Those who are part of the #GamerGate movement argue that they would rather read reviews of the game itself without evaluations of its social factors. The girl needs (the male character) and depends on him.” “There is definitely not equality in the way that they’re perceived. They are not created the (same) way as male characters,” Castanon said. “In most video games, women are hypersexualized. English senior Jesse Castanon, once an avid gamer, said that representation of women in video games has long been a problem in gaming culture. Though it may seem like a battle for the world of gamers, the politicized nature of this movement gives way to implications that seep into other areas of our culture, where women and other marginalized groups face issues of visibility and inclusion. Gamers argue that journalism has become too left-leaning and that a balance has been lost, particularly as journalists’ critiques about games address social issues. Gamers argue that #GamerGate is not about misogyny, but rather the disconnect between what gamers want to read and what gaming journalism actually is. Furthermore, we have to question why gamergate is so dedicated to bringing down Gawker - how does this relate to "ethics in gaming journalism"? If they really believe that Nathan Grayson's "positive coverage" of Depression Quest was the result of a breach of ethics, surely they should be trying to bring down Rock, Paper, Shotgun.According to Vox, #GamerGate is essentially about two core aspects: ethics in gaming journalism and the treatment of women in gaming. Indications are that Gawker did very well in the last few month of the calendar year and any impact from Biddle's tweets was minimal but there aren't any financial reports available to look at seriously.īut ultimately, none of this really matters if "bringing down Gawker" is one of gamergate's aims, it's clearly failed - Gawker is still going strong. We'd have to wait till the end of the financial year to have any idea of whether or not those projections were correct. Lost ad revenue is very difficult to determine a statement of "we lost a million dollars" isn't really "true" in the normal sense of a loss - it's a reduction of projected earning because they're projected earnings, they're based on what was most likely to happen. The point being made was about the expense of the project, not a serious discussion of lost ad revenue. There's no reason to believe it's literally true. It seems very unlikely that Sam Biddle would actually say that: Why would he care how much that project would cost? Why would he stick his head up when he should be keeping it down? It's just "too perfect" that he said something that allowed a witty comeback to be made at his expense.Įven if it was said, it's clearly a joke at Biddle's expense not a serious discussion of lost ad revenue. It seems very unlikely that a discussion on the project would allow for Sam Biddle to interject with a question especially if it was an "all hands" meeting - it'd simply be impractical to conduct a meeting like that with that many people. I'm an "insider" at my work, but I don't know anything about the upper-level financial situation and I work in a govt dept that's dedicated to "transparency" rather than a private company who have every reason to play their cards close to their chest. That may sound harsh, but there's a huge amount of finance watchers who seem to spend all day talking about these kind of things and none of them seem to be backing up the anonymous insiders.
We have no idea if the source is reputable. The original source is a completely anonymous insider if it had been an external observer making an guess, I'd take it more seriously. It strikes me as unlikely to be true for several reasons: People have looked at the unrelated project's cost and determined the "seven digits" figure from that. During discussion of an unrelated project, Sam Biddle asked "How much will it cost" and someone (the head of Gawker? Can't remember) said "less than you cost us in ad revenue" as a snappy comeback. The context (as I understand it) is that the statement was reported by anonymous sources who were supposedly at an "all hands" meeting. From the context of the statement, it was clearly hyperbole whatever the impact truly was is unknown.
0 kommentar(er)
