“I’mma take a page from #GamerGate’s book and wonder why do they hate those articles about gamers being over. I don’t see the problem.” -@adrianovaroli
This is not an attack, or an insult, or anything of the sort. I just try to make a habit of reaching out to my ideological opponents. (I usually don’t do a very good job, but it’s always worth the effort). I will endeavor to be as calm, reasonable and rational as I can while answering this question.
In addition, from the few tweets we’ve exchanged, you seem to have missed the problem with these articles.
The ‘gamers are over’ (or ‘gamers are dead’) articles were so maligned by the gaming community because of how openly hostile they were to gamers as a group. Here, let’s take a look at Leigh Alexander’s article, the ‘gamers don’t have to be your audience’ one for Gamasutra. It’s linked to often by the other 9 to 12 ‘gamers are dead’ articles, so it seems as good a place as any to look: It starts out as identifying gamers as people who get into lines “with plush mushroom hats and backpacks and jutting promo poster rolls.” She says that gamers “don’t know how to dress or behave.”
So far the article’s entire focus is on the gamers themseles: not the absurd preorder and dlc practices, not the fact that some gamers were angry that prices FELL once (seriously, why NOT focus on that?! It’s practically gift-wrapped as an episode of gamer entitlement) but how we dress and act.
“‘Games culture’ is a petri dish of people who know so little about how human social interaction and professional life works that they can concoct online ‘wars’ about social justice or ‘game journalism ethics,’ straight-faced, and cause genuine human consequences. Because of video games. ”
This is not a critique of gaming markets, but a direct personal attack. First by claiming that gamers are socially inept losers with nothing to do but talk online (which is odd, considering that with the obsession she previously levied you’d think they’d be GAMING)
This entire article reads like that. Open personal attacks on “these obtuse shitslingers, these wailing hyper-consumers, these childish internet-arguers”.
Keep in mind that a games journalist’s job is to INFORM THE CONSUMER so that they can make good purchasing decisions. They’re supposed to be on the consumer’s side.
It’s not alone, either. Arthur Chu’s article opens with “The subset of entitled, belligerent gamers convinced that being ‘objectively’ right entitles them to defend their rightness by any means necessary are overwhelmingly male”, which is incorrect. And these articles are FULL of incorrect statements, assumptions, and outright lies (“Based on the lone fact of Quinn’s relationship with one Kotaku writer, Nathan Grayson, who quoted her once in an article and never covered or reviewed her game,” -Casey Johnston. This is completely untrue – NG covered the game twice and is even thanked in DQ’s credits.)
Attacks like this have continued for the *checks* wow, 9 months now that #GamerGate has been around.
Your side has openly attacked an entire group of people that they were supposed to be advocating for. Again and again, your criticisms of us are proven false. We’re not a bunch of white men, or wailing hyperconsumers, or right wing bigots. We are gamers.
And the one group of people in the industry whose ENTIRE JOB is to keep an eye out for the consumer… told us we were losers and should all just get out.
THIS is why gamers are upset. The articles were openly hostile to everything gamers were. You brought up DLC and preorders, and yes, how companies are handling those things are problems, but they aren’t actually brought up in the articles.
#GamerGate (or something very much like it) has been building for over a decade now. But this was the straw that broke the camel’s back. (Except in this case, the straw was more of an anvil)
… Wait, you actually read through that? Uh… thank you!
-David Burton, @HalfTangible