Gamergate claims another victiim:Nintendo fires Alison Rapp
03 Apr 2016, 8:40 pm
Earthbound wrote:
Hell.. I think if I had my way, more people wouldn't be getting free copies of games to review. It's a form of a begging and is rarely justified in my view. Big name YouTubers (the ones that make $100,000 and up) arent hurting for cash, why in the world are they still getting free games? They get a game- play it for a few hours, do a review then likely never play it again. I do realize its their "job" to review a game, but it seems suspicious if they never play it again. Many many games can't be judged by a few hours of gameplay, so these inaccurate reviews shouldn't be acknowledged. People that are for YouTubers getting free games tend to use the excuse of "there's so many games, they can't afford to simply buy them all". Well if they can't afford it- they shouldn't be a reviewer, period. I'm sure they could easily make money some other way on YouTube without having to get every new release for free.
...That's not the reason why they're given free games. Wether or not they can afford it isnt the point.
Devs give free games to specific Youtubers to encourage them to play those games, on Youtube, so that the game gets exposure and attention. Otherwise, it'd be extremely random as to wether they do or not. Business of any sort is best done when you reduce the "random" as much as possible.
The developer I've been contracted to did this with the game I'd helped make, and that was the reasoning, but it wasnt done ENOUGH, which ended up hurting things. But doing it at least somewhat is typically necessary if anyone wants to get anywhere.
This is also why Youtubers are given advance copies of things (though usually they have to agree to make videos of it first, instead of just getting the game and later going "nah, dont feel like it"). It's one of the best ways to build up hype and interest for a game.
03 Apr 2016, 8:52 pm
Earthbound wrote:
xenocity wrote:
slenkar wrote:
Why would the games industry be angry at a website for reporting on a woman getting fired due to Twitter users?
The gaming industry isn't angry, they just don't want to inflame any group or groups that will come after them.
People in the gaming industry are being cowards, and its many of the harassers/messed up people in GamerGate that did this. Freedom of speech should be expressed, period. There is a fine line between freedom of speech and cyberbullying though. Many of the people in GamerGate harass women, SJW and generally anyone they don't agree with. IMO, sites like Twitter, Reddit, Facebook, YouTube (and so on) need better ban policies. They can suspend accounts all they want- but many of these people just go and make new names.
But on the flipside- many of the people getting attacked have overreacted to ANY criticism. The women tropes in games series isnt perfect and has its flaws, but Anita just blocks anyone that says reasonable complaints about it. I do realize its a person's right to block who they want, but overreacting to stuff.. kind of proves that the trolls and cyberbullies win. The right way to do things- is discuss things in a civil manner instead of just attacking, doxxing, harassing, etc.
I honestly think its time for harsher internet cyberbullying laws. There also needs to be some lawsuits against these whiny brats that take gaming too seriously. Also I want to point out- there really does need to more ethics in journalism when it comes to gaming. So many people get free copies to review a game but don't disclose that. The bribing of people in the industry needs to end. It's not hard to ask for a more non-corrupt system.
Hell.. I think if I had my way, more people wouldn't be getting free copies of games to review. It's a form of a begging and is rarely justified in my view. Big name YouTubers (the ones that make $100,000 and up) arent hurting for cash, why in the world are they still getting free games? They get a game- play it for a few hours, do a review then likely never play it again. I do realize its their "job" to review a game, but it seems suspicious if they never play it again. Many many games can't be judged by a few hours of gameplay, so these inaccurate reviews shouldn't be acknowledged. People that are for YouTubers getting free games tend to use the excuse of "there's so many games, they can't afford to simply buy them all". Well if they can't afford it- they shouldn't be a reviewer, period. I'm sure they could easily make money some other way on YouTube without having to get every new release for free.
The gaming media are part of publicly traded corporations.
This is mean they are required by law to maximize profit for the shareholders.
All publicly traded companies are bound to their shareholders by law first and foremost.
Doing anything that hurts shareholder value, opens them up to legalities and big lawsuits from shareholders.
People get free products to review (including games and systems) because their published opinions (positive) lead to higher sales of most product they published about and increased product awareness.
_________________
Something.... Weird... Something...
04 Apr 2016, 10:26 am
I have done what Alison Rapp asked for in one of her tweets and had a read of her essay. I skimmed some parts and read others in their entirety:
https://issuu.com/honorsreview/docs/volumeiv/33
It's not super long. About 15 pages and not too dense or difficult to read. I noticed someone in the thread praised Japan for not bending to pressure in this thread. Well after reading Rapp's essay, I would be very surprised if she had anything to do with video game censorship since it's all about her being against pressuring Japan into censoring child pornogrophy that does not involve real children, with strong support for freedom of expression and being against thought crime. Seemingly the exact opposite of your typical authoritarian SJW.
I found it quite interesting and thought-provoking. I encourage others to read. I would be interested to know what they thought. If you're on a tablet like me right now, side swiping moves the pages on and tapping the content of the essay gets rid of any ads.
04 Apr 2016, 10:45 am
xenocity wrote:
Earthbound wrote:
xenocity wrote:
slenkar wrote:
Why would the games industry be angry at a website for reporting on a woman getting fired due to Twitter users?
The gaming industry isn't angry, they just don't want to inflame any group or groups that will come after them.
People in the gaming industry are being cowards, and its many of the harassers/messed up people in GamerGate that did this. Freedom of speech should be expressed, period. There is a fine line between freedom of speech and cyberbullying though. Many of the people in GamerGate harass women, SJW and generally anyone they don't agree with. IMO, sites like Twitter, Reddit, Facebook, YouTube (and so on) need better ban policies. They can suspend accounts all they want- but many of these people just go and make new names.
But on the flipside- many of the people getting attacked have overreacted to ANY criticism. The women tropes in games series isnt perfect and has its flaws, but Anita just blocks anyone that says reasonable complaints about it. I do realize its a person's right to block who they want, but overreacting to stuff.. kind of proves that the trolls and cyberbullies win. The right way to do things- is discuss things in a civil manner instead of just attacking, doxxing, harassing, etc.
I honestly think its time for harsher internet cyberbullying laws. There also needs to be some lawsuits against these whiny brats that take gaming too seriously. Also I want to point out- there really does need to more ethics in journalism when it comes to gaming. So many people get free copies to review a game but don't disclose that. The bribing of people in the industry needs to end. It's not hard to ask for a more non-corrupt system.
Hell.. I think if I had my way, more people wouldn't be getting free copies of games to review. It's a form of a begging and is rarely justified in my view. Big name YouTubers (the ones that make $100,000 and up) arent hurting for cash, why in the world are they still getting free games? They get a game- play it for a few hours, do a review then likely never play it again. I do realize its their "job" to review a game, but it seems suspicious if they never play it again. Many many games can't be judged by a few hours of gameplay, so these inaccurate reviews shouldn't be acknowledged. People that are for YouTubers getting free games tend to use the excuse of "there's so many games, they can't afford to simply buy them all". Well if they can't afford it- they shouldn't be a reviewer, period. I'm sure they could easily make money some other way on YouTube without having to get every new release for free.
The gaming media are part of publicly traded corporations.
This is mean they are required by law to maximize profit for the shareholders.
All publicly traded companies are bound to their shareholders by law first and foremost.
Doing anything that hurts shareholder value, opens them up to legalities and big lawsuits from shareholders.
People get free products to review (including games and systems) because their published opinions (positive) lead to higher sales of most product they published about and increased product awareness.
Business this, business that. You are just making excuses! Harsher cyber bullying laws need to be in affect. These sick people need mental help, and also need to be off the internet for a bit to show life will go on without it.
"Im popular, give me free stuff" is a stupid mindset and needs to stop. Game makers are bribing these "game reviewers" for positive reviews. It's still messed up and needs to stop. If a YouTuber has the money and is popular enough- they need to stop accepting free games.. NO EXCUSES. They arent hurting for cash, so there's no good reason for them to get free stuff just because they are popular. It's sickening and too many people are used to it, that they turn a blind eye to ignore it at this point.
04 Apr 2016, 11:31 am
Earthbound wrote:
xenocity wrote:
Earthbound wrote:
xenocity wrote:
slenkar wrote:
Why would the games industry be angry at a website for reporting on a woman getting fired due to Twitter users?
The gaming industry isn't angry, they just don't want to inflame any group or groups that will come after them.
People in the gaming industry are being cowards, and its many of the harassers/messed up people in GamerGate that did this. Freedom of speech should be expressed, period. There is a fine line between freedom of speech and cyberbullying though. Many of the people in GamerGate harass women, SJW and generally anyone they don't agree with. IMO, sites like Twitter, Reddit, Facebook, YouTube (and so on) need better ban policies. They can suspend accounts all they want- but many of these people just go and make new names.
But on the flipside- many of the people getting attacked have overreacted to ANY criticism. The women tropes in games series isnt perfect and has its flaws, but Anita just blocks anyone that says reasonable complaints about it. I do realize its a person's right to block who they want, but overreacting to stuff.. kind of proves that the trolls and cyberbullies win. The right way to do things- is discuss things in a civil manner instead of just attacking, doxxing, harassing, etc.
I honestly think its time for harsher internet cyberbullying laws. There also needs to be some lawsuits against these whiny brats that take gaming too seriously. Also I want to point out- there really does need to more ethics in journalism when it comes to gaming. So many people get free copies to review a game but don't disclose that. The bribing of people in the industry needs to end. It's not hard to ask for a more non-corrupt system.
Hell.. I think if I had my way, more people wouldn't be getting free copies of games to review. It's a form of a begging and is rarely justified in my view. Big name YouTubers (the ones that make $100,000 and up) arent hurting for cash, why in the world are they still getting free games? They get a game- play it for a few hours, do a review then likely never play it again. I do realize its their "job" to review a game, but it seems suspicious if they never play it again. Many many games can't be judged by a few hours of gameplay, so these inaccurate reviews shouldn't be acknowledged. People that are for YouTubers getting free games tend to use the excuse of "there's so many games, they can't afford to simply buy them all". Well if they can't afford it- they shouldn't be a reviewer, period. I'm sure they could easily make money some other way on YouTube without having to get every new release for free.
The gaming media are part of publicly traded corporations.
This is mean they are required by law to maximize profit for the shareholders.
All publicly traded companies are bound to their shareholders by law first and foremost.
Doing anything that hurts shareholder value, opens them up to legalities and big lawsuits from shareholders.
People get free products to review (including games and systems) because their published opinions (positive) lead to higher sales of most product they published about and increased product awareness.
Business this, business that. You are just making excuses! Harsher cyber bullying laws need to be in affect. These sick people need mental help, and also need to be off the internet for a bit to show life will go on without it.
"Im popular, give me free stuff" is a stupid mindset and needs to stop. Game makers are bribing these "game reviewers" for positive reviews. It's still messed up and needs to stop. If a YouTuber has the money and is popular enough- they need to stop accepting free games.. NO EXCUSES. They arent hurting for cash, so there's no good reason for them to get free stuff just because they are popular. It's sickening and too many people are used to it, that they turn a blind eye to ignore it at this point.
You are frankly ignorant of the legal code when it pertains to business.
A publicly trade company by law services the interest of the shareholders first and foremost.
By law publicly traded companies have to MAXIMIZE PROFITS TO THE SHAREHOLDERS it's literally written that way in the U.S. legal code.
It' called fiduciary responsibility.
If a publicly traded company acts against the shareholders and/or does anything that damages shareholder value, it will trigger a government investigation.
If found guilty management faced legal punishments that include jail time.
Shareholders also have the right to file lawsuits in U.S. Federal Court against the management and company to get huge judgements.
Apple and Best Buy are fighting their shareholders in court right now over failing to MAXIMIZE PROFITS FOR THE SHAREHOLDERS.
Add in the negative press the gaming media and main media would get for publishing the story and irritating Gamergate in the public eye could be huge.
I mean it would be quite easy to get the public to associate any media outlet that publishes the story as supporting pedophilia and a pedophile.
Gamergate knows this.
Even if not true, the public hears stuff about pedophilia and pedophile and will remember that even if it isn't true.
There is plenty of market research that shows giving media outlets free new products for review gives the product a good standing the public's view (provided the reviews are good).
This in turn normally leads to higher sales.
It's a proven fact with over a century of data to back it.
You can get new computers to new phones, to new video game systems, to new games, to new books from companies around the world.
It's also been shown that bad reviews and articles that are negative towards product will sink it's sales.
Such products are Windows 8/8.1, Wii U, Gamecube (it was hit hard with the kiddy stigma and weak hardware stigma from the press at launch. none of which were true), cars, etc... had their sales drastically reduced by negative press.
P.S. most speech is protected under the Freedom of Speech and most Cyber bullying laws won't stand up in U.S. Federal Court.
_________________
Something.... Weird... Something...
04 Apr 2016, 12:11 pm
I realize games getting bad reviews will hurt sales, but frankly.. every top rated game isnt instantly good because "pro reviewers" say so. Many many top rated games are crap and its the same old crap, but too many gamers don't want change so the same nonsense games come out. I'm not a mindless sheep that listens to every popular YouTuber on what games to buy.
As for the business stuff- you still don't get my point. But whatever I'm done with this subject. You refuse to understand stuff that isnt business stuff, some stat you found, some law or whatever else you manage to look up.
04 Apr 2016, 2:57 pm
Earthbound wrote:
I realize games getting bad reviews will hurt sales, but frankly.. every top rated game isnt instantly good because "pro reviewers" say so. Many many top rated games are crap and its the same old crap, but too many gamers don't want change so the same nonsense games come out. I'm not a mindless sheep that listens to every popular YouTuber on what games to buy.
As for the business stuff- you still don't get my point. But whatever I'm done with this subject. You refuse to understand stuff that isnt business stuff, some stat you found, some law or whatever else you manage to look up.
As for the business stuff- you still don't get my point. But whatever I'm done with this subject. You refuse to understand stuff that isnt business stuff, some stat you found, some law or whatever else you manage to look up.
No, but every top rated game WILL *sell* better because "pro reviewers" say so. Or even just because those "pro reviewers" SHOW it.
Anyway, I understand what you mean by "it's not just about business stuff". That's why I"m saying this, which is a bit different from what Xenocity is saying.
Again, already explained that the "I'm popular, give me free stuff" bit doesnt work the way you think it does. It doesnt even have anything to do with legal whatsits, that bit (not entirely sure why you guys are arguing about legal stuffs). The developers do the choosing of who to send to based on what affect it has on their marketing and sales. I mean, they have to get the word of their game out there. Of course Youtubers are a good way to do it now. Some people use them pretty much exclusively as sounding boards VS how it used to be done (magazine reviews). *I* dont read magazines anymore, but I know what my favorite Youtubers like and dont like; if I can see them do some extended gameplay sessions with a game? That's really going to help me get to know the game and make a decision.
And no, nobody is bribing them. The people that get the free copies are fully free to say they dont like the games. If they hate the game, they hate the game. Nobody tells them "you have to give this a positive review". It's just "We'd like you to show and review the game". Or, in some cases (more than you'd think) it's just "We'd like you to show the game". Not even a real "review", just showing it. That's often asked for, depending on the channel (the channel of course, CAN review it fully if they'd like).
Seriously, I *just* went through this process on the developer side of things 2 months ago. Wouldnt be talking about it otherwise.
04 Apr 2016, 4:37 pm
Earthbound wrote:
I realize games getting bad reviews will hurt sales, but frankly.. every top rated game isnt instantly good because "pro reviewers" say so. Many many top rated games are crap and its the same old crap, but too many gamers don't want change so the same nonsense games come out. I'm not a mindless sheep that listens to every popular YouTuber on what games to buy.
As for the business stuff- you still don't get my point. But whatever I'm done with this subject. You refuse to understand stuff that isnt business stuff, some stat you found, some law or whatever else you manage to look up.
As for the business stuff- you still don't get my point. But whatever I'm done with this subject. You refuse to understand stuff that isnt business stuff, some stat you found, some law or whatever else you manage to look up.
Top rated games are "crap" in your eyes but doesn't make so for the legions of people who buy them.
This whole issue nothing but a business issue.
When you are a PR person and then choose to represent the company at public events and social media, you end up forfeiting your right to a personal life, privacy and your own opinions.
Everything you do while being a PR person is an extension of that company in every part of your life.
The public will literally hold the company publicly liable over your behavior (just like they are doing with Ms. Rapp. Those reporting the story are openly talking about Nintendo supporting/hiring pedophiles).
The police will hold the company legally liable for your behavior.
The government will hold the company legally liable for your behavior.
The shareholders will hold the company liable for your behavior.
Nintendo had two choices, be dragged through the mud in a public campaign with a possible government investigation with Ms. Rapp losing the public's trust or cut Ms. Rapp loose because she was doing unsavory sexual stuff as a second job.
Obviously they cut Ms. Rapp when they found out she was doing sexual stuff including stripping on webcam as second job.
They didn't want to incur the massive brand and company damage losing billions in sales and brand value over their employee who was taking her clothes off for money on a second job while fighting a massive organization called Gamergate backed major anti-pedophile groups.
There is a very good chance even Nintendo shareholders will bring up Ms. Rapps doings at their next shareholder meeting.
They regularly ask questions not directly related to finances and business.
In the U.S. employers have fired employees for being too fat, for smoking, and for drinking among other things in their private life, because it damaged the companies brands in the eyes of the public.
A few years ago Nintendo narrowly avoided a massive government investigation because pedophiles were using Swapnote on 3DS to send and receive nude pictures with minors.
When the press broke the story reporting on how Nintendo failed to protect minors on Swapnote from pedophiles, Nintendo shut down the online service shortly afterwards to prevent a government threatened investigation and more bad press.
I miss the online function of Swapnote.
_________________
Something.... Weird... Something...
