The ESA seems to conflict with the NPD numbers. I would think the ESA one would be more accurate? I dunno, maybe that thought is unfounded.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
#GAMERGATE: The Threadening [Read the OP] -- #StopGamerGate2014
- Thread starter besada
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
The ESA seems to conflict with the NPD numbers. I would think the ESA one would be more accurate? I dunno, maybe that thought is unfounded.
The ESA seems to conflict with the NPD numbers. I would think the ESA one would be more accurate? I dunno, maybe that thought is unfounded.
Agreed. Thanks for pointing this out.
Fair enough. Thank you for the correction. Still, the rise in the female gaming population is undeniable.
An article from 2009 based on a NPD Group study that claims females in the U.S. made up 28% of the gaming populace:
http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/06/video-games-girls-markets-equities-technology.html
Just four years later, a 2013 study from the ESA that shows that number has risen to 45%
http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2013.pdf
To remind you: We are discussing all manner of topics within a thread dedicated to #GAMERGATE. If you have an issue with my opinions, that's fine. But hurling insults without providing any further insight as to why you disagree is not how discussion works.
Noone disagrees with the rise. Noone. What everyone so far disagrees with is your assumption.
This is one of those ideas that needs to be unpacked a little. The "female gaming population" you refer to is made up in large part of phone and social media gamers. This section of the gaming world is light years removed from what used to be called "mainstream" or "core" gaming and is much, much friendlier to women than, say, a typical game of CoD.
When women try to join the mostly male-dominated game spaces represented by console gaming, things change. They often start to notice the "male gaze" of the mainstream industry and want to give suggestions to change it. That's usually when the crazy harrassment begins.
So - lets just be clear. The women spending hours with Candy Crush Saga are: 1) the vast majority of women gamers; and 2) shouldn't be used to "prove" that most women are fine with female portrayals in games.
TLDR: There's a glass ceiling in games, and it's right above Candy Crush.
You posted your assumption now for the third time. Congrats.
To remind you: sideeffect of the growth is that we are discussing sexism. Because of women like Sarkeesian. Like Laurie Penny. Supported by women. We had women speak out under the hashtag #1reasonwhy. And countless other videos, articles and campaigns. Because they, women, see the problem. Face the problem.
You posted "In 1989, females only comprised 3% of the total gaming populace." Article states "games industry". Your fact was wrong.
1. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I believe a significant contributor to the increase in female gamers is due to the rise of casual/mobile gaming. Most of the popular games in that space don't really have the same issues with female/minority representation. "Core/hardcore" gaming is still dominated by males. Casual/less involved gamers who don't post or hang out on video game forums, play multiplayer games, or whatever are also not so likely to run into the misogynistic sentiment that sometimes comes out of people in the video game community.
2. Plenty of women (and people of all stripes) think that games could use some improvements wrt how women and minorities are represented, but they still play games. Problems with games aren't so overwhelming it's worth abandoning the hobby entirely.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/125494009/ESA-Essential-Facts-2004
These are ESA numbers in 2004, this is prior to Wow(remember it launched at the end of 2004).
Women still made up 40% of the online population with games. So again, women have been here for quite awhile.
These are ESA numbers in 2004, this is prior to Wow(remember it launched at the end of 2004).
Women still made up 40% of the online population with games. So again, women have been here for quite awhile.
Noone disagrees with the rise. Noone. What everyone so far disagrees with is your assumption.
I disagree with his assumption because it is an unknown. You can think this, but to assume it is true is nothing more then guess work. Trying to force a mindset onto a large group of people is never a good idea, unless you have numbers to support it.
Can we all just not make definitive statements without backing them up with something substantial? Trying to infer things from anecdotal or sentiment is a go nowhere argument, because you can argue with each other until you are blue in the face, because nobody can prove anything that is based in sentiment.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/125494009/ESA-Essential-Facts-2004
These are ESA numbers in 2004, this is prior to Wow(remember it launched at the end of 2004).
Women still maid up 40% of the online population with games. So again, women have been here for quite awhile.
Still rising, albeit slower than some studies point to.
ArkkAngel007
Member
I disagree with his assumption because it is an unknown. You can think this, but to assume it is true is nothing more then guess work. Trying to force a mindset onto a large group of people is never a good idea, unless you have numbers to support it.
Can we all just not make definitive statements without backing them up with something substantial? Trying to infer things from anecdotal or sentiment is a go nowhere argument, because you can argue with each other until you are blue in the face, because nobody can prove anything that is based in sentiment.
Which oddly enough is part of why things have happened the way they have in the events surrounding the past few weeks.
The Storyteller
Member
2. Plenty of women (and people of all stripes) think that games could use some improvements wrt how women and minorities are represented, but they still play games. Problems with games aren't so overwhelming it's worth abandoning the hobby entirely.
Yeah, that works under the weird assumption that anyone who criticizes problematic/invisible representation of women/minorities somehow doesn't enjoy video games. Critique is born out love for material; and a drive to make it better.
Anita even makes the point at the beginning of almost all her videos: "it's important to keep in mind that it is entirely possible to be critical of some aspects of a piece of media while still finding other parts valuable or enjoyable."
Noone disagrees with the rise. Noone. What everyone so far disagrees with is your assumption.
There is no assumption in the facts plainly showing that female gamers are on the rise and not fleeing in horror from the alleged atrocities present in the videogames, as they apparently should be.
Again, my opinion is that Sarkeesian's ideas are not held by the majority of female gamers. Your opinion is that my opinion is a jump in logic. My opinion is, at the very least, backed up by statistical fact.
"Conflict cannot survive without your participation." - Wayne Dyer
Also not completely neutral, just think my voice is lost in all of these different noises.
You say that as though conflict is always bad. Whenever you want things to change for the better there are always people who will oppose you and who, ultimately, you have to defeat.
There is no assumption in the facts plainly showing that female gamers are on the rise and not fleeing in horror from the alleged atrocities present in the videogames, as they apparently should be.
Again, my opinion is that Sarkeesian's ideas are not held by the majority of female gamers. Your opinion is that my opinion is a jump in logic. My opinion is, at the very least, backed up by statistical fact.
Will you for once stop repeating your assumption and back it up/ or actually reply to the points the other posters raised? For once?
Yeah, that works under the weird assumption that anyone who criticizes problematic/invisible representation of women/minorities somehow doesn't enjoy video games. Critique is born out love for material; and a drive to make it better.
Anita even makes the point at the beginning of almost all her videos: "it's important to keep in mind that it is entirely possible to be critical of some aspects of a piece of media while still finding other parts valuable or enjoyable."
I agree, criticism should be welcomed, debate encouraged, and idea's shared. Disagreements are only natural. The game industry get's a lot of shit, I understand why some are ultra sensitive, but like the Erik Kain article said, you dont win by picking up weapons and going to war(Alex Baldwin). All of this would have never blown up to begin with if people just allowed Anita to speak her piece and just talk about it as a piece, instead of attacking her, personally.
I'm sorry if the Internet has embedded in your brain the false idea that "a tag is effective communication".
Things are so complex it takes pages to explain. Twitter is the WORST medium to have a discussion.
You should tell that to the minorities I follow on twitter who use the platform to share ideas, experience, and tactics. Tell that to the minorities who felt isolated before being able to connect with people through twitter.
I know that the poster I'm quoting has been banned but the idea that twitter is a bad platform for discussion comes up often and I disagree.
You should tell that to the minorities I follow on twitter who use the platform to share ideas, experience, and tactics. Tell that to the minorities who felt isolated before being able to connect with people through twitter.
I know that the poster I'm quoting has been banned but the idea that twitter is a bad platform for discussion comes up often and I disagree.
You can disagree, but I'd say these people would be able to form other communities, on the internet. Twitter I dont think has helped more then it has just empowered people to stay in their echo chambers. The amount of damage twitter has done to debate, imo, is significantly noticeable. I understand that some people find more solace in it then others, and that is their right. However I dont think there is proof that it has done more good then harm(although I cant prove it HAS done more harm then good, either, cant prove a negative).
1) No, the original controversy was started by a huge post by Quinn's ex-boyfriend, who accused of her shady behavior in her personal life. Few places covered it because it was about her personal life, not games. So the "controversy" morphed into "Zoe Quinn traded sex for reviews and no one will talk about it!" which itself was completely manufactured, because there was no evidence that it ever happened and the ex-boyfriend that was the source for everything never even alleged that it did.
DId it not involve a dev having relations with a game journalist? I thought that was where the whole ethics issue came from.
Also, if that was all, where did the thing about the forum for depressed people being "raided" by her followers and shamed on twitter come from? Where did the doxxing and shutting down of TFYC come from? Surely, there must have been more?
2) On Baldwin being explicitly anti-feminist: this is really obvious if you've been following the things he's been saying, but I'll just take the most recent tweets from his timeline where feminism is mentioned.
Does this mean Sommers' involvement means the movement is explicitly pro-feminist if Baldwin's involvement means the opposite?
4) The original #notyourshield stuff being a way for 4chan to use minorities as a shield was linked to earlier in this thread by a mod: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=128394476&postcount=62
What I gather from that screenie is that they wanted to dispel the notion that it is only white, male gamers who are involved and who do not want minorities being represented in gaming. Ofcourse, there are minorities on 4Chan who were offended by those accusations, and took that hashtag. In that post you linked, they are even warned to not use that hashtag if they are white, cis and male.
5) People on /v/ did indeed support the hell out of TFYC, while continuing to attack Zoe Quinn and privately bragging about how the TFYC was great PR to deflect criticism of their attacks on Zoe Quinn.
I was on those threads. And what I saw was that they did not want women out of gaming, and to dispel the notion that they were misogynist, they supported a feminist campaign. Almost every single thread told people that this whole issue is not about Zoe and to focus on the journalists. Anyone who did try to focus on Zoe was labelled a shill and reported. Your account does not fit what I saw.
At some point you have to ask the question of what "troll" means, though. It's not like these people just decided to harass people for the hell of it. I mean, there's certainly likely some who joined in for that reason, but for the most part they believe the hateful nonsense they're spouting. The people you're referring to didn't take over the hashtag or "debate" either, they started it. And anyone else that had good intentions to fight corruption were played by the originators into attacking the wrong targets without stopping to think about why they were attacking individual women instead of big sites/pubs. If you want to discuss the real issues, you need to distance yourself from that "movement" as much as possible, and that's not giving in.
EDIT: Which is not to say that if they were just "trolls" that we should pretend that their words don't harm people, because they still would.
You can't just say that they actually believe what they say without proof. That is the whole shtick of trolls on the internet. You cannot be this sure about what they do and do not believe. If you say with absolute certainty that these trolls believe what they say and not just troll for the sake of trolling and causing disruption, then you cannot be taken seriously regarding trolls on the internet.
Also, if those trolls are serious, then so are the trolls who are attacking and harassing gamers posting on the GamerGate hashtag. Surely it goes both ways?
moondoggerr
Banned
There is no assumption in the facts plainly showing that female gamers are on the rise and not fleeing in horror from the alleged atrocities present in the videogames, as they apparently should be.
Again, my opinion is that Sarkeesian's ideas are not held by the majority of female gamers. Your opinion is that my opinion is a jump in logic. My opinion is, at the very least, backed up by statistical fact.
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/...amers-now-double-the-number-of-under-18-boys/
Here's an article that posits that the rise of female gamers is probably due to a rise in smartphone games. That's all people are saying to you.
Do you really believe that if you went and analyzed GTA online right now you'd find 45% of the players were women?
Do you believe that if you went and analyzed CS:GO right now youd find that 45% of the players were women?
Let's turn it around: do you really believe that if you analyzed Kim Kardashian's Hollywood right now 55% of the players would be male?
Will you for once stop repeating your assumption and back it up/ or actually reply to the points the other posters raised? For once?
I have backed up my opinions (not assumptions) with fact, repeatedly. You can continue to ignore logic, as is your right.
chrominance
Member
Fair enough. Thank you for the correction. Still, the rise in the female gaming population is undeniable.
An article from 2009 based on a NPD Group study that claims females in the U.S. made up 28% of the gaming populace:
http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/06/video-games-girls-markets-equities-technology.html
Just four years later, a 2013 study from the ESA that shows that number has risen to 45%
http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2013.pdf
To remind you: We are discussing all manner of topics within a thread dedicated to #GAMERGATE. If you have an issue with my opinions, that's fine. But hurling insults without providing any further insight as to why you disagree is not how discussion works.
I don't doubt your figures that women have been playing games in greater numbers than before. In general there's been a democratization of gaming; it's no longer seen as primarily the dominion of kids, at least in the west, and increasingly it's opening up to women. These are great things.
These trends do not mean that everything is totally fine and that women in gaming necessarily disagree with Anita Sarkeesian. I wrote a whole thing about how it's possible to play and enjoy games while finding aspects of them troublesome, and that some games are worse than others and it's easy to restrict yourself to the games/genres with better female representations, or where gender isn't a factor at all (for example, racing games). But I realized there's an even easier explanation.
More women playing games means the industry has gotten better at catering to women. That doesn't mean it's now really good at catering to women, or that there isn't substantial room for improvement. It'd be a bit like saying, well, women got the vote in the 1920s, why does feminism still exist? Because there's still inequalities that need to be dealt with. More women playing games does not somehow invalidate Anita Sarkeesian's thesis.
moondoggerr
Banned
I have backed up my opinions (not assumptions) with fact, repeatedly. You can continue to ignore logic, as is your right.
Your facts end at the point where people point out that the rise in female gamers you keep citing does not mean that more women are playing console games. You have consistently ignored this point.
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/...amers-now-double-the-number-of-under-18-boys/
Here's an article that posits that the rise of female gamers is probably due to a rise in smartphone games. That's all people are saying to you.
Do you really believe that if you went and analyzed GTA online right now you'd find 45% of the players were women?
Do you believe that if you went and analyzed CS:GO right now youd find that 45% of the players were women?
Let's turn it around: do you really believe that if you analyzed Kim Kardashian's Hollywood right now 55% of the players would be male?
I wana jump in here, even though I'm arguing something totally different. I think this is putting women in a corner, based on assumption, and I dont think that is healthy at all. 2004 was a long time ago, before the rise of farmville and such. I think trying to tell women where they were, without anything actually factually showing this to be the case can be damaging to perception. Again, the ESA in 2004 says women made up 40% of online games, that tells me women are not just playing candy crush.
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/...amers-now-double-the-number-of-under-18-boys/
Here's an article that posits that the rise of female gamers is probably due to a rise in smartphone games. That's all people are saying to you.
Do you really believe that if you went and analyzed GTA online right now you'd find 45% of the players were women?
Do you believe that if you went and analyzed CS:GO right now youd find that 45% of the players were women?
Let's turn it around: do you really believe that if you analyzed Kim Kardashian's Hollywood right now 55% of the players would be male?
So are we really prepared to say that smartphone game players don't count? That the series should be renamed "Tropes vs. Console/PC playing Women"? Or is this about equality for ALL women, as the title would suggest?
You can disagree, but I'd say these people would be able to form other communities, on the internet. Twitter I dont think has helped more then it has just empowered people to stay in their echo chambers. The amount of damage twitter has done to debate, imo, is significantly noticeable. I understand that some people find more solace in it then others, and that is their right. However I dont think there is proof that it has done more good then harm(although I cant prove it HAS done more harm then good, either, cant prove a negative).
Okay. Well the people from oppressed minority groups I follow say otherwise. I tend to believe them.
The #gameethics tag is full of interesting voices and conversations. I recommend someone make a thread just for that.
charlequin
Banned
I wonder if most mainstream journjalistic channels were just insane for having such guidelines already.
Mainstream journalistic channels don't have such rules, because they actually understand what direction influence flows (hint: it's the same direction as the money.)
I think Naomi Clarke put this one pretty succinctly by calling it "reverse payola." It takes the journalistic principle of influence -- where journalists should not accept gifts or benefits from the organizations they cover -- and twists it into something bizarre, this idea that a journalist can't cover something that they have chosen to partake of. If you take this standard to its natural conclusion, anyone who is actually a gamer can never be a game journalist by virtue of their very hobby purchases disqualifying them.
Consider this: if people want to criticize game journalism, why have they not been targeting bigger-picture issues like press junkets, aggregation, low salaries, corporate sponsorship arrangements (did you know that GameSpot hosted that WoW reveal last month?), irresponsible rumor-monging, Metacritic, review scores in general, the general lack of appreciation for good writing/reporting, and many, many other problems?
This is the biggest way that a future conversation about games journalism ethics could be far more effective in tackling that issue: by starting right upfront with actual issues of questionable ethics instead of the invented sins of underpaid freelance writers.
Okay. Well the people from oppressed minority groups I follow say otherwise. I tend to believe them.
Well there is certainly nothing saying it is hurting them, so I'm not about to disagree that they feel better with it. I just, personally, think it has done more macro damage, despite the fact it has done some micro good. But I would never want to tell people they cant be somewhere anymore, simply because I think something isnt good, that I cant prove for a fact, is bad.
moondoggerr
Banned
So are we really prepared to say that smartphone game players don't count? That the series should be renamed "Tropes vs. Console/PC playing Women"? Or is this about equality for ALL women, as the title would suggest?
Nope, not saying that at all. Also not trying to put women in a corner. Just pointing out that the types of games that people on GAF obsess over, that Kotaku covers, that the majority of Twitch feeds are about, are not women friendly.
I think many many women would be way more open to playing deep experiential console games if they were perceived as more welcoming for women in general. Many women who play CoD for example (and there are many) report that they have a constant harrassment problem, to the point that most of them won't identify as female when they play.
There are loads more women playing video games now. Thats a fact. But lets not pretend that console gamers are almost 50% women just because that gives you an argument that women don't mind the endemic sexism in console games.
So are we really prepared to say that smartphone game players don't count? That the series should be renamed "Tropes vs. Console/PC playing Women"? Or is this about equality for ALL women, as the title would suggest?
They do count. And they should feel welcomed and comfortable in other gaming spaces as they seem to feel on mobile platforms.
I have backed up my opinions (not assumptions) with fact, repeatedly. You can continue to ignore logic, as is your right.
So far, not even one poster agreed with your assumption. Not only that, they explained in detail why your assumption is wrong. So far, you haven't even once replied to these criticisms. You just keep stating the 45 % female gamers and your assumption, that it means they disagree with Sarkeesian. Over and over and over and over again, ignoring every post replying to your assumption.
moondoggerr
Banned
They do count. And they should feel welcomed and comfortable in other gaming spaces as they seem to feel on mobile platforms.
Thank you! <I was starting to feel that absolutely nobody was understanding my point>.
Consider this: if people want to criticize game journalism, why have they not been targeting bigger-picture issues like press junkets, aggregation, low salaries, corporate sponsorship arrangements (did you know that GameSpot hosted that WoW reveal last month?), irresponsible rumor-monging, Metacritic, review scores in general, the general lack of appreciation for good writing/reporting, and many, many other problems?
Well we need some games journalists to start naming the people and/or companies that are doing this sort of shit instead of going "this shady/scummy shit happens but I can't name names" all the time.
That'd require putting their job at risk for the sake of journalistic integrity though.
RyanPierre
Member
So - lets just be clear. The women spending hours with Candy Crush Saga are: 1) the vast majority of women gamers
Wow, that's an incredible assertion! The vast majority of women gamers are those who spend hours with Candy Crush Saga. It almost seems unbelievable when you consider the women gamer percentages before Candy Crush Saga existed. Care to back this up? I'm not able to find anything to corroborate this.
Nope, not saying that at all. Also not trying to put women in a corner. Just pointing out that the types of games that people on GAF obsess over, that Kotaku covers, that the majority of Twitch feeds are about, are not women friendly.
I think many many women would be way more open to playing deep experiential console games if they were perceived as more welcoming for women in general. Many women who play CoD for example (and there are many) report that they have a constant harrassment problem, to the point that most of them won't identify as female when they play.
There are loads more women playing video games now. Thats a fact. But lets not pretend that console gamers are almost 50% women just because that gives you an argument that women don't mind the endemic sexism in console games.
To be fair, the CoD crowd isn't exactly bustling with maturity. I myself stay away from it simply BECAUSE of that type of community, if it can be called that.
Avoiding it doesn't make me feel as though I've missed out on anything because it doesn't appeal to me.
If I can consciously avoid situations in games that will make me feel uncomfortable. Surely console playing women have this same power, no?
To be fair, the CoD crowd isn't exactly bustling with maturity. I myself stay away from it simply BECAUSE of that type of community, if it can be called that.
Avoiding it doesn't make me feel as though I've missed out on anything because it doesn't appeal to me.
If I can consciously avoid situations in games that will make me feel uncomfortable. Surely console playing women have this same power, no?
They can. As much as speak out. What they do.
moondoggerr
Banned
Wow, that's an incredible assertion! The vast majority of women gamers are those who spend hours with Candy Crush Saga. It almost seems unbelievable when you consider the women gamer percentages before Candy Crush Saga existed. Care to back this up? I'm not able to find anything to corroborate this.
http://www.flurry.com/blog/flurry-i...eat-males-money-time-and-loyalty#.VAulvfldXNk
So far, not even one poster agreed with your assumption. Not only that, they explained in detail why your assumption is wrong. So far, you haven't even once replied to these criticisms. You just keep stating the 45 % female gamers and your assumption, that it means they disagree with Sarkeesian. Over and over and over and over again, ignoring every post replying to your assumption.
I don't require people to agree with my opinions (again, not assumptions).
You're bordering on personal attacks now. If tolerance and equality are what you claim to represent, then surely you can extend the same courtesy here.
But lets not pretend that console gamers are almost 50% women just because that gives you an argument that women don't mind the endemic sexism in console games.
I agree, everything that I've seen seems to suggest women gravitate to PC online games more then any other. If you want to appeal to them I think a good approach would be taking social games(like MMO's) and applying them to more console games(single player as well). The loss of the Japanese market, I think, with console games has hurt teh markets appeal, because I believe JRPG's have a stronger affinity with women, then a lot of other genre's.
It's one of the biggest video game reasons I would love more women in the console market. I genuinely believe it is our only shot at seeing a real reemerging of JRPG's, by expanding the market through gender. On the console. They are already more numerous on the DS and such, and I firmly believe it is because more women own those, and actively play them. This is a theory, but I think the numbers in terms of who owns DS's and the amount of RPG's on the DS strongly infers this.
That just means women play more smartphone games. That doesn't mean they dont play other games. >.>
They're young and full of themselves and high on internet anonymity.
They are also absolutely right.
moondoggerr
Banned
That just means women play more smartphone games. That doesn't mean they dont play other games. >.>
I never said that women don't play other games. I just said that MORE women are playing smartphone games than are playing console games. This seems obvious to me. But it doesn't need to derail the thread. So going foward, lets assume that the same proportion of women play all types of games.
They are also absolutely right.
About what? This being a black and white issue where disagreeing with any part of the Gamergate rhetoric makes you "ONE OF THEM?"
RyanPierre
Member
I just said that MORE women are playing smartphone games than are playing console games. This seems obvious to me.
For the record, you said "let's be clear" and then proceeded to claim that the vast majority of women gamers play Candy Crush Saga for hours, and you've failed to back that up in any way.
I don't require people to agree with my opinions (again, not assumptions).
You're bordering on personal attacks now. If tolerance and equality are what you claim to represent, then surely you can extend the same courtesy here.
Dude, your assumptions are tolerated. You posted them often enough. We are just critizing them and you won't even bother to reply to the points. But since it is unlikely you will ever reply, let me ask you a question:
Why do you bring up that " the majority of female gamers disagrees with Sarkeesian"? Whats the point.
Which oddly enough is part of why things have happened the way they have in the events surrounding the past few weeks.
I agree. It's the twitter effect, imo.
Dude, your assumptions are tolerated. You posted them often enough. We are just critizing them and you won't even bother to reply to the points. But since it is unlikely you will ever reply, let me ask you a question:
Why do you bring up that " the majority of female gamers disagrees with Sarkeesian"? Whats the point.
I've replied to the best of my ability. If this doesn't meet your standards, there's no need to resort to personal attacks, as you've done since I first posted my original opinion.
What's the point? Discussion. Open, two-way discussion on a topic that affects us all. Or am I in the wrong place for that?
ArkkAngel007
Member
What is #GameOverGate that I'm now seeing on my feed? And I'll be honest, if Weekes didn't share this I would have forgotten the existence of N'Gai Croal.
MHWilliams
Member
What is #GameOverGate that I'm now seeing on my feed? And I'll be honest, if Weekes didn't share this I would have forgotten the existence of N'Gai Croal.
That's just the tag Quinn used when she posted her screenshots.
silvermember
Banned
You only see it that way because u seem to be define yourself through your hobby.The only part that has bothered me about this whole thing is the people in the industry that I do follow seem to be treating this as a "you're all bad except some of you guys are cool" situation which is really unfair.
ArkkAngel007
Member
That's just the tag Quinn used when she posted her screenshots.
Thank you. So much of this has already gone over my head before that came up and made me feel like I was missing something else.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.