• Corruption in Gaming Journalism Discussion V2 - Back from the dead!
    5,003 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Wii60;47166444]the video in question, but now your unable to give view money for stupidity [/QUOTE] Imagine in a few years, social media conflict will have been perfected, there will be 100's of [noparse]archive.today[/noparse]-like sites, firefox extensions to deny ad revenue on only certain sites, a youtube for webms specifically to deny views, facebook bots and more and the internet will be 1/2 content, 1/2 mirrors.
[QUOTE=01271;47166786]Imagine in a few years, social media conflict will have been perfected, there will be 100's of [noparse]archive.today[/noparse]-like sites, firefox extensions to deny ad revenue on only certain sites, a youtube for webms specifically to deny views, facebook bots and more and the internet will be 1/2 content, 1/2 mirrors.[/QUOTE] I don't think it'll ever happen. Look at the push to end net neutrality and piracy as it is now. Then imagine if nearly every online industry and business was a part of that push. That bill would slide through Congress faster than diarrhea.
Little off-topic from the current discussion maybe but calling people who enjoy candy crush saga on their phone occasionally gamers is like calling people who read the sunday comics in the newspaper occassionally "avid comic book readers". We've reached a point where we have to set some boundaries.
[QUOTE=G-Strogg;47166892]Little off-topic from the current discussion maybe but calling people who enjoy candy crush saga on their phone occasionally gamers is like calling people who read the sunday comics in the newspaper occassionally "avid comic book readers". We've reached a point where we have to set some boundaries.[/QUOTE] Eh, not really. Gamer is more of a self-identification kind of thing. Plus the differentiation between candy crush/mobile gaming and PC/console gaming is why the distinction between casual and hardcore gamers exists.
The whole thing about gendered mechanics is dumb because it presumes that every game needs to be somewhat homogeneous for the sake of equality. That's stupid because you can have separate products for girls and boys and have them sell. Lego did it and the girls sets sell well, despite sites like Jezebel Q_Qing over it. Comics are starting to make girl-friendly comics with characters like the quirky nerd girl Kamala Khan but are still keeping their super-serious spandex muscleman comics because they sell and appeal to another demographic. If I was CEO of a company that sells nerdy products and you told me that I could either make all of my products less violent and intense for the sake of attracting more women, but risk decreasing my repeat buyers, or make a spinoff line that attracts nerdy girls better without putting my repeat buyers at risk, you bet your fucking ass I would chose the latter. Different products for different demographics is not a bad thing at all, even if it includes a currently touchy subject like gender. That's just how business works.
Well said.
[QUOTE=Ziron;47167099]The whole thing about gendered mechanics is dumb because it presumes that every game needs to be somewhat homogeneous for the sake of equality. That's stupid because you can have separate products for girls and boys and have them sell. Lego did it and the girls sets sell well, despite sites like Jezebel Q_Qing over it. Comics are starting to make girl-friendly comics with characters like the quirky nerd girl Kamala Khan but are still keeping their super-serious spandex muscleman comics because they sell and appeal to another demographic. If I was CEO of a company that sells nerdy products and you told me that I could either make all of my products less violent and intense for the sake of attracting more women, but risk decreasing my repeat buyers, or make a spinoff line that attracts nerdy girls better without putting my repeat buyers at risk, you bet your fucking ass I would chose the latter. Different products for different demographics is not a bad thing at all, even if it includes a currently touchy subject like gender. That's just how business works.[/QUOTE] amazon caters to the long tail, think about that people.
What confuses me is when people act like the number of nerds they piss off is a metric of success.
[QUOTE=1239the;47167690]What confuses me is when people act like the number of nerds they piss off is a metric of success.[/QUOTE] In the era of clickbait, sucess is judged by how many rageclicks or shockclicks you managed to generate. By their metrics, how many people they've pissed off is a good indicator of their success.
[QUOTE=Ziron;47167099]The whole thing about gendered mechanics is dumb because it presumes that every game needs to be somewhat homogeneous for the sake of equality. That's stupid because you can have separate products for girls and boys and have them sell. Lego did it and the girls sets sell well, despite sites like Jezebel Q_Qing over it. Comics are starting to make girl-friendly comics with characters like the quirky nerd girl Kamala Khan but are still keeping their super-serious spandex muscleman comics because they sell and appeal to another demographic. If I was CEO of a company that sells nerdy products and you told me that I could either make all of my products less violent and intense for the sake of attracting more women, but risk decreasing my repeat buyers, or make a spinoff line that attracts nerdy girls better without putting my repeat buyers at risk, you bet your fucking ass I would chose the latter. Different products for different demographics is not a bad thing at all, even if it includes a currently touchy subject like gender. That's just how business works.[/QUOTE] The only thing I don't get about LEGO is why it's gendered in the first place. I'm a girl and I never even touched the frilly pink stuff (although I'm sure that's perfectly good in its own right), I just bought the cool Star Wars shit. If LEGO just started selling big boxes of stuff again (in addition to their normal product range), they'd probably make untold millions without having to worry about licensing- I probably ended up having more fun just making up my own things than I ever did with the licensed stuff, and that's no mean feat.
[QUOTE=Ziron;47167099] Different products for different demographics is not a bad thing at all, even if it includes a currently touchy subject like gender. That's just how business works.[/QUOTE] exactly. changing existing games that already appeal to people to appeal to different people is like yelling at your current customers to get out of your store and hoping they get replaced by more people coming in. what you should do is either make it easier to get in to for new people without taking away what's good or make a different product you sell alongside it. there's room enough for every kind of game and any kind of gamer.
[QUOTE=Jamsponge;47167792]The only thing I don't get about LEGO is why it's gendered in the first place. I'm a girl and I never even touched the frilly pink stuff (although I'm sure that's perfectly good in its own right), I just bought the cool Star Wars shit. If LEGO just started selling big boxes of stuff again (in addition to their normal product range), they'd probably make untold millions without having to worry about licensing- I probably ended up having more fun just making up my own things than I ever did with the licensed stuff, and that's no mean feat.[/QUOTE] I think the idea is to appeal to girls that wouldn't care about Legos normally. With the girl Lego sets, girls that would not otherwise be interested in Legos can use them to create their own girly things like horse toys, vetrenarian centers, and dollhouses. Girls like you weren't the intended demographics for the new Legos for girls series.
[QUOTE=Teddybeer;47167819]They sell stuff aimed at genders because it's what sells. And the selling of toys can get really nasty when you think about it. From the packaging and placement in stores to they ads on TV.[/QUOTE] Lego sold the "doll" stuff because they literally went to children and asked "what do you want" - and that's what they wanted, so lego gave them. I don't see what is wrong with that, if girls want more regular stuff then buy it, nobody is stopping them. They aren't the target demographic lego is aiming for. (Upbringing on T.V and stuff whatever blame the parents.) also it's not that big of a deal. [editline]a[/editline] Back on topic, Alexander Macris, GM of Escapist Magazine : [url]https://twitter.com/archon/status/567815955087360000[/url] [quote]We welcome all ex-Kuchera fans at [URL="https://twitter.com/TheEscapistMag"]@TheEscapistMag[/URL].[/quote]
Bring back the lego sets where you put tiny pieces together to form one big giant piece of awesome that if you drop you start sobbing uncontrollably. :v:
[QUOTE=Teddybeer;47167819]They sell stuff aimed at genders because it's what sells. And the selling of toys can get really nasty when you think about it. From the packaging and placement in stores to they ads on TV.[/QUOTE] My issue here is that boys and girls really aren't that different and many want to do whatever they want to do, whatever that may be. The issue is society has preconceptions about what each gender "Should" do, or "should" play with, that aren't based on anything of value besides tradition. That's the issue JamSponge wants to talk about. Marketing may very well play a role in this. You cannot look at anything human and not see the feedback loops that exist. One of these feedback loops is gender. What the gender is determined to be based upon cultural ideas at the time is what that gender is most seen as, and I think that's not a good thing to be stuck in or stuck with. Gendering lego doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but game mechanics are inherently not gendered. They require interactivity and a game world, whatever limitations are placed upon it as far as "gender" goes are arbitrary.
rest in pieces lego star wars clone gunship :'(
[QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;47168081]Lego sold the "doll" stuff because they literally went to children and asked "what do you want" - and that's what they wanted, so lego gave them. I don't see what is wrong with that, if girls want more regular stuff then buy it, nobody is stopping them. They aren't the target demographic lego is aiming for. (Upbringing on T.V and stuff whatever blame the parents.) also it's not that big of a deal. [editline]a[/editline] Back on topic, Alexander Macris, GM of Escapist Magazine : [url]https://twitter.com/archon/status/567815955087360000[/url][/QUOTE] Well of course there's nothing wrong with that, that's a good strategy. I really feel the argument is missed by most people, even the ones who often make this argument. It's just a matter of as we sell products to ourselves we further define what that demographic is seen as.
[QUOTE=Ruski v2.0;47168225]rest in pieces lego star wars clone gunship :'([/QUOTE] Holy shit I had that thing. I think it's still lying around somewhere, and I managed to never break it after putting it together. Fuck that thing was awesome.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47168219]My issue here is that boys and girls really aren't that different and many want to do whatever they want to do, whatever that may be. The issue is society has preconceptions about what each gender "Should" do, or "should" play with, that aren't based on anything of value besides tradition. That's the issue JamSponge wants to talk about. Marketing may very well play a role in this. [/QUOTE] You have to realize that, these days, marketing has to be absolutely correct about who they want to target down to the last details. "x is for everyone!" sounds nice as an activist, but I dare you to build a successful marketing plan based on that that isn't for an essential product, like food. You can do things like make a shooter that is meant to appeal to violence-loving men in their 20s and 30ws, but also target some parts towards con-going, unmarried, and well-to-do women in their 20s (such as games like the Mass Effect series). However, you are not going to make a successful marketing strategy that tries to get everyone with a penis or a vagina, no matter their interests or social class, in one giant net. It's far, far too big to be successful. It all comes down to money. As much as I support things like gender equality, at the end of the day I'm going to pay for more attention to sales charts than some loud-mouthed activists on the internet. Don't hate the player; hate the game.
Hate nothing at all and just enjoy games for what they are - if they offend you, [I]don't play it! [/I](yeah I know it's a saying but this is unrelated to above post.) Lying about what your game, now that's crossing the line - but apparently that's okay to a lot of journalists out there, 9/10's for every triple A game!
[QUOTE=Ziron;47168360]You have to realize that, these days, marketing has to be absolutely correct about who they want to target down to the last details. "x is for everyone!" sounds nice as an activist, but I dare you to build a successful marketing plan based on that that isn't for an essential product, like food. You can do things like make a shooter that is meant to appeal to violence-loving men in their 20s and 30ws, but also target some parts towards con-going, unmarried, and well-to-do women in their 20s (such as games like the Mass Effect series). However, you are not going to make a successful marketing strategy that tries to get everyone with a penis or a vagina, no matter their interests or social class, in one giant net. It's far, far too big to be successful. It all comes down to money. As much as I support things like gender equality, at the end of the day I'm going to pay for more attention to sales charts than some loud-mouthed activists on the internet. Don't hate the player; hate the game.[/QUOTE] That's my point. I am targeting the "game" as it were. We're playing a game where we determine, redetermine, and use and abuse these types of labels. Sure, there's a massive upside to this. Easy sales targets. There's also a huge downside when it's not done correctly or when it's misunderstood. You make a grizzly shooter? Cool, your target demographic may be gamers who are male in a certain age range. Please feel free to aim for that. But understand there's a side effect of people thinking that you marketed that game specifically to not target women when really you were just targeting women. I'm not saying act inclusive to be inclusive, I'm saying don't act in a manner that breeds anti-inclusivity. If I want to play with girls lego, i'm made fun of, if a girl wants to play with boys lego, they might be made fun of, the point is to avoid such situations. I don't think this happens to often with games, COD may target men but there's quite a number of girls who enjoy it as well but the mentality people, not the media, may take from being ignored by marketing is that they're not wanted. There's nothing stopping games that already have obscene marketing budgets well outpacing their development budgets making ads that don't alienate people, or don't further reinforce pointless stereotypes. I care about gender equality as it were simply because there's no reason to continue to feed into it. You say "well it's about the money", no, it's about a predisposed cultural set of values that change as time goes on, and it's about influencing that change consciously for once.
More developers on SVU episode, blaming journalists [url]http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1skoggc[/url] Don't know if he was already GG, but another one is always better.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47168401]That's my point. I am targeting the "game" as it were. We're playing a game where we determine, redetermine, and use and abuse these types of labels. Sure, there's a massive upside to this. Easy sales targets. There's also a huge downside when it's not done correctly or when it's misunderstood. You make a grizzly shooter? Cool, your target demographic may be gamers who are male in a certain age range. Please feel free to aim for that. But understand there's a side effect of people thinking that you marketed that game specifically to not target women when really you were just targeting women. I'm not saying act inclusive to be inclusive, I'm saying don't act in a manner that breeds anti-inclusivity. If I want to play with girls lego, i'm made fun of, if a girl wants to play with boys lego, they might be made fun of, the point is to avoid such situations. I don't think this happens to often with games, COD may target men but there's quite a number of girls who enjoy it as well but the mentality people, not the media, may take from being ignored by marketing is that they're not wanted. There's nothing stopping games that already have obscene marketing budgets well outpacing their development budgets making ads that don't alienate people, or don't further reinforce pointless stereotypes. I care about gender equality as it were simply because there's no reason to continue to feed into it. You say "well it's about the money", no, it's about a predisposed cultural set of values that change as time goes on, and it's about influencing that change consciously for once.[/QUOTE] My opinion is that marketing more boyish games more towards certain types of girls could actually work and generate more interest in games. That way, you can make money and help move culture along. The problem is that it might put-off some of the more masculine repeat customers and, quite frankly, gaming marketing departments don't have the chops to do something like appeal to girls like I would like. Personalty I wouldn't worry too much about losing the super-masculine fans, but companies are quite conservative. :/
Well there's another issue, what's boyish? And isn't that decided by us, the general public? What would determine it to be boyish inherently?
While I am not necessarily [I]againist[/I] trying to target more demographics with things, I do kinda gotta wonder how one would say, market COD towards female gamers. To be fair, they have added playable female characters in multiplayer, as well as have females pop up who are badasses and not damsels in distress (shut up anita) but attempting to target them any more would probobly come off as catering and cheapen the product to everyone else.
It's James writing about gender, so of course he does something stupid like say portal is a traditional fps that appeals to women even though he has wrote several times in the past how stupid it is to call portal a traditional fps. It's James, he's a really smart guy and I agree with so much he has to say about games in general, he just kinda stops using logic whenever someone says the word "gender" around him. Which is ok, no one is perfect, it's just his opinion after all. I'm not butthurt in the slightest that he and I disagree on this subject, but I am still upset how he spoke about TB, at least until he apologizes for it, which to my knowledge he still has not done.
Jesus christ, are the gaming press really this insane? Declaring war on quite a few gamers is one thing, but game developers? They don't realize what they have done, and there is no going back now! :v:
So sounds like ralph retort is being filtered from /v and /gamergate on 8chan. [url]http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2wei5k/drama_theralphretort_is_no_longer_allowed_on_v/[/url]
fart -hold on something is coming- this is big lmao go to next page LMAO - forget this crap spam
fart -hold on something is coming- this is big lmao
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.