Top
310°

Zoe Quinn: 'All Gamergate has done is ruin people's lives

Quinn is in the UK to talk about her work as a games designer, but most people at the event have come to know her as patient zero of Gamergate, the vociferous video game “protest movement” that exploded across the internet in August. Leaderless and chaotic, this ragtag community of self-identifying “hardcore” gamers sees its culture under threat from insidious outsiders – usually feminists and academics – who are challenging the industry on its sometimes questionable representation of violence, minorities and gender. Gamergate wants video games to be left alone.

Read Full Story >>
theguardian.com
The story is too old to be commented.
1269d ago Replies(8)
yarbie10001269d ago (Edited 1269d ago )

Gamergate made me aware of how the media has secret groups where they gather and discuss which stories they are going to talk about and which ones they are going to slide under the rug.

Gamergate made me aware of just how corrupt many of these news sites are who allowed journalists to donate money to the very people they are suppose to be critically reviewing.

Gamergate also made me aware of how many people will try to distort a movement - and how we have quite a few people who are "Professional Victims"

I don't think anyone dislikes Zoe Quinn for being a woman - I haven't found anyone who hates this person for having 2 X Chromosomes.

But acting like a slut - and portraying a boohooing victim every day - distorting facts and reality could probably ruin your life.

Anon19741269d ago (Edited 1269d ago )

Wait? So game journalists aren't allowed to talk to each other about the industry? You don't think journalists everywhere have groups where they discuss their work with each other, or the latest news?

And you don't believe that people in the industry should be allowed to donate their personal dollars to any cause or project they see fit? Having a financial interest in a game is a completely different from simply backing a project via Kickstarter or the like.

But go ahead, you judge people and tell them who they can talk to, how they should conduct their personal lives and where they can spend their own money. See how far that gets you in life.

Edit below: Well sorry to break it to you, but journalists, like anyone else, are allowed to associate and talk with whoever they want. No one is going to play big brother and stop that, and there's nothing wrong with it. Every industry does this. As for political contributions, that varies from organization to organization. Many have no objections to where their staff chooses to contribute. If game journalists choose to donate to a project, as long as it doesn't impact their ability to report on other projects, what's the issue? Again, this isn't the same thing as having a financial interest in a title that they'd profit from. That's completely different.

yarbie10001269d ago (Edited 1269d ago )

No I don't think its okay for a group of trusted media to conspire to keep some topics hidden from the public while pushing an agenda for other topics. Glad you're okay with that.

No, donating money as a journalist is unethical and why all news organizations ban the practice. You can't be a journalist and donate money to any political party for instance.

And if it was right - why did some sites come out and say they were banning the practice?

-Foxtrot1269d ago

Jeez all the defending you do towards these corrupt journalists is the reason why the think they can do what they like.

Anon19741269d ago

@-Foxtrot. Please explain to me how I'm "defending corrupt journalists". Where's this widespread corruption you speak of, and my defense thereof?

If a journalist does something wrong I'd be the first in line to condemn them. Talking to other journalists isn't corruption. Spending your own money on projects you want to support isn't corruption. Failing to disclose close personal relationships (like the journalist/dev roommates thing) I completely think is inappropriate. But let's face it, we've had months now of GamerGate digging through journalists trash and they've come up with bupkis overall. There's no widespread corruption among game journalists.

I completely support the call for more transparency from game journalists, and I think they should be held to a certain level of journalistic standards. I just think GG is a witchhunt that's ruining real people's lives for few gains.

Death1269d ago

If you are basing your decisions on a journalists opinion there is a much bigger issue you aren't seeing. You should be able to make your own decisions and form your own opinion. A journalist or reviewer should not have the kind of influence you are claiming they do on a reasonable person. Not to mention Zoe didn't sleep with every person that reviewed her work. The alleged "corrupt" journalists review was inline with the others.

Dramacydal1269d ago (Edited 1269d ago )

Secret groups. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Over video games. That they didn't make. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Makes total sense.

Spotie1269d ago

More and more disappointed in you, darkride. Not at all surprised by Death, given how he defends other crappy practices in the industry.

Here's the bottom line: Quinn and her actions were the tip of the iceberg. At the same time, they were the tipping point. You're both being intentionally obtuse, pretending like we weren't all complaining about shitty journalism long before we ever heard of Quinn, her abhorrent game, or the gamergate hashtag.

The movement has, from its very start, been about a lack of impartiality in gaming journalism. People with obvious- and not so obvious- biases pushing their opinions on us, who rely on them to give us news on the industry.

Yes, journalists can converse amongst themselves and talk about whatever. Nobody is saying they can't. What should not be acceptable is them deciding what subjects to cover, and which ones to bury. They should not be donating to games they then cover in any way, be it a full review or just an endorsement. That presents a conflict of interest any other industry would more than frown upon.

Sleeping with a developer most definitely falls into that category, even if "developer" is a bit strong of a word.

I'm most baffled by your willingness to disregard EVERYTHING out there saying #Gamergate is more than just hating on Quinn or women. It's like their efforts with TFYC and other such organizations, other such causes don't even exist.

How about actually taking the time to educate yourselves on the other side of the story? Cuz it's clear you've both- among many others- heard a small bit of it here and there and decided you'll follow the same line as the mainstream media: gamergate is just thinly veiled misogyny.

http://techcrunch.com/2014/...

EVERY bit of green text is a link proving just how stupid your defense of this attention whore is.

The question is: will you even bother to take that evidence into consideration, or have you already made up your mind based on the fragments others have chosen to divulge to you?

Honestly, it's pathetic that it even has to come to this.

UnwanteDreamz1269d ago (Edited 1269d ago )

Thank you spotie

I encourage gamers to read what is at the other end of that link.

InTheLab1269d ago

Don't you run a website? Or is it a different darkride I'm thinking of. The one I respected had 1 bubble for a year because he went hard at corrupt sites that shown bias for a particular console.

Perhaps I'm mistaken.

Anon19741269d ago

@Spotie. I disagree. I think gaming journalists have every right to discuss among themselves what topics are interesting, what to cover, etc.. It's conversation. It's not like there's some shadowy group that hides behind the scenes and dictates to all game journalists what to report. That's nonsense, yet that's what Gamergators would have you believe they're fighting about.

As for donating money, they should be able to support whatever cause they want to with their funds..as long as they don't have a undisclosed financial interest in that project. If I'm a journalist and I see an interesting game in the works, why wouldn't I write a story about it if I thought others would find it interesting? And if I personally wanted to chip in $10 or $100 to a Kickstarter, who the hell is going to tell me I can't? I'd even be up front about it in my articles! "I love the look of this game, I'm an unabashed fan and I personally kicked into their kickstarter." How on earth could anyone take issue with that? Why shouldn't journalists be supportive of the game industry and projects they're interested in? As long as it's not impacting their reporting on other topics, what's the harm?

Just like you're article mentions, it's about bias. Bias isn't corruption. It's bias. If you don't like the bias displayed by a site, or media organisation, use another site you're happy with. Trying to say journalists shouldn't have bias, you might as well be an old man yelling at a cloud. And as for all the "good" in the article Gamergate has accomplished, it doesn't erase the mountain of bad. It's like "Hey, there's a daisy growing out of that mountain of shit." You can't simply ignore the facts. It's not illegal for mods to censor their forums. It's their forums, they can do whatever the hell they want. You certainly can't deny that a lot of GG behaviour is a clear violation of the terms of use on most sites when it comes to language, harassment, etc. If forums want to shut down all discussion due to the toxic turn the debate inevitably takes, that's their prerogative. Don't like it, make your own forum, which is what they did! The system works.

The sad thing is you think this one sided article somehow outlines Gamergate's justification for their harassment of industry figures. It doesn't.

@InTheLab. I did run a game news aggregate site years ago but simply don't have the time for it and sold the domain. Don't think they did anything with it. And having one bubble for a year...try more like 5 years out of the 7 or so I've been on this site! If sites show a bias, if sites display questionable ethics, if reviewers use one set of rules for one game but not another...damn straight I still have issue with this. But that's not what gamergate is about. If it was and they had any evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing it'd be right there with them. But it's conspiracy nonsense for the most part, or issues of so little import all I can do is shake my head.

elninels1269d ago

You have some fair points.

"And you don't believe that people in the industry should be allowed to donate their personal dollars to any cause or project they see fit"

No they shouldn't. Their ability to cover a subject objectively becomes impaired.

It goes like this.
I am a journalist.
I invest in a start up.
I review said start up's product or service positively, even if said project or service sucks, to drive sales.
I collude with my peers to proliferate misleading reviews.
I make more money.
I abandon journalistic integrity.

Anon19741269d ago

@elenels. But that's not what we're talking about here. I've been very clear on that. If a journalist has an investment in a company and would profit from a game's success, that's a conflict that needs to be addressed and that journalist shouldn't discuss that game.

Supporting a game via kickstarter or by other means where there's no benefit to the journalist if the game succeeds or fails. ..that's a completely different situation obviously. There's no earthly reason a journalist, developer or anyone else should be told they can't donate to a cause or project they want to support. That's not the same as an investment where a return is expected in the end.

Dee_911268d ago

It appears @darkride66 can't quite grasp the thought of a journalist and a person whose not a journalist can't do the same things.It appears that he believes that since 'teh everybudy else duz it, it is therefore okay!' It appears he doesn't know anything about journalist ethics most journalist learn about early on in school, that clearly state a majority of the stuff you personally see no issue with ( because of your ignorance) as being against journalistic ethics..You can try to make it seem as innocent as you want by ignoring the specifics of exactly what that group was doing until your face turn purple, but the fact is that group goes against journalistic ethics.. So actually.it does not matter what you personally feel, what matters is the reality.

Also wellsaid @yarbie1000

+ Show (9) more repliesLast reply 1268d ago
donwel1269d ago

What gets me is how she's supposed to be "afraid for her life" yet keeps going on these worldwide misogyny tours, which surely would make her an easier target?

jspsc1231268d ago

its not just gaming media, its all media. thoes who control the money control everything and will do anything to keep contol.

ReconHope1269d ago

So there was never an actual review by kotaku. Can't believe everything you read on the internet.

-Foxtrot1269d ago

There was never a review but there was two articles by the same guy praising her game telling us to go and buy it. Someone else did the same thing on another site, I think it was Rock, Paper, Shotgun

ReconHope1269d ago (Edited 1269d ago )

She conveniently left that part out I suppose. Can someone post a link to these two articles that the guy was praising her game that she slept with.

gamey1269d ago (Edited 1269d ago )

Oh seriously, LINK IT. I thought it was free to play? Raise money for charity? Jesus. You have made a mountain of the the tiniest molehill. Most of it is based emotionally in this idea that she slept with people to "get ahead" somehow. People have sex. Gamergate hasn't accomplished anything but giving a little protective cover to the idea that it didn't start out as a vicious rabble with severely touchy ideas about women. All your assertions and timelines ultimately mean nothing important. It really doesn't matter how many pieces of "evidence" you have if they don't add up to an actual picture. You're doing a good job of giving the IMPRESSION something catastrophic happened. It didn't. It is time to move onto productive things. Like ethics in journalism. Like calling out bigotry and sexism. Those are great. Stop focusing on trying to prove this started out clean. It didn't.

Anon19741269d ago (Edited 1269d ago )

You're correct. There was never a review by Kotaku. Grayson mentioned Quinn in an article regarding a indie game reality show she was on but never favorably mentioned the game. This was prior to any romantic involvement between the two. You can see the article here. This was the only article Grayson ever wrote about Quinn on Kotaku.

http://tmi.kotaku.com/the-i...

For Rock Paper Shotgun, Grayson wrote an article about 50 recently greenlit games on Steam in which Depression Quest was on the list. That was it as far as a search on the site goes.

Here's the thing about these claims. If there was any legitimacy to these claims, wouldn't GamerGate be linking these articles and quoting them non-stop to prove their point? Of course they would. They don't because they're dead wrong. The evidence doesn't exist. It's just conspiracy nonsense.

So right there...if GamerGate were about ethics in journalism, shouldn't it have ended the moment it was revealed that the original claims weren't true? You'd think so. But instead, the mob just packed up their pitchforks and torches and moved onto condemning another target. Ethics in journalism indeed....

Edit below: Clearly both are talking about her.

Death1269d ago

The fans and the mob mentality that seems to follow are a much bigger problem than journalists. Fans don't require proof before going off the deep end and are never held responsible. Who is it that is still talking about Zoe anyway? Is it the fans or the journalists?

ReconHope1269d ago

Very informative. Thanks for the facts.

mixelon1269d ago (Edited 1269d ago )

Nice to see people going against the status quo here. :D

Maybe there's some hope for the commentariat after all!

... The fact you're getting such a ratio of disagrees/agrees pretty much proves how reality-averse these guys actually are. Still.

creatchee1269d ago (Edited 1269d ago )

The thing about GamerGate that amuses me is this:

If you check the comment history of the people on this site who support GG, you'll find that a majority of them are fanboys for one console or another. Not fans, but fanboys. They are the ones who repeatedly go into rival console-related threads and talk trash and start flame wars. And it's understandable, because the same mentality applies.

It's the "my thoughts are the only ones that matter and I will go to obscene lengths to disrupt and disparage anybody who disagrees with me" mentality. Basically, the idea that somebody else thinks they're right or at least being treated unfairly means that they should be treated WORSE and constantly reminded that they are foolish and horrible people for committing the grave offense of having a different point of view.

Honestly, I would have given GamerGate more credence when it started, but when I saw the who were supporting and propagating it, I knew that it was simply just another avenue of hate veiled under a supposedly worthy cause.

-Foxtrot1269d ago (Edited 1269d ago )

@creatchee

Are you actually going to try and make GamerGate which affects all gamers into a thing about fanboys

Nobody gives a shit what console you own or support in all this.

@ReconHope

<sigh> They are not facts

creatchee1269d ago (Edited 1269d ago )

@-Foxtrot

Facts are facts. I implore anybody who doubts what I say to check your comment history, as well as anybody else's who supports the GamerGate movement and see how you and they treat anybody who disagrees with you. Repeat for the other extremely vocal members of "the movement".

And no, it's not just Sony or Microsoft fanboys, but fanboys in general. My point was that the mentality is the same, regardless of topic or which sides you support. If you were debating anything from politics to choice of soft drink, it would be the same.

It's all the same because your mentality and attitude are what define you - not your point of view on any particular subject.

mopground1269d ago

why dont you reply to spotie's comment? or do you avoid actual arguments that seriously question the stances youve taken like Anita?

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 1269d ago
Concertoine1269d ago (Edited 1269d ago )

Its time to move on from Quinn and get on to the real issues at hand, I could care less about this woman's sex life. People are focusing on the scandal of it all and slut-shaming when we should be looking at the bigger picture.

Bottom line, people do it with each other. Get over it.

Halo2ODST21269d ago

Way to miss the entire point, if your sleeping with people so they give your products praise, rather than the product itself deserving that praise then its misleading consumers who buy the product in question - bad ethics

gamey1269d ago

Way to miss the entire point. You are speculating that she slept with people to get products praised. You have no idea. Even worse, you completely ignore that a bunch of people are speculating to a obscene degree about her sex life and calling her a whore and a slut. Says a lot about how we let people talk about women in our society. Truly what is a more important issue? I think you're burying the lede.

rainslacker1269d ago

The only people focusing on the the Quinn scandal are Quinn and those trying to discredit GG. GG supporters only talk about it when Quinn decides to say something to bring herself back into the spotlight.

GG supporters would love to move onto the real issue, but the press in general can't move past the catalyst for GG starting, and the sexist and misogynistic claims used to slander it.

gamey1269d ago

Funny you phrased it, "the sexist and misogynistic claims used to slander it" when there were actual sexist and misogynistic activities that slander it. The reality is sexism/bigotry and internet threats/abuse is the REAL issue and THAT's why the media covers it. It's not a conspiracy, it's simply the more important issue. Exemplified perfectly (and sadly, shamefully) by a bunch of turds in the gaming community. Confirmation bias is a scary thing. It keeps people from having good perspective.

Concertoine1269d ago (Edited 1269d ago )

The one who dug all this up is an ex who posted private issues online and cowered behind their supposed importance to the industry as if it justified his last act as anything more than a thing of spite. Let's be real, his blog is 99% look at this girl that screwed some guys, and 1% industry commentary. Ideally he wouldn't have stooped himself to her level, and ideally we wouldn't have needed a scandal such as that to kickstart these issues on a wider level.

It was never about proving she screwed guys to advance her career, it's about the notion that she COULD possibly do that. The Quinn scandal WAS not and SHOULD never have been a focal point. The source to all this admits himself that he is biased, the evidence is debatable, and in the end it's a footnote to wider issues that deserve people's effort much more.

rainslacker1268d ago

Sexism and misogyny and journalistic ethics are all issues that should be addressed. Which one is more important is rather moot. The "conspiracy" came in when the GameJournoPro's group of journalist decided to discredit the GG movement by colluding to discredit gamers as a bunch of sexist misogynistic a-holes in order to avoid the issue that GG was about.

Perhaps I phrased it wrong, but my point was that the GG side would love nothing more than to have a discussion on what the topic of journalistic ethics. If the gaming press had better ethical behaviour, then perhaps the issue of sexism and misogyny could actually be addressed in a mature way, and not the constant finger pointing bullying and libelous manner in which it is now, which is only causing the community to dig their heels in further as they are constantly trying to defend themselves against attacks on their character.

Before all this started, sexism and misogyny were already being talked about by the community, and I can say the tone of the discussion was much more reasonable outside the trolls who made stupid comments, who are the same trolls that make the same stupid comments now. Now the tone is just hateful, and nothing is being achieved on that side because it's been hijacked by people who only have their own self interest in mind.

I don't personally see how Quinn is even relevant to GG anymore, other than her initial actions which caused the whole movement to steamroll into what it is today. She was the catalyst to get it started, but not the cause that people are fighting against.

-Foxtrot1269d ago

This sort of thing has been happening a lot

You get chunks of Anti Gamer Gate articles going up at the same time, sometimes focusing on different people but the main issue is still the same it's to try and make GG look small and something it's not

It's one big smear campaign, they leave out so much info and exaggerate the stuff they have

Look at the one with Wu and her dead dog, that sort of thing would happen to anyone, I'm sure if you get a celeb on twitter and she or he posts something sad you'd get the odd troll saying something horrible....in this case it doesn't mean it's Gamer Gate. They are clutching at straws.