Only if it was more substantiated other then he tried to white knight her and had past experience with her. Must be because she banged him. The Kotaku guy was at least named. The BF didn't release two names but released the other kid because he was a journalist. Which makes me doubt the other two were media guys. But that's the point with GG from the start, it never needed actual facts. It was and has been driven by the air of impropriety not the actual proof of it. Then takes its anger out mostly on those in media that challenges its power instead of actually going after groups that are an actual issue.
One of the GB guys get fired in 2007 for a bad review of a sponsored game. Internets reaction. Well I am going to pretend not to read gamespot anymore. But then uses it in every discussion where a review of theirs agrees with a point they are making. In 2012 He goes live with confirmation of what went down. Perfect opportunity for GG to start up and and take the internet by storm. Everyone shrugs, says they stopped paying attention to gaming sites a long time ago because they are all schills.
So what about any of whats gone on with GG been anywhere near as damning and unethical for a company to accept millions in advertising for a product that a reviewer is reviewing and pressure the release of the reviewer for a sub par review? What has Gamasutra done that was so much worse that they pressured Intel into dropping advertising? Or Gawker and BMW?
Who actually cares if she did sleep with someone to get a good review ? I don't
Depression quest ffs , if anyone is actually going to buy it anyway. It would have been forgotten long ago if everyone ignored this nonsense
Alot of people care, mainly because she was able to walk in so easily and get free recognition for favors, rather than doing it the old fashion way (being GOOD at making games). People who spend hours and days learning how to program, make a game, and pull off with success are the ones who deserve the articles.
Or the new-fashioned way of being a giant company, pushing out whatever crap you want, and getting favourable reviews through payola.
KT
Alot of people care, mainly because she was able to walk in so easily and get free recognition for favors, rather than doing it the old fashion way (being GOOD at making games). People who spend hours and days learning how to program, make a game, and pull off with success are the ones who deserve the articles.
Blackmailing is a strong word. I looked pretty deep into the story. One of the guys goes into victim blaming pretty early. They weren't wrong at all, but it's pretty shitty when someone has their personal sex life thrown out into the internet by a jilted BF, to start publicly suggesting that they are just at fault for it but they are a terrible person on level with a physical abuser. All based off of one persons perspective. She got defensive and tweet some stuff in anger out of being attacked by them (whether or not their analysis was justified, I would expect anyone to get defensive its human nature).BTW how do you feel about Zoe blackmailing TFYC on what they were trying to do and then getting them blacklisted in the gaming community; when they showed exactly what she did; it didn't matter. They are doing exactly what rest of SJW try to harp on about and do nothing but try and destroy this industry.
Wasn't until Gamergate stepped in and funded them with 70k they could actually carry forward.
Like I said; I don't give a crap who she slept with; but she is evil for doing that....and making sure they were blacklisted. Problem is they are now finding out GG isn't going to roll over like everything else has; GG is fighting back and will end up winning this; honestly I can't wait for the amount of heads that will roll from this.
Gameasutra only got one major ad left that's Autocad......want to take bets on how long that lasts?
It's a touchy subject here due to the Nvidia group awhile back what your describing. But where was the rage in 2012 when Grestmann confirmed he was fired from GS because they were pressured by Studio's after he gave one of their AAA games a crappy review?Right. That's what people are upset about. The corruption in the gaming journalism industry. Whether they're getting paid in video card, cash or worn-out cooter, it's still unethical.
It's a touchy subject here due to the Nvidia group awhile back what your describing. But where was the rage in 2012 when Grestmann confirmed he was fired from GS because they were pressured by Studio's after he gave one of their AAA games a crappy review?
The Zoe thing needs dots to be created by the public to fill in the gaps and even then its tenious at best. She may have snaked around the outskirts of the gaming community. But its not like anyone in the world was even really affected by her actions outside the BF and FBs. So why is this the lightning rod?
It doesn't matter what the public thinks of GG, anti-GG, or videogames. What matters is what gamers, developers, and publishers think. Game journalists as well, but those are far more easily replaceable.
As I see it, the attainable goals for GG and their progress towards them so far:
1. Ethics in game journalism. Progress: some websites are starting to disclose conflicts of interest.
2. Not being silenced by anti-GG. Progress: the popularity of #gamergate vs #stopgamergate2014, or of kotakuinaction vs gamerghazi illustrates the success GG is having _among gamers_.
3. Exposing the SJW/radfem charlatans and their vitriol. Progress: Anti-GG is doing all the hard work here. Meanwhile Gawker keeps bleeding advertising partners (or the logos of companies they claimed where partners, but actually weren't, see Adobe).
Who actually cares if she did sleep with someone to get a good review ? I don't
Depression quest ffs , if anyone is actually going to buy it anyway. It would have been forgotten long ago if everyone ignored this nonsense
It's no coincidence that anti-GG has consistently tried to frame the narrative in terms of misogyny/patriarchy/angry white males. It's in journalists' (like Kotaku) best interests to shift the argument away from their wrongdoing and into a moral panic. Remember that GG is first and foremost not a movement against publishers, but against the media that covers their products. While it would certainly be detrimental for publishers to lose access to their dirty tricks, it's the journalists who have their livelihoods at stake if their reputations are tarnished and their readership disappears.
That isn't even a journalist thing. That happens at all "events". Whether its a press event or user event and so on. Where do you draw the line, would it be wrong to provide designer coffee? What if they didn't give them anything but brought in strippers? You do understand that a Nexus 7 is a $200 tablet. Do you really think that a reviewer is going to take the chance that their review gets them fired because they spruced it up on wink and handshake when they got their $200 tablet? What if it wasn't Ubi that gave them out but Google hitching on the meeting as a sponsor, would that be ok?Another issue that came to light in recent months was Ubisoft giving journalists Nexus 7 and a Watch Dogs event in Europe. After the story broke, game journalist came out saying that they'll give the tablets away to charity, etc. They shouldn't have taken them in the first place.
Second, even if that's true, so what? You're telling me that people are basically fine with Gamespot and IGN being paid shills for companies like EA and Activision, but as soon as a single independent game developer sleeps with a single judge at a gaming festival, WHOA, THAT'S OVER THE LINE!
That isn't even a journalist thing. That happens at all "events". Whether its a press event or user event and so on. Where do you draw the line, would it be wrong to provide designer coffee? What if they didn't give them anything but brought in strippers? You do understand that a Nexus 7 is a $200 tablet. Do you really think that a reviewer is going to take the chance that their review gets them fired because they spruced it up on wink and handshake when they got their $200 tablet? What if it wasn't Ubi that gave them out but Google hitching on the meeting as a sponsor, would that be ok?
That doesn't explain why there are articles praising her game.Nobody bought her game really and I don't think any sane person thought her game was any good or had even heard of it
If you make a good game it will sell and you'll have success , make a nonsense game and it will be quickly forgotten about (like her game should have)
That was what I was talking about above. It's The Fine Young Capitalists. The head person when the Zoe news hit wrote a blog entry calling her an abuser based solely on the information the BF posted. It was stupid for one whether she was a bad person or not. She was being victimized. So now you have some people including the TFYC start victim blaming as the whole thing exploded. She tweeted stuff about them (with little understanding of what they were) in retaliation to them calling her an abuser. Which right or wrong I would expect it's human nature to try to defend yourself.Because it's scandalous. Sex sells stories. And didn't she get some women game developer thing shut down because they wouldn't play by her rules? The Female Capitalists or something?
That doesn't explain why there are articles praising her game.
So it's okay for someone to sleep with someone to get a foot in the industry? Honest question here.So what ? maybe some people wrote so nice words because they slept with her
It's not crime of the century people , it happens in every industry every day
So it's okay for someone to sleep with someone to get a foot in the industry? Honest question here.
So it's okay for someone to sleep with someone to get a foot in the industry? Honest question here.
That was what I was talking about above. It's The Fine Young Capitalists. The head person when the Zoe news hit wrote a blog entry calling her an abuser based solely on the information the BF posted. It was stupid for one whether she was a bad person or not. She was being victimized. So now you have some people including the TFYC start victim blaming as the whole thing exploded. She tweeted stuff about them (with little understanding of what they were) in retaliation to them calling her an abuser. Which right or wrong I would expect it's human nature to try to defend yourself.
That's all Zoe did. What happened after that was out of hers or TFYC's hands. The internet did the rest on its own. Then Adam Baldwin does what he does best and comes in and saves the day. Zoe didn't shut down the group. Didn't even try. While she may or may not have intentionally been a catalyst. I doubt she could have any idea what the results of those tweets would have been.