Please come again."
This space unintentionally left blank.
A spokesman for GamerGate says "since there wasn't a women involved, we have no comment on this issue but as soon as we find a woman to blame you can be sure we'll hunt her down and dox her for our crazier members to deal with".
So if I say A is stupid I have to be for B? False dichotomy much?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If you let others screw you for money, slut is the wrong label for you.
Correctly you'd have to be labeled politician.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Well, what's their choice? They have the same choice the average war reporter has today. Either sell out and get stories or stay honest and be locked out from having anything to report.
I was in journalism for a while. Security journalism is by no means any better. It's the same shit as in all the other areas: The first one has a story. The others have nothing because why should I buy your story tomorrow if I can have the sellout's story today? And the reader doesn't give a shit about who is honest or who reports correctly.
The reader cares about who tells it first.
So if you want to blame someone, blame yourself for rewarding this kind of behaviour, by buying and reading whatever toilet paper spews its shit first.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
In contrast to big studios fucking with journalists?
Personally I have less a problem with a game maker screwing journalists than with one screwing with journalism.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Then you're out of business. If you're an online magazine, your reviews would come at the very least a week too late. If you're printed, at least a month. Nobody gives a shit about your reviews anymore when they finally happen.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Too bad the game is probably at least PG13. I would so love to see some parent sue Ubi for giving their kids nightmares.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
So if I say A is stupid I have to be for B? False dichotomy much?
According to the anti-GG side, yes you have to be--which is the point I was making, though I should have expanded on it a bit more. Try going against their particular view, and you'll be thrown into the dirt for your troubles.
Om, nomnomnom...
Well, in all honesty it would probably not have any sizable impact on pre-ordering, considering that most pre-orders happen months before a game is eventually finished, long before any review could warn you that the game is crap.
And, in all honesty, if people still pre-order UBIsoft games, when game after game of pretty much any franchise they're allowed to butcher was plagued by release problems and riddled with game stopping errors, do you really think anything could have saved them from being the idiots they are?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
So why should I bother reading this shit?
It's not like they have a monopoly on having a "gamer neighborhood watch" on twitter. If they are as horrible as you say (honestly, I never heard of them), dump them, ignore them, open up your own.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Repeat after me: There where no reviews for Zoe Quinns game after she supposedly or actually had sex with journalists.
The whole premise of this 'scandal' is factually wrong.
Now, if you Gamergaters would actually go after the real problems in gaming journalism, I would be alll for it, but instead you continue to attack women (and strangely enough almost exclusively women) in gaming.
When the hell did it become misogynist to refuse to support a domestic abuser like Zoe Quin? Actually, when did it become misogynist to attack a female because of the things she's done? I fear most of the anti-GG don't know what misogyny means.
Hatred of particular women != hatred of all women.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
You asked for evidence, you got given it. You can't very well complain that the volume isn't sufficient: you didn't specify a threshold that would satisfy you.
It's become obvious, when reading comments in the weekly "men are bad women are good" /. articles, that there have been polite and measured response to all of the anti-GG posts (like the above, for example). Mountains of evidence of collusion and media blackout have been presented. Advertisers (the people who actually have a stake in this) have pulled out en masse from gawker.
So, lets be honest - no matter what evidence is presented it won't meet your threshold. You, and others like you, have already made up your minds that GG is all about misogyny in gaming, nevermind the #notyourshield efforts.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Where was the conflict of interest? The guy mentioned her in a couple of articles before they even had a relationship.
http://kotaku.com/in-recent-da...
Sorry, no. Their relationship existed prior to that as he is mentioned in the games credits ... he was listed as a beta tester. You've been told now; now are you still going to go around saying "The relationship only started after"? Cause if you do, that will be total, bald-faced lies - the very thing you are accusing other people of doing.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
It's not suspicious, even if there were a relationship. And there actually was not a relationship it was just sour grapes from an ex boyfriend trying to get revenge.
I see this repeated a lot - where do you get your information? The rant from her ex-boyfriend (quite a long rant - she admits to cheating on him with five other guys) specifically states that he did not think that she traded sex for reviews. Why does everyone keep saying that he said that?
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
1) They weren't invented crimes. They did happen, she openly admitted to banging 5 guys while in a relationship. Using her own definition of rape, she raped her current partner that she was in a relationship with.
Having consensual sex with someone is a crime? On what planet? Oh and [citation needed] for claim about what she claims is rape.
Unfortunately you are on the indefensible side here - Zoe Quin is a classic textbook domestic abuser. She is a horrible person, a "game dev" with not e single technical skill who somehow managed to convince millions that she was a techie. She lies, is deceitful, hurts other people for fun and is thus a really terrible, terrible person.
None of the above is misogynist in any way - if she were a he it would all still apply - yet we are getting told that it is wrong to point out all these things about her because attacking her for her deceit is the same as attacking all women.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
So you're saying, every time you're sexist, whoever tells you it is offensive is an "SJW?" Horse-pucky.
So why isn't the fight about a few extremist gamers, why is it instead "anti-gamer"? Why is every gamer who speaks up on this being accused of misogyny? This is nothing more than an anti-gamer backlash. Why would anyone send rape and death threats to prominent members of gamergate? There are some sick sick women out there and they've being apologized for and criticism being deflected away from them.
Even if all the accusations were true, which they are not, this should still be the smallest of all the small scandals.
(See how that works)
In any case, a couple of points that you probably did not know:
More gamergate folk than anti-GG folk have been threatened (syringe in the post, etc).
The person sending threats to AS was found and identified by gamergate, but apparently AS refuses to take action (make of that what you will).
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Correction: an indie developer having sex with people potentially involved with the review of her games
But the person never reviewed her games. So why is this even still being brought up?
"potentially"? You keep making the argument that their relationship only started after she was positively mentioned by the journalist (which isn't true, if you'd only bother to read the credits of her "game"), so it could not have been "trading sex for publicity" as they never had sex until after she received the publicity. That still leaves open "trading publicity for sex", which is not much of an improvement ethics-wise.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
It is one thing to hold news journalists covering actual real-world news to high ethical standards. But the "JOB" of a writer for a website about video games is to write words that are on topic and sell advertising. Where did these people make some kind Hippocratic Oath for journalists? And what about the nature of their job implies that it has the gravitas to just guarantee that anybody who does it must have agreed to some such code?
They are obviously crappy websites if they agree to give information about a new game late, just to have more time to write the story. It seems like they could just buy the game when it comes out, play it for 3 hours, write for 2 hours, and scoop themselves. But that is just a reason not to go to that website. It isn't anything unethical. And nothing about a writers job is to "hold these [people] accountable and [random thing that doesn't exist in journalism]."
Perhaps it is just a simple vocabulary mistake. Perhaps you just confused the word "journalist" with "investigative journalist." And while an investigative journalist is a journalist, and a game magazine writer is also a journalist, there is very little actual overlap between investigative journalists and game magazine writers. Sorry.
Even in a business setting where there is a conflict of interest concern, (this isn't one) they are still "accused" of doing things exactly correctly; they waited until after the professional relationship ended, and then were free to become involved. Even if one of them had the other's employer, this would be OK. If they were opposing lawyers in a trial, it would be OK, assuming appeals were exhausted. There is almost no limit here. The prosecutor and the acquitted would be weird, but ethically acceptable.
I think of lot of the "problems" that gamergaters have around sex and journalists could be resolved in an hour by an "escort" in glasses with a clipboard.
She ignored the entire sexism of the male population in video games and focused on only the female side and acted as if that was the biggest issue. Is that the debate she refused to acknowledge?
Other people's speech doesn't need to acknowledge you. It is not a requirement of participation in society.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/er...
this is so appropriate.....
you have to stop looking at it like that. there are two possibilities. either the blackout is set 17 hours after release, or the publisher gets a copy at release and tries to put something out as fast as possible, possibly without having played the game very thoroughly.
it wasn't like the publishers had a choice, though going forward, they should say well in advance of a game release that there is an imposed blackout until after release. really that is all that is required now that the general community knows what a blackout is.
It's like with financial market data actually. People like bloomberg get all the data a bit early (which is HUGE) so that it can be disseminated electronically through multiple sources at the release time. The flip side of the risk of insider trading and the government usually does a pretty good job of enforcing the blackout.
To me, as an outsider whose mostly just read a bit here and there (I don't read Twitter or any of the major gaming sites involved so haven't seen most of it), someone whose avoided the whole childish drama the thing that stood out on the Zoe Quinn issue was the hypocrisy.
People were being called mysoginysts for raising a possible issue with Zoe Quinn cheating on her partner with a game journalist and defending her for it "because he didn't review her games" etc.
But could you imagine if the roles were reversed? that a male game developer slept with a female journalist who also didn't report on his games? He'd be the misogynist for cheating on his girlfriend.
It's the complete hypocrisy of this sort of thing that makes it all look so pathetic and childish. Even if there was no bias she was still a cheating user - a horribly selfish type of person. Something she should be condemned for as much as any male doing the same, but it seems because she's a female she gets a free pass on that and it's always the male that's the bad guy.
I'm a fairly liberal person, I don't really care if people want to sleep around, but christ, she could've at least split up with her boyfriend first or made it clear to him she wanted an open relationship. Having an active sex life is one thing, but knowingly hurting someone by not being honest with them is an absolute dick move.
Whatever the whole press thing, she's still a horrid brat who has no qualms with royally screwing people over and messing with their emotions. She likes to talk about depression and her depression quest game yet she's blatantly happy to cause others like her ex that she cheated on to become depressed.
I have no sympathy for someone like that, criticising them is not misogyny. It's fair game to call an arsehole and arsehole whatever their sex. At this point I couldn't care how misdirected GamerGate is it's not going to change the fact that Zoe Quinn is scum either way- it's Zoe's own actions that have created that reality and no one elses.
You seem to not understand.
One side wants to address the sexism in the gaming industry
The other side harasses women for simply being women, and makes up all kinds of excuses as to why they're harassing these women, even though their evidence is strangely missing.
The calls of sexism are valid, and if you can't see that, you really are part of the problem.
She's only been accused of being a domestic abuser and all that other stuff. "Innocent until proven guilty" and all that, but I guess that doesn't matter when you're attacking a woman. If you're not a misogynist, you have some sort of weird fetish relating to this one woman, which is causing you to act completely irrationally when working out what she has and hasn't done. Either way you're not being rational, and as such your opinion (which is all you've proffered) means absolutely squat.
I'm starting to believe that Jade Raymond leaving Ubisoft might be related to this fiasco. It was only weeks before Unity's launch.
She's done a lot more than domestic abuse. Look up what she did to the FYC; no "alleging" - she freely admits to what she did. Sabotaging charities, in most peoples books, makes you a despicable person regardless of whether one is a male or a female. This particular female is peculiarly toxic. Calling her out on it doesn't make one a misogynist.
Actually, calling out particular females and their actions as despicable doesn't mean that one hates all females. Only the misguided anti-GG argument say's that attacking a select few females means that you hate all females. That is certainly irrational.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
question, have you seen the agreements? I ask because I wonder if a press group can say they are bound by an embargo from releasing the review of the game until XX:YY time. That to me is what is needed. If press were honest that the reason no review has come out is because of an embargo, people could understand.
Then again, I have never bought a game day one, so maybe there are factors I am missing in why people buy the moment it is released with no reviews out and then get pissed out no reviewer warned them (which they obviously weren't waiting for anyways....)
Seriously, if you bought a faulty product, take it back to the store.
If they refuse to take it back and give a refund, get as many other people as you can, to do the same - especially effective if they do it at the same time.
The fact that it is a video-game doesn't matter.
Also, brush up on consumer protection laws - a LOT of countries have laws on products being Fit For Purpose or meeting the criteria of Merchantability (yes, even in the US, from what I'm told)
Really I mean how many reasons could there be for a gaming developer NOT want reviews of it's product before they start selling it other than that it's absolute crap?
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
huh, I just started reading up on this but only ONE twitter account made those threatening comments, it was not obviously any particular person, and could have been someone trolling as much as anything else.
you can't then, with a straight face, say it is 1000 or even 2 people doing this.
Hell, for all we know, it could be a cynical method of getting people to feel sorry for you and therefore, side with you. who knows? It seems to have worked quite well actually, as now a lot of folks make out like everyone on the other side has said things like this.
So it's unsurprising that Ubisoft pushed it out the way it was. If they announced a delay, they'd lose out on seasonal sales, their preorders would be decimated and it would affect their quarterly figures. So they pushed out something with some serious bugs and performance issues and used an embargo to prevent bad press until after all those preorders were fulfilled. I'm sure they'll get around to fixing the worst of the bugs, but people have been sold a lemon.
As consumers, there is a clear lesson to be learned here - do not preorder. Do not reward companies who use hype and lies to promote a game that may not live up to expectations. If a game is THAT AMAZING, then it'll still be so in a week or two after release when consensus is formed. And if it isn't... well that's €60+ you've saved for a better game.
innocent until proven guilty is the burden in the court of law. in the court of public opinion the burden is much less. I believe the ex boyfriend, because why the hell would he make it up, and make up the presumed evidence? to ruin her life? why? unless he was fucking pissed at her.
There's also a bunch of people saying she's a terrible person who would do that kind of thing. Who presumably are real people that the ex didn't make up just to corroborate his account. So either i assume a massive conspiracy to besmirch the good name of some terrible game dev. Or i assume ms. quinn is a terrible horrible person. one is a lot more plausible than the other. It involves a less complex narrative if Ms. Quinn is the kind of person who would strangle puppies for pissing on her carpet.
Every time you're not benevolently sexist enough*
"SJW"s get their bad rep not for being egalitarian but for demanding benevolent sexism and decrying anything less than that as hatred of women.
Your citation is the blog of her jilted lover? A guy who is clearly not going to provide an objective or even truthful account of events?
This is why GamerGate has no credibility. The only "evidence" available is bullshit, and they just seem to think that repeating the same lies over and over will make people believe them. It's a thinly veiled excuse to attack women, nothing more.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The llink changed, pic in this ArsTechnica article.... http://arstechnica.com/gaming/...
Having consensual sex with someone is a crime? On what planet? Oh and [citation needed] for claim about what she claims is rape.
Yep, according to her. If you're in a relationship with that person. Here's your citation
That "citation" is by Eron Gjoni. You can't say "according to her" when she didn't write a single word in what you're claiming for support. At best, you can say "according to this guy who really hates her, she believes [x horrible thing]" , but then everyone would be rightfully skeptical.
Actually I'm pretty sure that SJW's are puritans in disguise at this point.
Actually, I'm pretty sure that comments like that make my point. SJW is just another de-humanized group for people to project their personal devils onto.
Every time something comes along, the first thing they start screaming about is "sexism" or "muhsoggyknees." Strange that it just keeps happening over and over again, you know like with Matt Taylors shirt(who was made by a women).
Most of us are made by a woman, but I'll assume you mean the shirt. The people who are upset about this, and it doesn't seem like there's that many of them (your mention of this was the first time, I'd heard of it), are more upset that he wore it to a major press event and that no one thought to say, "Hey, before going on international television, maybe you'd like to change into something more appropriate?" To them, at least, this is indicative of a casual sexism endemic to the sciences and science reporting, where female scientists are judged by the appearance and male scientists by their accomplishments. The fact the shirt was made by a woman wouldn't actually matter to them and would appear to be disingenuous deflection because it's not the shirt, it's the where and the why it was worn that matters to the critics.
I'm sure though that you'll also find that the majority of people in gamergate are left-libertarians. And the majority of anti-gg are left-authoritarians.
I would suspect that you're suffering from the false-consensus effect and projecting your beliefs onto other people in Gamergate, possibly also the halo effect with respect to the people who don't like Gamergate. Of course, if you are correct about Gamergate having a libertarian base, then everyone else would be relatively more authoritarian, virtually by definition since just about the only group less authoritarian than libertarians are anarchists.
Additionally, when I spent some time looking over the posts on the Gamergate hash tag, I noticed several references to culture war against the left, and in particular how offline conservatives should follow Gamergate's tactics (against Gawker and Kotaku) to deny left leaning publications advertisers, which is certainly not what I would expect from a mostly left leaning group that advocates against corruption in journalism. For that matter, why do some of these supposed libertarians think that censorship of views they dislike is a valid solution to "corruption"?
Beyond that, I wasn't actually talking about Gamergate itself, which is a somewhat random assortment of people who all happen to be outraged about vaguely similar things and have twitter accounts, but more specifically about the people who use SJW as a pejorative epithet (which may or may not significantly overlap the people in Gamergate). Of course, on the other hand, I'd never heard of the SJWs until a bunch raging Gamergaters start spewing it all over Slashdot, so there is that.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
let me know when an accused male domestic abuser is given the same innocent until proven guilty thing. until then Id says its been pretty equal. thats what women want right??? equality???
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
remember the diablo 3 initial roll out???
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
well, i mean AC says so, it MUST be true!
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Re:THIS is the kind of thing that GamerGate is about (Score:?)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 14, 2014 @10:07AM
Actually most game websites that publish reviews feel that embargoes are a GOOD thing.
They make money on traffic. Traffic is driven by reviews. Review traffic only lasts a day or two at best. Embargoes allow them to get games early and spend time to write a good review, rather than rushing through a game to try to get a crappy review up in the first hours after launch.
I think all the sites that I've read (Kotaku, Polygon, and Wired) agree that embargoes that last until after the game is launched are disingenuous (at best) on the part of the publishers, but all of them are philosophical about the system and seem to think it works well in most cases.
Savvy consumers can read the tea leaves. If there are lots of advance reviews the publisher is confident in the game. If there are NO reviews then most likely it's a dog.
still no sig
so now "honey" is sexist? What next "hello" oh wait.... i forgot, thats sexist now. At least according to women walking in NYC and being filmed.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
clearly nothing short of not a single post about sexism will be good enough for you.
you understand that GG has become big, meaning the trolls are out now. of course you are still gonna see the crap as well as the actual complaints.
Just man up and admin you were wrong, i promise you, no one will think less of you for it. on the other hand you can sit there and keep screaming sexist!!! and look like an idiot if you wish
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
if the journalists knew the game was buggy, it would be worth breaking the embargo because im sure most people would have not bought a known buggy game.
i pre ordered diablo 3 for PC months in advance, but it will be the last game I get without waiting a few weeks. there is no such thing as a game that i NEED on release day
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
no people were not fine, it just didnt have a #tag before. I mean how is anyone suposed to know anything, or get anything done without a #tag these days??? /sarc
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
You can speak about whatever you like.
But at the end of the day, money talks and bullshit walks, and if you keep reading the sites you hate and buying games from companies whose business practices you dislike, and you don't bother to compete with them, you've made it known exactly what you're supporting, despite whatever speech you've Twittergrammed to @nobodycaresifyourebuyingwhatyourebitchingabout.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
-- Arthur C. Clarke
Oh look, a post on a sleazy misogyny filled subreddit.
Yep, that's a credible source.
Well, here's the thing, though- I don't like Zoe Quinn at all. If that blog post was true in the least, I think she's an awful person, and that's bad.
However, that doesn't have a damn thing to do with "ethics in gaming journalism", or whatever drivel they're on about. Her sex life is irrelevant to the development work she's done, and the gaming industry as a whole. As you say, if the roles were reversed here and a man had done this to a woman, yes- it would be awful! However, do you think for one MOMENT that it would have gone on this long and been this big of a deal?
So, no, criticizing Zoe Quinn in and within itself is not misogyny. However, using her private life and personal relationships to go after other important women in the gaming industry just for the crime of not wanting gaming journalism to cover Zoe's sex life IS misogyny.
Funny, the way the mod system can be used to silence a conversation just because someone disagree with their views. It's almost as if the people trying to silence feminist viewpoints are acting unethically in regards to games journalism and discussion.
HMM.
Pray tell- what favors were these? Keep in mind, I won't be accepting any example that calls out an article that doesn't exist and never has.
So... have you considered the simple solution of getting a new tag, and denouncing the people who've been harassing/doxxing women? Then possibly you could stop making this about fighting "SJW"s and actually focus on game journalism.
That may well be a concern- I mean, granted, your example is completely seperate from what actually happened both in severity and the reality of the situation, but aside from all the ways in which you're wrong, you're right!
So, by that logic, if a member of my test team is writing a list of software, and the software I wrote is rightfully included for being applicable, this is somehow corruption and I have a relationship with them? Are people in the industry no longer allowed to even be friends with eachother?
No of course I heard, and extensively read about third-wave feminism. They are not as upfront and blunt about their opinions, instead going with "assume guilty" concept of privilege, dubious historical revisionism of patriarchy, and shifting goalposts of constant redefining of sexual assault to include almost any heterosexual activity, including consensual drunken marital sex. Is there really a functional difference between that and "all heterosexual sex is rape" views? If there is, I have hard time seeing it.
If roles were reversed it would have been over in a minute. But not because of the gender reversal. It would have been over immediately because there would have been no concentrated effort to censor the topic. That is the only reason this whole thing blew up like it did. There is no better way to get people to talk about something then to tell them they aren't allowed.
No one went after other women because of the scandal. There were, however, some other women that injected themselves into the discussion.
And that's not an ad-hominem, genetic fallacy or poisoning the well.
Yep, that's a good point.
Publication embargoes are standard in just about every industry, hell even publicly funded research includes them so that journalists have time to prepare the story and then publish it at the same time.
Sorry, GG, if you've got this, and the fact that some people on youtube give favourable reviews to products they get for free then you really are not bringing anything new to light.
The fact that the more confident a company is in their product tends to translates into an earlier embargo release prior to product release date is nothing new. At all.
If you really want that pink version of a sword then go ahead and pre-order, but don't get outraged when the shipping product is a mess, it's a choice you make knowing the risks. Remember the mess that AC4 was? with floating ships and all that? Yeah, did you really think that the new version that's build on a moderately-new engine would turn out better?
and what does the anti GG people keep doing??? Repeating lies over and over hoping it sticks.
long story short, this circle jerk is getting really annoying because as pointed out to you 100 times, there is a real issue here that most people want to overlook all because some people said mean things, as if only those things ever get said to women
Take that "alex from target" kid, hes been threatened with rape and death for nothing more than becoming a meme. trolls do what trolls do best, except for some reason when a woman is on the other end of it, the white knights come out to their defense and claim its ONLY because shes a woman people say these things, which based on my example above, blows that idea out of the water
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
why are all them men speaking up about it also being attacked? or does that go against the anti woman motive that is being pushed. lets all just ignore than any of the men who have said anything have also been attacked.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Who in their right mind would buy a products sight unseen though? Just based on a few youtube videos?
That is just crazy!
At least with a car or new McD's sandwich there are some safety and health codes that the companies mostly adhere to, but with gaming there is nothing, not even Nintendo's Seal of Approval anymore.
the double standard is funny. lets take COD shall we? If you were allowed to go out and shoot women, they would claim sexism. but you cant, so they claim sexism....
Da fuq?
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
and the same stands true for this entire thing! maybe someone should have told this woman who started this entire thing that much.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
So that made it ok to send out death threats and harass her? No one is arguing that she's a saint.
The original 'outrage' was that she slept with the reviewer, so why was all this directed at her, the reviewer was supposed to be the one breaking ethics, which is what things are clearly about, right?
And you seriously hold the gaming press to that level? Not even 'regular' press are anywhere near that. Is all of GG under 12, or just not living in the real world?
The gaming press is Entertainment Tonight, not the New York Times.
the fact that Zoe Quinn is scum either way- it's Zoe's own actions that have created that reality and no one elses.
Except for the fact that, you know, this wasn't anyone's actual business until a jilted lover spilled his guts in a public display of broken heartedness. But sure, she's entirely responsible.
Fiat Homos et Pereat Theos
Ok, since you seem unclear, I'll enlighten you. It's NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS if she did or did not cheat on her boyfriend. NONE. Period. Full stop. End of story.
Zoe Quinn is not a game journalist. Anita Sarkesian is not a game journalist.
Stop speaking for me. I'm a gamer. I've been a gamer longer than you. Probably longer than you've been alive. I don't agree with anything you've said.
Prepare for the deafening silence.
Go on. You're making your opponents case so wonderfully well!
Ahhh, right, "censoring the topic." You're half-right on that point, but I'd say that a lot that was taken down in the early days of the "scandal" was for good reason. I'd argue that, were I a game developer who'd had an ex of mine post all the sordid details of my personal and private life to the internet, I'd want that info taken down too. Who she slept with in this case has no bearing at all on the coverage her game received, has no implications for the industry at large, and is completely irrelevant outside of "hey an Indie developer did a thing." So, while censoring something is a good way to Streisand Effect your way into the stratosphere, there was still legitimate reason for the removal of the material.
Where I disagree with you is on your second point. Perhaps you're right in saying no one went after other women because of the scandal. However, the events AROUND the scandal, such as women coming out in support for having this information taken down, have been harassed, doxxed, threatened with all sorts of awful things... all for daring to say that a woman's sex life is irrelevant to "gaming journalism." Granted, most of these women were already being harassed for daring to speak out against sexism in games, but it's certainly seemed like it's gotten worse to me. I'd also disagree that they "injected" themselves into the discussion- they attempted to participate in the talk, same as anyone else. The only real difference is that they actually have some visibility thanks to what they do in relation to games.
Geez, it's like being in an environment without atmosphere...
Plus, you know, all the outraged trolls could use their fucking brains and not buy the goddamn game 30 seconds after it's released, but rather WAIT a few days. But that would frustrate their entitled got to have it now feelings.
Jesus, it's UBISOFT! How smart do you have to be to think that taking a wait and see approach is the right course with ANYTHING from Ubisoft???
The story wasn't about her. Tip your fedora and head back to redpill.
Mention it where? In the review he didn't right. Back to redpill, PUA.
It isn't a CRIME to sleep with other people while in a relationship and it isn't any of your business, you mouthbreating troll. That you lead with this abject stupidity makes anything else you have to say not woth bothering with.
Here's what you can't get through you thick skull. Her sex life is NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS. I know you're upset because you figure, hell she was sleeping with everyone but she didn't sleep with me, but it doesn't work that way sparky.
Why are you anonymous, coward?
Well said.
I remember the Tea Party. GG is very similar. A big bunch of know nothing babies screaming and pounding their fists on the table. Also, don't like women much.
Actually, I'm pretty sure that comments like that make my point. SJW is just another de-humanized group for people to project their personal devils onto.
No projection is needed. SJWs are defined by their actions, not their identities.
Casually and inaccurately use "misogynist" and "racist" to browbeat people while pushing an agenda? SJW - and there's no room in a civil society for such an uncivil actor.
I'm sure though that you'll also find that the majority of people in gamergate are left-libertarians. And the majority of anti-gg are left-authoritarians.
I would suspect that you're suffering from the false-consensus effect and projecting your beliefs onto other people in Gamergate, possibly also the halo effect with respect to the people who don't like Gamergate. Of course, if you are correct about Gamergate having a libertarian base, then everyone else would be relatively more authoritarian, virtually by definition since just about the only group less authoritarian than libertarians are anarchists.
General self-reporting reflects it. Caveat is that this is the Twitter GamerGate population - but it does refute the Twitter accusations of right-wing conservatives being behind #GamerGate.
It also makes sense in that gamers tend to be more socially introverted and thus more "go your own way" in attitude.
+1, posting anon to not undo my mods. Anybody who asks for the sauce needs to read this neogaf link. Some heroic person cataloged all of the #GG wrongness in one place along with all the links.
+1 for your link- quoting it for a little more visibility since it has more information than most places regarding the topic. Heck I'll even repost it here, for burning justice!
So why should I bother reading this shit?
It's not like they have a monopoly on having a "gamer neighborhood watch" on twitter. If they are as horrible as you say (honestly, I never heard of them), dump them, ignore them, open up your own.
Since it's the opposition. And the opposition believes that anyone who doesn't toe their line is either: sexist, misogynist, racist, bigoted, have internalized muhsoggyknees, a dupe, uncle tom, house nigger, and three or four other thing I'm forgetting. But they've called anyone who wants journalism reform and clear ethics exactly that.
So, ask yourself--if being a minority and you get labeled a uncle tom with internalized misogyny, who is only following the pro-gg movement because you're too stupid. You wouldn't question the anti-gg side's actual involvement in all of this. If you're not actually following the movement at all, it's mainly left-libertarian(pro-gg) vs left-authoritarian(anti-gg). There are quite a few on the right who are also pro-gg, they're fall right-libertarian though. I've long come to the conclusion that the anti-gg side is made up of people from 1784, and have a strong desire to go back to more puritan ideals. Especially if you don't "fit their vision" of what's allowed.
Om, nomnomnom...
Really? Can you point out the misogyny. I'll wait. Go on, find it. By the way, between let's say KiA and gamerghazi or one of the other 5 subs that are run, which one lets both sides speak? I'll give you a hint. It's KiA as long as you follow the rule of no doxxing, you can be as anti-as you want.
Om, nomnomnom...
So all of them? You do realize that embargos are an industry wide practice
Are you saying that "games journalism" is not actually journalism then? Because that's the difference between a journalist reporting on news or *shock* a real problem in the field you're reporting on. It sounds like game reviewers now are an extension of the game companies' advertising budgets.
Reviewers allowed the game companies to get away with this nonsense until the practice became ingrained. Respected movie reviewers, on the other hand, dug in their heels and reported when a movie company refused to screen movies for critics. That led to a societal attitude where if a movie studio didn't screen a movie for critics, it was a huge red flag, and the studio knew that their movie was shit (and/or a Rob Schneider movie).
So yes, I'm blaming the games review magazines and online journalists who caved when this practice starting gaining momentum. Reviewers should never be too cozy with studios/developers, nor should they become too dependent on them.
i pre ordered diablo 3 for PC months in advance, but it will be the last game I get without waiting a few weeks. there is no such thing as a game that i NEED on release day
These days, Diablo 3 is really a fantastic game. But it took over a year for it to reach that point. :-(
How do you live your life unless it's through Twitter? I don't get it.
I understand the desire to live life completely through Facebook instead, but it doesn't react and aggregate as fast.
That "citation" is by Eron Gjoni. You can't say "according to her" when she didn't write a single word in what you're claiming for support. At best, you can say "according to this guy who really hates her, she believes [x horrible thing]" , but then everyone would be rightfully skeptical.
Correction: He wrote the blog, though her own posts via her facebook are there where she makes the claim of that definition. That means by her cheating against him, her own definition comes into play. So saying "she didn't write a single word" is factually incorrect, or are you saying that she didn't actually write on her own FB page and make those statements?
Om, nomnomnom...
Well, I classify anyone who sabotages charities and then boasts about it as a despicable person, regardless of gender. Most people do. Just because this particular person says the right words and has the right politics does not make it right, regardless of who she slept with for material gain.
Your moral compass may be a little off if you think that charity sabotage is okay if you have the correct political affiliation.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
If a member of your test team is a journalist who then publicises the software without disclosing his material interest in your software, then yes, you have a serious ethics problem. That is no different than the ZQ/NG ethics problem.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Riiiight. That point might be a bit stronger if that "publicity" was a review or endorsement, rather than saying "Oh hey, this FREE software exists, and look at all these other things in the same category!" If the strongest evidence GG has against ZQ in regards to journalism is "a journalist said the name of her game once in a list with a bunch of other games and months later she slept with him and he never spoke of her game again", there really is NO BASIS WHATSOEVER for harassing her and saying it's about "ethics in gaming journalism."
Yes, these things are indeed sexist! Thank you for pointing them out. Except that it HAS been thought of and discussed- and Anita Sarkeesian does a much better analysis of it than I ever could. Improving the way both genders are treated in games would be a wonderful thing- but what I take issue with is when someone says "Oh hey there's some sexism against women in these games", there are inevitably people who say "BUT SEXISM EXISTS FOR MEN TOO!" ...Ok, yes, it does, but can we, just this once, let THIS conversation started about sexism against women be about, oh, I don't know, women? Does the major lack of female role-models in gaming compared to male role models mean so little?
And before you even start- yes, female role models exist- but for every female you provide I guaran-damn-tee you I can come up with 5 more males.
Her game wasn't mentioned "in the list" - it was singled out for specific positive publicity before the list even started.
There was no "months later", it was a few weeks later IIRC. I suppose that changes it from "trading sex for publicity" to "trading publicity for sex". Whatever. Still not good.
The strongest evidence against her is not any of this, but this is always what the anti-GG folk trot out. You expect no response to this?
She, personally, doxxed many of the prominent indie reviewers who disagreed with the blackout (the main thing). Once again, you can look up her twitter account.
The problem is not even with ZQ, mostly, she's simply the straw that broke the camels back. The game reviewers have no problem with material gain in exchange for favourable reviews. Look at depression quest, for example. It's got one of the lowest user scores ever on metacritic[1] (deservedly - I've seen better results from 8 year olds using the same software that ZQ used - she isn't a techie at all and knows no programming language as far as anyone can tell) but was hyped up for special mention by NG.
By all user reviews, this game is a piece of brown smelly stuff. Yet the journalist who singled it out for special mention in a positive light just happened to receive sexual favours from her not much later? Many gamers are neither naive nor stupid. When they pointed this out the media blackout occurred. Let me reiterate: The threads and users that were banned en masse were not those that sent death threats, but those that pointed out a shitty game got a positive spin by a journalist who a mere few weeks later slept with the game "dev"
So far, that media blackout isn't working - gawker alone lost around 10 or so advertising contracts, including BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Adobe and other prominent businesses. The Streisand effect, FTW :-) The important thing in all of this is to continue ensuring that the media blackout (and collusion to blackout/blackball) doesn't work. So far, so good :-)
[1] Depression quest might just set a new record for worst game ever, at the rate it is going. Games which didn't even start without bugs got higher scores on metacritic (Big rigs:over the road - listed as one of the worst games of all times got a score roughly five times higher than depression question, in spite of all the publicity that DQ got).
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
None of the above is true -
Her game wasn't mentioned "in the list" - it was singled out for specific positive publicity before the list even started.
There was no "months later", it was a few weeks later IIRC. I suppose that changes it from "trading sex for publicity" to "trading publicity for sex". Whatever. Still not good.
Oh that changes everything, it was mentioned with a few other games before the list! The molehill has suddenly become... wait, no, still a molehill.
The strongest evidence against her is not any of this, but this is always what the anti-GG folk trot out. You expect no response to this?
She, personally, doxxed many of the prominent indie reviewers who disagreed with the blackout (the main thing). Once again, you can look up her twitter account.
Alright, done- her twitter account shows nothing at all that you mentioned. Drink coke, play again.
The problem is not even with ZQ, mostly, she's simply the straw that broke the camels back. The game reviewers have no problem with material gain in exchange for favourable reviews. Look at depression quest, for example. It's got one of the lowest user scores ever on metacritic[1] (deservedly - I've seen better results from 8 year olds using the same software that ZQ used - she isn't a techie at all and knows no programming language as far as anyone can tell) but was hyped up for special mention by NG.
Ok- care to mention any of these examples? you say it's not with SQ, and then continue to do nothing but talk about ZQ. I've noticed that's a bit of a trend with "gaters".
By all user reviews, this game is a piece of brown smelly stuff. Yet the journalist who singled it out for special mention in a positive light just happened to receive sexual favours from her not much later? Many gamers are neither naive nor stupid. When they pointed this out the media blackout occurred. Let me reiterate: The threads and users that were banned en masse were not those that sent death threats, but those that pointed out a shitty game got a positive spin by a journalist who a mere few weeks later slept with the game "dev"
Still talking about Quinn... and oh my, people were banned for reposting rumors and accusations against a person that weren't even based on reality? Don't bother lying to me or yourself- when this all started, it wasn't about a single mention before and during a list, it was over a supposed "review" that even her ex said didn't exist.
So far, that media blackout isn't working - gawker alone lost around 10 or so advertising contracts, including BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Adobe and other prominent businesses. The Streisand effect, FTW :-) The important thing in all of this is to continue ensuring that the media blackout (and collusion to blackout/blackball) doesn't work. So far, so good :-)
Funny how harassing businesses can affect them- except that they all seem to be doing juuuust fine. If anything, they're probably getting more hits thanks to GG continuing to harass folk. I'm actually a little conflicted about that, but it's supporting gawker, so it works I guess.
[1] Depression quest might just set a new record for worst game ever, at the rate it is going. Games which didn't even start without bugs got higher scores on metacritic (Big rigs:over the road - listed as one of the worst games of all times got a score roughly five times higher than depression question, in spite of all the publicity that DQ got).
Still talking about Quinn... did you have a point to any of that aside from making me waste time on twitter?
[1] Depression quest might just set a new record for worst game ever, at the rate it is going. Games which didn't even start without bugs got higher scores on metacritic (Big rigs:over the road - listed as one of the worst games of all times got a score roughly five times higher than depression question, in spite of all the publicity that DQ got).
Still talking about Quinn... did you have a point to any of that aside from making me waste time on twitter?
Well, yes, the blackout can't exist while *you* are talking about it. Anyway, I very rarely do other peoples homework for them as they never change their mind anyway, but here you go - before it was recalled/cancelled/etc from twitter. This, and other links, have already been posted in slashdot comments so I expect you've already seen evidence but dismissed it with "photoshopped!", notwithstanding Occams Razor.
FWIW, that above footnote points out that, while DQ got rave reviewers from all of NG's friends, from actual players who never met the man or his mistress, it got tanked and almost universally panned. Who cares about the dev - the game is broadly acknowledged as a 0/100.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
The problem is when a game reviewer receives a "game review code" they agree to the "review embargo" when they use that code. If they brake the embargo they are subject to legal action that could cost them significantly both personally and professionally. Braking an "Review Embargo" can get a reviewer blacklisted from review copies of games entirely from developer/publishing houses and even dropped by the magazines/websites they post their content. They are trying to make a living, the problem is that the consumer base will pre-order/buy sight unseen then get upset when they get burned and blame the reviewers for not telling them it was a steaming pile of crap. Ultimately it is the consumer to blame for this problem.
See, as much as I love Occham, it's not at all necessary here. That post proves nothing even if it ISN'T shopped, and as far as I'm concerned it's irrelevant to ZQ.
Beyond that, you point out metacritic and mention 0/100 scores... but there's only one professional review on metacritic (50/100), and a user reviews on every other side. I'm SURE none of the scores could possibly be related to the gamer gate nonsense. This just reaffirms that ZQ is irrelevant to the discussion, especially when it should logically be about NG.
See, as much as I love Occham, it's not at all necessary here. That post proves nothing even if it ISN'T shopped, and as far as I'm concerned it's irrelevant to ZQ.
Okay - how about a tweet where she boasts about harassing others? Nevermind her for now, what about the rest of the GG folk that were doxxed - here's a start.
Beyond that, you point out metacritic and mention 0/100 scores... but there's only one professional review on metacritic (50/100), and a user reviews on every other side. I'm SURE none of the scores could possibly be related to the gamer gate nonsense.
I'm sorry. The game just isn't any good as a game. This game wasn't greenlighted on steam on its first attempt. On it's second attempt ZQ then took to twitter after the doxing to ask other SJW (I was surprised to find out that that was actually a thing) folk to help get it through steam to show those virgins at wizardchan who harassed her (there's a tweet from her about that too). At that point the game, in its second attempt at greenlight on steam, was in its eighth day with almost non-existent support. After her tweet urging people to support it because of the harassment, it went through.
Sad to say, but that game would never have stood a chance on it's own merits (there's a popular ZQ tweet complaining about meritocracy in gaming :-)), it needed the publicity of "misogyny in gaming" (a thing which we have yet to see). It took the combined effort of a politically-aligned group of people to actually get it on steam. After that, users downloaded it and lambasted it to hell and back. Hence, the media blackout.
This just reaffirms that ZQ is irrelevant to the discussion, especially when it should logically be about NG.
Logically? Logically it should be about the media blackout which caused this whole thing to cascade. Hell, FCOL, wizardchan don't even have a gaming subgroup! The only reason this took off like it did was due to the en masse banning of people and threads who said that the "game" sucked. This sentiment was expressed before any reported harassment took place, btw. The reported harassment occurred only after it was evident that the game sucked.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Humble Bundle gives a cut to the publishers, just like any other store. They just have better PR.
Beyond that, if you think people aren't wise to the fact that gaming journalism is in it thick with gaming companies, and that there's quite a bit of personnel passing back and forth, and weren't without GamerGate, then you simply aren't paying attention. What's the number one non-industry place of employment for game designer prior an industry gig? Game journalist. Between layoffs, what do game designers do? Write about games.
I couldn't care less whether or not GamerGate is misogynistic or not, trolling or not, or what-have-you. I think it's hilarious a bunch of people identifying as "core/hardcore" gamers are bitching about something that any gamer worth a damn already knew -- don't trust publishers that don't provide a demo, gaming reviews have grade inflation worse than public school, and review sites and the game industry trade personnel and promotion opportunities.
Stop whining like an entitled brat. If you want something, like good games, honest publishers, and trustworthy media, do it yourself. After all, it must be a successful business model with all those GGers out there, and there's an obvious market opportunity.
Or there's not, and even the non-SJWs are laughing at your dumbass for pointing out the obvious and claiming that this whole charade is for great justice and to improve an industry that thinks you're a joke because you still pay them their money.
Either way, we know what people like you, who are lacking the skills, ambition, and expertise (other than that as a herded consumer lapping at the trough) will do -- nothing of consequence while bleating for someone else to do something.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
-- Arthur C. Clarke
Too bad the game is probably at least PG13. I would so love to see some parent sue Ubi for giving their kids nightmares.
They want selective equality.
- Don't do what I do, it's probably not healthy nor safe. -
Especially on PC.
I haven't had many issues with Ubisoft's games on console to be honest, but every single Ubisoft game I've tried on PC, was extremely bug ridden one way or the other.
- Don't do what I do, it's probably not healthy nor safe. -
Could I be on the "don't give a shit" side of the argument?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
And just how do you plan to pull that off in the area of computer game journalism? Try to land a job at a game studio so you can do some "inside research" on ONE game that may (or may not) see the light of day some day 2-3 years into the future? IF, and only IF, you have the skillset required, we're not talking about an investigative journalism inside story on the labour conditions in some sweatshop in China where they take anyone provided they have a pulse.
This is not some one-shot whistleblower story that you may land and never need to work again. Any kind of investigation you may do will sink years of your time to come up with ONE review for ONE game. Hell, even if it meant you could report about the next Final Fantasy installment 2 months before anyone else would make that worthwhile.
Your idea simply doesn't fly in this environment.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Open beta testing, would have prevented bugs and the need to have review embargos
SJW - and there's no room in a civil society for such an uncivil actor.
Someone who uses SJW as a silencing pejorative? There's no room in a civil society for such an uncivil actor.
Learn to love Alaska
"I've told Ubi & will inform other PR: we won't accept a post-release embargo tied to a review copy again" -Stephen Totilo on AC:Unity
We've sold out before, but this time we promise to never to it again. Just don't look at my crossed fingers behind my back.
Learn to love Alaska
Nah, Diablo III Reaper of Souls Ultimate Evil Edition for the PS3/4 was good day-1. Of course, I skipped the first (at least for the consoles).
Learn to love Alaska
when did it become misogynist to attack a female because of the things she's done?
Things she's done, or things that people hate her have accused her of doing? There's a difference.
Learn to love Alaska
Look up what she did to the FYC; no "alleging" - she freely admits to what she did.
You should include some cites. When I did some quick searches, I found Quinn hating sites that mentioned sabotage of FYC, and her sleeping her way through the industry, but nothing that was anything close to fact-based, and no "confessions" about what she did. There was one mention that she did it because she was already working on a competing interest.
So, is competition bad? What did she do? What did she admit to?
Learn to love Alaska
I believe the ex boyfriend, because why the hell would he make it up, and make up the presumed evidence? to ruin her life? why?
Yea, Why? No jilted lover has ever done anything spiteful in revenge, bhy why?
unless he was fucking pissed at her.
Oh yeah, there is that.
Learn to love Alaska
According to the anti-GG side,
You mean according to the anti-anti-GG side, as that's the only side you are representing, that's the only one you can speak for.
Learn to love Alaska
Someone who uses SJW as a silencing pejorative? There's no room in a civil society for such an uncivil actor.
Not at all. But since reading or quoting the entire thought is too difficult for you, there's nothing else for me to add.
I don't really care if people want to sleep around, but christ, she could've at least split up with her boyfriend first or made it clear to him she wanted an open relationship.
All I could find is that the ex was mad she left him. There was no assertion of cheating. That was added later, to help justify the hate. Initially the complaint was about the choice of a new boyfriend (being a journalist). One mad ex made a non event into a huge scandal. The rumour mill made "changing boyfriends" into "sleeping her way up".
it's Zoe's own actions that have created that reality and no one elses.
Had her ex not lied to get back at her for not sleeping with him anymore, this would never have happened. He's the one that created this, nobody else.
Learn to love Alaska
That "citation" is by Eron Gjoni. You can't say "according to her" when she didn't write a single word in what you're claiming for support. At best, you can say "according to this guy who really hates her, she believes [x horrible thing]" , but then everyone would be rightfully skeptical.
Correction: He wrote the blog, though her own posts via her facebook are there where she makes the claim of that definition. That means by her cheating against him, her own definition comes into play. So saying "she didn't write a single word" is factually incorrect, or are you saying that she didn't actually write on her own FB page and make those statements?
If that is true, then cite to her FB page. Otherwise, we only have Gjoni's word that those posts existed, and as noted above, he has significant reasons for fabricating them.
No projection is needed. SJWs are defined by their actions, not their identities.
You've already projected the SJW identity onto them. I don't see how you can label a group and then claim it's not an identity.
Casually and inaccurately use "misogynist" and "racist" to browbeat people while pushing an agenda? SJW - and there's no room in a civil society for such an uncivil actor.
This is your personal definition of SJW, it is not the same as the others I have been given, so it does appear that you are projecting your own personal beliefs about what is wrong onto this group and then dismissing their role in "civil society" based on what you think they have done. It seems like you're doing exactly what I said you would be doing.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
i was including fabricating people to corroborate his story of her being a terrible person. That's way too much effort for something you're not being paid for.
I don't even have twitter or follow it. The hashtag only got the mainstream crowd to notice, whereas these issues had been building for a long time before the hashtag.
Every time you're not benevolently sexist enough*
"SJW"s get their bad rep not for being egalitarian but for demanding benevolent sexism and decrying anything less than that as hatred of women.
I'm glad we cleared that up. Now we know that there are almost no "SJW"s[sic] in the world, and that the accusation is almost guaranteed to be raw pejorative without even being associated with any actual group of people.
If you asked everyone I know if I was a horrible person, I'm sure at least a few would say yes. Now, when the others are ignored, and the ones that say I'm horrible are the only ones published, how does that add to the discussion?
Learn to love Alaska
i'm fairly confident if you asked everyone i know if i'm a horrible person, you'd get very few people to say that I am. and you'd get even fewer to agree to ruining my life for it.
how does it add to the discussion to call the guy an outright liar? Ms. Quinn hasn't even bothered to deny many of his allegations. :) when one side says they are speaking the truth, and the other side says "no comment" you get suspicious too. and when other people come out and say, that seems like something she'd do, you remain suspicious. the reviewer she slept with, Mr. gray or whatnot. his defense was that he didn't give her a positive review for sleeping with him.
you're telling me that not only was the ex lying. that even the people he was lying about are now lying on his behalf?
You've already projected the SJW identity onto them. I don't see how you can label a group and then claim it's not an identity.
By this standard, any label is a "projection".
But if I label the group of people who steal property, "thieves", is this mere projection? Have the actions not fulfilled the very definition of "thief"?
This is your personal definition of SJW, it is not the same as the others I have been given, so it does appear that you are projecting your own personal beliefs about what is wrong onto this group and then dismissing their role in "civil society" based on what you think they have done. It seems like you're doing exactly what I said you would be doing.
Are there or are there not a group of people who go around using "misogyny", "sexist", "racist", and other charged adjectives to police public behavior? Are those words related to the concept of "Social Justice", or not? Labeling the people who fight for "Social Justice", Social Justice Warriors, seems quite apt. If you don't like the label, what would you replace it with?
Or do you wish to say that no word is allowed to label the group, since it's all "personal definitions" and "projections"?
You're welcome to come up with a better label - but in the meantime many people have settled for "SJW". Change the name to anything else, people will still hate the group, because they hate the actions of the group, not the label of the group.
how does it add to the discussion to call the guy an outright liar?
One of the two is. And he's the one that started it.
At best, he tried to ruin someone's life without proof (or even any evidence at all). That makes him more horrible than Quinn was made out to be.
Learn to love Alaska
Yet, like all SJWs, you feel compelled to do so anyway.
Learn to love Alaska
No, her position is not that others shouldn't speak. Her position is that certain speech is sexist, and she is calling it out.
The response against her is to rally around this idea that she shouldn't speak at all; that her being critical of sexist gamers somehow deprives them of... something or other, they rarely actually finish that idea, and when they do it is insane crazy stuff. What is clear is that members of this group illegally threaten and harass her with the clear and explicit intent of silencing her speech, because they disagree with it.
They could, instead, make response videos and simply counter her speech with their own speech. But then, without being horrified by the crimes, most of wouldn't ever know or care what their response is.
I personally am offended by sexism in games because it leaves very little for a more enlightened, worldly male gamer to identify with. I want realistic, high quality female characters in the games I play... because I am actually fond of real women!
I mean, jeeze, shave your neck and realize there is a difference between criticizing you, and oppressing you. Speech is only oppression when it is threatening.
what constitutes proof? he has about as much proof as it's possible to give in an online dealio. he had screen grabs. chat logs. facebook posts. photos that he knew her... etc.
how would you prove something like this if it happened to you? how would you prove you were telling the truth other than what he did?
really really at best. he was telling the truth.
if it's the truth, it's not slander, it's not libel. if he was lying about it all, she's at her liberty to sue him for libel. But that isn't what's happening is it? defamation of character is pretty damning, and I'm sure if this were my life, i'd sue someone's pants off if they accused me of sleeping with game reviewers for favorable coverage. The Ex is not anonymous. He put his fucking name on there and everything. They know where he lives, she'd win a libel/slander lawsuit hands down... if he was lying.
it'd be really simple to shut him up... if he were lying. ... and he started it? depends on what you mean by started. he's the one to go public... but if he's telling the truth, she's been emotionally abusing him for months... so yes, if he's telling the truth, you'd be accusing a victim that was coming clean about their abuser of "starting it." I think that's literally what they call blaming the victim.
Do you call guys "honey"? If you do and you're not gay, then congratulations on pushing gender norm boundaries!
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
If there's one thing that third wave feminists can't possibly be accused of, it's holding back.
So you don't actually understand it then. That's fine; there's no shame in ignorance.
But let me give you a free clue. To critically analyse an argument, the first thing you need to do is understand it, and the very first lecture in any university level critical thinking class covers the fundamental piece of methodology without which you are not thinking critically: the principle of charity. Learn this, and you've taken the first step towards reason.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
But if I label the group of people who steal property, "thieves", is this mere projection? Have the actions not fulfilled the very definition of "thief"?
Is "thief" an identity? I say you're projecting an identity on a group of people you label as SJWs because I don't know if the group you think exists actually exists in any cohesive manner. Also, it's a bit like "racists" or "misogynists", most of the people you would put in the group probably wouldn't think they belong there. Often, I suspect the term is used to identify "people who have called me racist or sexist". I also suspect that more often than not the person has been called on their attitude multiple times and believes that since it's happened so often, the person choose to believe that there must be a conspiracy to silence them, rather than accepting that their beliefs or attitude is genuinely disliked for valid reasons by the people around them.
Are there or are there not a group of people who go around using "misogyny", "sexist", "racist", and other charged adjectives to police public behavior?
As far as I know there is not. There are people who use the terms too freely, but as far as I know, they are not part of any organised effort to police public behaviour.
Labeling the people who fight for "Social Justice", Social Justice Warriors, seems quite apt. Change the name to anything else, people will still hate the group, because they hate the actions of the group, not the label of the group.
I'm not arguing that the term needs to be changed. After all, what would be the point? I'm saying it is already effectively meaningless, much the way conservative talking heads have made liberal and progressive meaningless by ascribing it to virtually everything they don't like.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
I say you're projecting an identity on a group of people you label as SJWs because I don't know if the group you think exists actually exists in any cohesive manner. Also, it's a bit like "racists" or "misogynists", most of the people you would put in the group probably wouldn't think they belong there. Often, I suspect the term is used to identify "people who have called me racist or sexist".
You don't know if the people exist. I do know they exist - I've observed them and identified them by their actions.
You can dismiss the label all you want - people use words to describe the world as they see it. Your inability to adopt a different perspective does not make that perspective wrong or nonexistent.
As far as I know there is not. There are people who use the terms too freely, but as far as I know, they are not part of any organised effort to police public behaviour.
Organized effort is not part of the definition. Irrelevant objection. Is there a concept of "Social Justice"? Yes/No. Are there people who fight for that concept of Social Justice? Yes/No. An individual fighting for Social Justice is a Social Justice Warrior. He doesn't have to be part of a group to be an SJW. Whether all SJWs are perfectly agreed on every ideological point is also irrelevant. There's a general trend that can be described.
Recently, a scientist was called out for being sexist because he wore a shirt covered with sexually dressed women. Regardless of whether you think that is a good/bad thing - there was action by a group of people to police his behavior, and an effect where he publicly apologized for wearing the shirt.
The people who think that calling for an apology on sexism is more important than landing a spaceship on a comet are most definitely SJWs by action and belief - they value Social Justice over scientific achievement, and they act accordingly.
I'm not arguing that the term needs to be changed. After all, what would be the point? I'm saying it is already effectively meaningless, much the way conservative talking heads have made liberal and progressive meaningless by ascribing it to virtually everything they don't like.
Liberal and progressive are not meaningless labels - do you think "conservative talking head" is a meaningless label? Why would you use that term at all if you think liberal/progressive have become meaningless labels? Only conservative talking heads have preserved meaning?
You yourself criticize groups for being "called on attitude" and "believing ... conspiracy". You certainly believe that groups worth criticizing exist - just not the ones you don't criticize. Why the bias?
Organized effort is not part of the definition. Irrelevant objection. Is there a concept of "Social Justice"? Yes/No. Are there people who fight for that concept of Social Justice? Yes/No. An individual fighting for Social Justice is a Social Justice Warrior. He doesn't have to be part of a group to be an SJW. Whether all SJWs are perfectly agreed on every ideological point is also irrelevant. There's a general trend that can be described.
You just changed the definition of Social Justice Warrior (SJW). This is different from the definition you previously gave me, which is exactly my point: SJW is a label applied to people with a different political alignment than you and you project whatever flaws are convenient to make you right and them wrong onto them. It's too bad you aren't self-aware enough to see that you're doing it while you protest that you are not.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
You just changed the definition of Social Justice Warrior (SJW).
I have not. I previously said people who do X are SJW. I did not say that all SJW do X. There is no contradiction between what I said earlier and now, and there has been no change in definition because the previous statement was not a definition at all.
I see you have also completely ignored all of my questions in favor of incompetently criticizing a single point as a "gotcha!". Answer the questions.