3781

This is spot on correct. Quoting because I know several have Virgil on ignore, but this point is worth reiterating.

3782

Is Virgil a “well adjusted normal”?

3783

Virgil’s last several posts have been great, I enjoyed reading them.

I’ll argue that “normies” don’t spend money like game devs want them to. Normal people aren’t buying $2.99 DLC skins on launch day or $15 packs of e-coins to keep playing their crap Bejewelled clone. Game studios are courting people with obsessive personalities, and those people tend to have other social interaction issues as well.

But that’s the business now, right? If that was the point of Leigh’s piece then I agree with that sentiment. However, I didn’t take it that way, I took it as an attack on me personally because I own a tshirt with Megaman on it and queue up at Pax to play Dungeons and Dragons. Even if that’s not what she intended, that’s how it read, and that’s why so many people reacted poorly to it.

3784

It’s amazing how predictable your posts are. “wahhh I get threatened too those stupid bitches should just shut up”

“also, those stupid bitches probably slept with journalists to get undeserved coverage of their games”

3785

Well, I’m glad to see that the high level of discourse this thread is known for has returned in full force.

3786

“Stupid bitches.”

3787

Well, there’s a divide there. Buying the Season Pass for a game you don’t own yet is hardcore behavior(and, as Ubisoft shows, behavior the industry is all too happy to fuck you over with). But e-coins? Half the ads I see on mainstream TV for video games are for Clash of Clans or the Kate Upton knockoff Clash of Clans or the tropical beach knockoff Clash of Clans.

The Kardashian game and the entire Zynga/King segment of the market are heavily targeted at non-traditional consumer blocks, partly(imo) because actual “gamers” don’t stand for that shit. Casuals don’t understand just how awful a business model those F2P mobile games are, we saw real(and justified) backlash over attempts to merge that model with existing game IP with Plants v. Zombies and Dungeon Keeper

But that’s the business now, right? If that was the point of Leigh’s piece then I agree with that sentiment. However, I didn’t take it that way, I took it as an attack on me personally because I own a tshirt with Megaman on it and queue up at Pax to play Dungeons and Dragons. Even if that’s not what she intended, that’s how it read, and that’s why so many people reacted poorly to it.

I don’t go to Pax and don’t own any shirts, but I think my “gamer” credentials are pretty bona fide, and I absolutely didn’t see it that way. I knew she wasn’t talking about me. The shirts and hats and conventions stuff was part, but not all, the elements of the capital-G gamer culture she was critiquing.

3788

I’m very interested in how KIA reacts to 1886 being real short. Their developer briefly became an unwitting #GG hero when he said he was going to refuse to answer questions about the length of his game, but reviews are coming in and they all say it’s a very short game heavily padded with QTEs and cutscenes.

3789

Plus, if you’re looking for people to tell to toughen up and grow thicker skin, you should probably look first to the idiots that feel persecuted by Law and Order and go into fits of apoplectic rage over gamers are dead articles than the ones receiving constant death threats.

3790

I feel the need to clarify something here, because a few folks seem to misunderstand it.

When I say someone like Wu shouldn’t give into terrorist demands, this is not a suggestion that those threats are somehow ok and that she just needs to grow thicker skin. This is not a condemnation of her as weak.

Again, it is simply a statement of fact that caving to those demands will not achieve the desired result. That is, it will not at all increase the safety and security of the person giving into those demands. Giving in to terrorists does not work. You end up sacrificing your own liberty and freedom, in exchange for absolutely nothing. Because it does not, in any way, result in a lower liklihood that they will attempt to do you harm. And it will most definitely result in an increased number of threats in the future, leaving you in the exact same position once again.

This is why it’s never the right answer.

At no point is it ever acceptable or productive to allow someone to control you by threat of violence. It’s not a legitimate and rational demand, and thus you cannot expect rational responses to any action you take. The chances of them attempting to harm you if you cave into their threats are EXACTLY THE SAME chances of them attempting to harm you if you refuse their demands. Your security situation is exactly the same, regardless of which path you choose. Thus, the correct choice is the one that does not sacrifice your freedom and does not encourage further threats.

This is why thinking, “Well, she can’t be expected to endanger her employees” is wrong-headed. Because by refusing those terrorist demands, she is not in fact endangering her employees at all. The threat against them is exactly the same as if she acquiesced to those demands. The mistake people make when dealing with such demands is that they mistakenly think that the terrorist is arguing in good faith, as though it were some sort of legitimate negotiation. But that is not the case. If someone is disturbed enough to attempt to harm Wu or her employees simply for attending PAX, does anyone believe that they are going to go back to being a normal, non-violent human being when Wu limits her pressence at PAX? No, of course they will not. Any person who would turn to violence in that case is inherently irrational. Their decision to commit violent acts is determined by the voices in their head, and their own warped perception of reality, not any actual actions taken by real people in the real world. In reality, being at PAX is way safer than anywhere any of those people are going to be the other 99% of their time. They are no safer having not gone to PAX.

So again, the most likely result of rejecting terrorist demands is nothing in this case. They are empty, and will do nothing that requires more effort than typing mean words into a computer. And in cases where the person is crazy and is going to hurt someone, your own actions are irrelevant in their decision. The only difference between the two courses of action is that in one, if you choose to cave to terrorist demands, you have given up freedom and control of your life and encouraged more threats in the future. Everything else remains the same. Thus, that decision is ALWAYS WRONG. Not wrong from some high seated morality perspective, but wrong in the most basic sense. It will not achieve a desirable result in any possible way. It will result in an outcome which is worse in many ways, and better in none.

3791

I agree with you in spirit, but I just don’t think you understand the full story here.

This is not the case of some one-off random threats being made. Wu and other women like her (public faces of video game companies) have been utterly bombarded with threats for years. Obviously they’ve never previously prevented her from making planned public appeareances.

In recent months though, they have gotten more severe. More legitimate. People are actually showing up now at her place of work. People are actually now getting extremely specific, and are being more “viable” threats every single day.

The fact that people could commit violence regardless of threats doesn’t matter. They’re doing what they need to do to prevent the potential of actual, real, viable threats with weight behind them. And that the police is doing jack shit to try to make better.

3792

I’m surprised that they’re having trouble getting law enforcement to respond. From my own discussions with friends in law enforcement, that’s generally not the case when there are credible, immediate threats made against someone (although sometimes threats are not labeled credible or immediate – hindsight is 20/20, etc.). I don’t follow this as closely as you do, LMN8R – do you have any insight as to why law enforcement isn’t doing anything? While on the subject, is anyone aware of any law enforcement action against folks making threats/doxxing/taking other actions on either side of this shitshow?

3793

But reducing their presence at PAX does not, in any way at all, reduce the potential for actual, real, viable threats being actualized. That’s the problem with what you’re saying here.

It’s a false choice… You’re not choosing between going to PAX and security… you’re choosing between having control over your actions, and not… and both result in the exact same threat to your security.

Regarding the cops, well yes, fuck them if they aren’t acting on things that they could (I honestly don’t know how much info they have to go on in this regard).

3794

This, specifically:

The legal system.

Think GG is hard to explain to a friend? Try a legal system that doesn’t really understand what the internet is yet - it’s like trying to push cooked pasta through the eye of a needle. Try explaining shit like 4chan to an officer who types with henpeck hands and getting handed a police report that makes you feel like praying the abuse away may be more effective. Law enforcement is prepared for familiar things like “here is a death threat, here is someone violating a restraining order, here’s where they openly discuss wanting to rape me”, but trying to convey how things work online is frustrating. Thankfully though, police reports are there to put you in contact with the detective, who you can then actually talk to and get to understand what’s actually going on, if you’re lucky. Police reports are there to essentially go “hey y’all some shit is up do you wanna look into this?”, that will then either be escalated or ignored based on the merit of your case (and a ton of other socioeconomic factors I will not be getting into) and actually figure out what’s happened and what to do about it if anything. And hey, at least the detective on my case plays Halo.

But then there’s court, if you’re lucky enough to get taken seriously. Then you have to stand up in front of a bunch of people and recount your abuse. Then you have to face the people who have abused you trying to justify everything they’ve done and go over how much you had it coming while simultaneously saying it never happened, likely using the fact that it’s the internet to make your case seem flippant and your concerns for your safety seem histrionic. Then there’s the likelihood that you’ll find yourself having to explain the internet to a judge who may or may not even want to know. Sometimes they understand, sometimes they tell you the internet is not a big deal and maybe if you don’t want to get harassed you shouldn’t be online. Sometimes, when they tell you that, you tell them that your entire career is online and you’d have to give it up to effectively do that, and they tell you you’re a smart young kid and should maybe just consider a new career. Sometimes you sit in the magistrate’s office listening to the defense attorney get basic facts wrong, while talking to a judge who also gets basic facts wrong, and you feel a crushing sense of despair at watching people with no stake or perspective on your world decide your fate.

You wonder what the point was in trying to do things the “right way” - reporting your abuse to the authorities, trying to get people to stop doing criminal shit with the system ostensibly in place to do just that, getting abuse prevention orders from the people knowingly putting you directly in harm’s way - what good it’s been if law enforcement can’t follow the shitstorm, restraining orders are ignored by your abuser, and the legal system doesn’t know or want to know about the world you live and work in.

3795

Zealots and their money are easily parted, moreso than “normies”

I can name tons of disparate examples. Idolmaster, any whale in a FTP game, MMOs. They’re not all bad people. Idolmaster folk are in general extremely nice and friendly (based on my Twitter feed). They’ll spend hundreds on their favorite idols though! I guess P’s (the name for IMAS fans) are like the Mormons of gaming. Super-nice but breed like rabbits. ^_^

One more example:

Brianna Wu’s game and how it passed Greenlight in one day despite dialogue that makes Captain Planet look subtle and really poor graphics is one example. It will sell as well because controversy creates cash. Even Brad’s games benefit financially from controversy- there are some radical gators buying his games due to what they believe to be his politics. (even if they’re wrong). That’s not an indictment of Brad, I know Brad doesn’t want that business, but he’s getting it, and maybe some of them will grow to like GalCiv3 and SK- they’re really a cut above the previous Stardock games.

There were folks posting on Twitter about how they upvoted/downvoted to make a point. I don’t think many folks cared about all about the merits of the game itself.

If Brianna’s game was made by a random woman developer with the same track record Brianna has but without her political statements, the game would probably have 10 votes on Greenlight and be on there for years.

I’m not implying anything about Brianna here other than that she made a pretty terrible-looking game. Maybe she secretly has Jon Shafer-esque design skills, but I doubt it.

3796

I don’t doubt your gaming cred by any means, posting on this forum is cred enough. I think most everyone here considers gaming a serious hobby, if not a profession.

I’m going to see if I can explain this in a way that won’t fan the flames. Going back to my earlier example, last year at Pax I queued up to play 5e D&D for a couple hours. The line was full of the young men (and women) with “mushroom hats” and bags bursting with swag, all waiting for hours to see what a game developer wanted to show us, in this case playing a scenario running the new ruleset of D&D. At my table was a young man (quite possibly trans, I didn’t ask) dressed as some angel character, a woman in a Mad Moxie costume, an older guy who was disabled and walked with a cane, and me and my friend. We all had a great time, and it was one of the highlights of the weekend for me.

My introduction to this whole issue wasn’t the Zoe Post, it was Alexander’s article that went viral. I read it, I got angry, and I thought where does this person get off condemning me and my hobbies? I think pwk is correct when he says that particular article was the catalyst is what turned this issue into the mess it is now. A lot of people had the same reaction I did, and that put them immediately in the GG camp.

I realize now that wasn’t her intention. She wasn’t talking about me and my Megaman shirt with my dice in my backpack, walking my young kid around Pax to look at the cool games. She was talking about the guy who calls me faggot on Xbox Live when I beat him in Call of Duty (or when I lose to him). Rereading the article again, I’m still not seeing that though. It was written in anger, and it upset a lot of people I’m sure she had no beef with.

3797

I watched a bit of a Let’s Play of her game on YouTube. Yes the graphics are horrid but artists cost money, so whatever. There’s actually a game there, and I think what she did with the constraints of iOS is pretty clever. Maybe she ripped the mechanics of some other game I never heard of, but she’s got something there. Maybe in the next iteration, she’ll be able to afford a talented artist and writer to shore up those aspects of the game.

And, you’re probably right that her position in this controversy got her game noticed. There’s so much crap on Steam and the App Store that it takes a lot to get traction. Why did Flappy Bird or Candy Crush go viral and make millions when 5000 other games exactly like them flounder? I have no idea. Anything to get noticed helps sales.

3798

They went with Total Biscuit by the looks of things. It sucks. Especially now that the devs have said that criticism is actually bullying, which plays into the victimhood narrative they (and me) like to throw out.

3799

Sure you do. I have read dozens of posts by you in forums and blog posts complaining about all the shit you have gone through because of the “SJWs.” You publicize the shit out of it.

3800

It’s sort of a pedantic point, but the US police system is generally NOT set up to prevent crimes; it’s not even set up to stop people who have committed crimes before from doing them again.

The previous sentence usually takes people aback because you hear so much about “crime prevention” and similar things, but if you think about for a few minutes you start to see that, yeah, of course it’s not. And that’s a good thing, too.

The US legal system has the “innocent until proven guilty” thing from English Common Law and the Napoleonic Code embedded pretty firmly into what the police can and cannot do. They are not allowed to arrest or even seriously detain someone based on what they suspect that person might do in the future. They can only really act if a crime has already been perpetrated (and they have a reasonable suspicion that the person in question was involved), or if they believe a crime is in the process of being committed. The primary purpose of the US police departments is to apprehend criminals AFTER the crime has already happened.

Now sure, there are 230-odd years’ worth of exceptions: the cops can set up traffic stops to check for drunks (though in that case, again, the crime has already been committed); they can “maintain a presence” or act as a “deterrent” in high-crime areas; and yeah, they regularly hassle people that they think might be problems in a semi-proactive way… but that’s technically unconstitutional. And yeah, cops do other stuff beyond law-enforcement: directing traffic, rendering aid to people in distress, giving directions, whatever.

But my point is that it’s not actually the job of US police force to prevent crime from happening, or even to protect US citizens from crimes that they think there is a high probability of happening.