Don't know where Patrick here found his definition of the word "gamer" to associate with brands. In my opinion just because you see "gamers" as kids swearing over xbox live with shoveling Doritos and Mountain Dew in their face doesn't define the meaning of the word for the rest of us.
For me the word "gamer" simply means a person who likes playing video games, probably likes talking about them and isn't trying to push agenda.
The funny thing about the article is that he tells us that gamers don't own the word "Gamer" and gamers that don't agree with his view of the word gamer can suck it.
Which is basically how every tumblr blog seems to work.
In particular, hashtags don't work here, and mechanically ctrl-c + ctrl-v'ing the party line into a brand new account as you might on twitter doesn't work very well here.
We tend to encourage a deeper form of discourse where people have civil, rational discussions about difficult topics and inform each other about complicated issues.
What a load of old rot that consistently and wilfully avoids the very valid concerns about corruption and ethical question marks regarding certain game jams and charity drives in order to chuck a bunch of epithets around.
>""Gamer" says none of that. "Gamer" is selfish; preoccupied with one’s own pleasure over the advancement of the medium. "Gamer" is conservative; virulently opposed to change or innovation except in very specific, rigidly-defined areas. "Gamer" is tribalistic; defining oneself in terms of one’s tastes and factional allegiances above all.""
No valid concerns about corruption or ethical question marks have been raised in this whole misogynist harassment-fest.
The few plausible accusations leveled so far have all been shown to be false.
A short summary of the ones I've seen:
Accusation: A developer 'slept with journalists for positive coverage'; the 'proof' was that a Kotaku author she slept with gave her game a positive review.
Reality: No such review ever existed. The author she supposedly slept with wrote about her game once, long before either of them ever met (nobody is able to dispute this timeline). Kotaku explicitly denied the accusation and supported this version of events.
Accusation: Victims of these harassment campaigns are faking all the harassment in order to get attention, get money, and somehow ascend to the highest echelons of game development.
Reality: Well even if the original harassment was 'fake' (have fun proving that), there's certainly real harassment now, in part from people who believe the original harassment was fake and want to punish them for it.
Accusation: Involved parties 'sabotaged' a game jam/charity drive for personal reasons/competition.
The only concrete variation of this accusation I've seen is 'The Fine Young Capitalists', a pretty sketchy thing that purports to be a charity game jam for women. Other than their shady business terms for the participants, if it's on the up-and-up it's a nice idea. Continuing on the premise that it's TFYC:
Reality:
TFYC is basically a one-man funding campaign to theoretically do nice things. It's not operated by a well-established group with a clear track record. Before continuing, perhaps read this statement by TFYC's operator:
By their own admission:
Any actual sabotage was not actually committed by any of the harassment campaign victims, merely an unnamed 'associate'.
The 'sabotage' went no further than a link to a publicly accessible facebook page.
The damage done to the campaign was largely a result of the operator making transphobic remarks in some sort of interview (this is indirectly referred to in the above post). The harassment victims had nothing to do with it, and the appearance of transphobia is what drove the business partner away and cost them money.
Generally speaking, game development & games journalism are deeply intertwined, incestuous, corrupt industries. But guess what: None of these people are targeting any of the actual sources of corruption in big-budget AAA game development or coverage - many of those are really big, easy, obvious targets. By some incredible coincidence, they're targeting vulnerable minorities working on small game titles or game-related works, many of them women. Some of these targets don't even charge money for their work, making any actual harm from supposed 'corruption' near-zero.
unknown|11 years ago
[deleted]
Morphling|11 years ago
For me the word "gamer" simply means a person who likes playing video games, probably likes talking about them and isn't trying to push agenda.
KJasper|11 years ago
adiroth|11 years ago
Women, minority and queers alike are supporting #gamergate and they have made it clear that they're #notyourshield
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgW5NRUfs44
kevingadd|11 years ago
As HN is not Twitter, you may want to read the site rules: https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
In particular, hashtags don't work here, and mechanically ctrl-c + ctrl-v'ing the party line into a brand new account as you might on twitter doesn't work very well here.
We tend to encourage a deeper form of discourse where people have civil, rational discussions about difficult topics and inform each other about complicated issues.
Enjoy your stay!
BgSpnnrs|11 years ago
>""Gamer" says none of that. "Gamer" is selfish; preoccupied with one’s own pleasure over the advancement of the medium. "Gamer" is conservative; virulently opposed to change or innovation except in very specific, rigidly-defined areas. "Gamer" is tribalistic; defining oneself in terms of one’s tastes and factional allegiances above all.""
Utter tripe.
kevingadd|11 years ago
The few plausible accusations leveled so far have all been shown to be false.
A short summary of the ones I've seen:
Accusation: A developer 'slept with journalists for positive coverage'; the 'proof' was that a Kotaku author she slept with gave her game a positive review.
Reality: No such review ever existed. The author she supposedly slept with wrote about her game once, long before either of them ever met (nobody is able to dispute this timeline). Kotaku explicitly denied the accusation and supported this version of events.
Accusation: Victims of these harassment campaigns are faking all the harassment in order to get attention, get money, and somehow ascend to the highest echelons of game development.
Reality: Well even if the original harassment was 'fake' (have fun proving that), there's certainly real harassment now, in part from people who believe the original harassment was fake and want to punish them for it.
Accusation: Involved parties 'sabotaged' a game jam/charity drive for personal reasons/competition.
The only concrete variation of this accusation I've seen is 'The Fine Young Capitalists', a pretty sketchy thing that purports to be a charity game jam for women. Other than their shady business terms for the participants, if it's on the up-and-up it's a nice idea. Continuing on the premise that it's TFYC:
Reality: TFYC is basically a one-man funding campaign to theoretically do nice things. It's not operated by a well-established group with a clear track record. Before continuing, perhaps read this statement by TFYC's operator:
http://www.thefineyoungcapitalists.com/PeaceTreaty
By their own admission: Any actual sabotage was not actually committed by any of the harassment campaign victims, merely an unnamed 'associate'. The 'sabotage' went no further than a link to a publicly accessible facebook page. The damage done to the campaign was largely a result of the operator making transphobic remarks in some sort of interview (this is indirectly referred to in the above post). The harassment victims had nothing to do with it, and the appearance of transphobia is what drove the business partner away and cost them money.
Generally speaking, game development & games journalism are deeply intertwined, incestuous, corrupt industries. But guess what: None of these people are targeting any of the actual sources of corruption in big-budget AAA game development or coverage - many of those are really big, easy, obvious targets. By some incredible coincidence, they're targeting vulnerable minorities working on small game titles or game-related works, many of them women. Some of these targets don't even charge money for their work, making any actual harm from supposed 'corruption' near-zero.