Inside Gamergate

by James Desborough

  When Mass Effect 3 dropped, the climax to the series, the fans were pumped, engaged, ready for the payoff from years of game playing and speculation. People were rabidly enthusiastic to get to that long-promised ending.

  It was a damp squib.

  Everything you had done boiled down to a couple of seconds here or there in a pre-rendered cutscene. No matter what you had done, your final decision came down to walking through one of three doors, completely unaffected by three games of obsessive play, weighing every single action and treating it as though it had consequence.

  Gamers were pissed.

  They had sunk around $200 or so – including downloadable content – into the series, had been promised the Moon on a stick and had been delivered a simple trinary choice, in which all that investment was completely irrelevant. In that instance, I think the reaction was more than justified. If you paid $200 for a meal and were promised a Michelin Star lemon sorbet for dessert, only to be served a tiny sliver of stale coffee cake, I think you'd be rightly angry. We would not call such a diner 'entitled' for demanding what they were promised, especially at that price.

  Still, this – in 2012 – was a part of the media souring on the 'hardcore gamer' who had been their bread and butter for years. It fed into swelling gamer resentment and suspicion of their fan-media. These were the outlets that should have – at least broadly – shared their view. These were the outlets that were supposed to be their consumer champions. Instead, they were attacking their audience – this was the shape of things to come.

  #CancelColbert

  In March of 2014, a scant few months before Gamergate would start, there was another key, precursor event. This was probably the last time people would openly laugh and scorn the absurdity of 'Social Justice' before it seemed to become something more serious and dangerous.

  Stephen Colbert did a skit, on his show, making fun of the desperate and sad efforts of the Washington Redskins to counter the – arguably – racist connotations of their name. In the skit he lampooned this with the following:

  “I am willing to show the Asian community I care by introducing the Ching-Chong Ding-Dong Foundation for Sensitivity to Orientals or Whatever.”

  To any sane or rational person, it was evident that this was using and subverting the language of racism (towards Asian peoples) to satirise the attitudes and actions of the management of the Washington Redskins.

  To self-styled activist Suey Park though, this was - in and of itself - inexcusable racism. She took to Twitter, as such people are wont to do, to whip up a mob.

  “#CancelColbert because white liberals are just as complicit in making Asian Americans into punchlines and we aren’t amused. ” - Suey Park (@suey_park) March 27, 2014

  Reaction to this was mixed, rather than the unified front, we would later come to expect from progressive outlets. Some backed Suey Park, some backed Colbert. Colbert's liberal credentials were unimpeachable which helped him. Most people understood the point of the joke. Calling a satire on blundering racism, racist was obvious enough that many were left scratching their heads at what all the fuss was about.

  What made Suey Park a figure of Internet fun, however, was her car-crash interview with Josh Zepp on the Huffington Post. She was evasive, racist towards the host, and crashed out of the interview with the immortal catchphrase:

  “...I don't think I'm going to enact the labour of having to explain to you why that's incredibly offensive.”

  Because if there's one thing activists shouldn't be doing, it's trying to explain to people why they're upset or what the problem is. They're just supposed to know magically. Somehow.

  Suey became a figure of fun for a short while, occasionally resurfacing, briefly, before fading into relative obscurity. Still, she established a brand of humourlessness and hypersensitivity that would characterise the Social Justice Warriors in the coming conflicts.

  Women in Tech

  Gamergate emerged in the middle of a set of ongoing discussions around feminism, women in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths) and the supposedly hostile and anti-women atmosphere found in tech industries. There are endless arguments back and forth over whether there is a pay gap[39] and to what degree nature and nurture play a part in career choice [40]. The blame has, mostly, been put squarely on a presumptively misogynistic tech industry. Considerable efforts have been made at great cost to get more women into STEM degrees and fields, but with little overall success – whatever you think the reason might be.

  That a male-dominated industry tends to have a male dominated culture seems to a) surprise people and b) shock them. Why is impossible to discern. Why the same observations are not made about feminised, female-oriented workplaces is also impossible to discern. There have been endless stories about addressing this 'issue', finding things to blame and telling women how sexist these industries are - because apparently, that will encourage them to join those industries.

  There's a narrative being pushed, and the truth of the matter be damned. This type of story is repeated over and over, not only on sites like Jezebel, with an overtly feminist agenda, but in otherwise creditable news outlets such as The Guardian. This atmosphere already existed, with anecdotal tales of harassment and sexism, long before Gamergate was a dot on the horizon.

  For the most part, like a lot of supposedly sexist issues, this seems to just come down to personal choice. For whatever reason men and women – as broad demographics – appear to choose different kinds of career. This holds true – and even is expressed more strongly – in nations with high, measured levels of gender equality. Nobody should be held back from going into whatever career they want, but equally they shouldn't be forced to go into a career they have no interest in. This goes for both men and women.

  Online Bullying/Harassment

  Another strand that has been a constant, background hum before, during and after Gamergate has been the intimidation and harassment narrative. This has been interpreted as a female problem, despite ample evidence from many sources, including anti-bullying charities, demonstrating that men are the majority of victims of online harassment [41][42].

  What seems to differ are the reactions of women to being harassed, the kind of harassment that they get and the reaction that we, as a society have when women are harassed. In practice, this amounts to a sexist double-standard, one which has been explored in various studies. As one example, it turns out that removing benevolent sexism is seen as sexist[43]. It seems the more effort you put into treating women and other minorities equally; the more bigoted people will think you are.

  All rather self-defeating.

  There are other strange aspects to the way this is reported on. There tends to be a conflation of issues such as considering stalking to be online harassment, rather than its own thing. Many treat harmless online smack-talk with the same gravity as genuine cyberbullying. Many of the biggest victims of trolling are archly feminist article writers for online news outlets, who all but advertise their buttons and invite trolls to push them – then make hay from being trolled. 'Harassment' then becomes a concern for female column writers who then write more about it, inviting more trolls and so on, into a vicious cycle.

  Mere disagreement – particularly with someone from a 'protected class' becomes spun and rebranded as harassment to avoid criticism[44]. Even pointing out someone's genuinely wrong actions can sometimes be brushed aside if a harassment narrative can be created around them, protecting them from fallout from their bad behaviour.

  It seems suspicious that governments are latching onto these arguments and using them to make a case for more controls and less anonymity online. Even though trolls, when unmasked, most often turn out to be harmless, pathetic[45] and their threats less than credible. The knock on effect to political and religious dissidents, domestic abuse victims, LGBT youth and so on from the loss of Internet anonymity and freedom would be terrifying, even deadly. These consequences have already happened to some degree via Facebook and Google Plus
' 'real names' policies.

  Ignorable – but nasty – trolling may very well be the price that we have to pay for some of the good things the Internet gives us. We must be free to disagree – even with vitriol – without being arrested over our disagreements[46].

  I know, personally, all ends of trolling and online abuse. Being a 'cishetwhitemale' didn't insulate me. Indeed it made me more of a target. I was targeted for advocating against censorship and for creative freedom. Many of the people who have attacked me haven't been ignorable, anonymous trolls but individuals with names, faces and audiences. Even Wil Wheaton.

  There is a marked and discernible difference between anonymous trolls fishing for a reaction and genuine abuse from people in positions of power. As a victim myself I'm sick of people trying to make political mileage by misrepresenting what has happened to them. It needs to stop.

  Existing Corruption Issues

  Games media has long had a problem with corruption and ethical issues. Gamergate was just – perhaps – one of the more visible explosions of these issues, but they've been around in the background for many years.

  Going back to the early days of video games journalism, games magazines (such as Nintendo Power) were owned and operated by games companies themselves. This was, of course, fairly obvious. What you read in those magazines could be taken with a grain of salt, in the up-front knowledge that it would be hideously biased. The industry was also smaller at that time, and the corruption had less of consequence. Things were not, yet, as serious. In many ways this corruption was simply taken as being part of the lay of the land, people were used to it, grumbled, but put up with it, forewarned and forearmed against it.

  Things began to get more serious as the games industry began to explode in popularity and worth. Games reviews began to shift online and to an advertising, rather than a subscription/sales, revenue model. This has given advertisers and sponsors an enormous amount of power over games media outlets through their direct or indirect sponsorship.

  Another aspect of this is that these outlets rely on access to games to write their stories, get clicks and – hence – advertising revenue. To get early access, to get early release copies of games (to make reviews and guides and so on) they need to maintain a good relationship with the game studios. Bad reviews risk losing revenue and access. This is part of the reason why an 'average' score for a game is seven out of ten, rather than five.

  I've personally seen this happen. A friend of mine used to review MMORPGs for a website. When they gave a particular game a poor review they received a lot of push-back from their editor, a near-refusal to publish it, an enormous amount of attention and pressure from the studio involved and a lot more. In the end, they relented and upped the score a little, but it left a bad taste in their mouth, and they stopped working for the site shortly after.

  A higher profile example of the same problem came with 'Gerstmanngate' [47]. In this instance, a writer for Gamespot gave the game Kane & Lynch a poor review (a 6, which in any sane world would be considered above average). The problem was that Kane & Lynch was being advertised heavily on the site at the time, so the 'poor' review looked bad.

  As a result, Gerstmann was fired, and it took five years for the other details to come out, including suggestions that other companies were applying similar financial pressure to games review sites. Interestingly, many game sites that have run stories on this and how bad it is, were happy to gloss over or ignore the issues around Gamergate. Also interestingly Gamergate have supported studio boycotts of media outlets they felt betrayed by. A genuine example, perhaps, of a double standard. If understandable.

  These problems and Gamergate have led a lot of gamers to an exodus away from the larger games sites, seeking out those who promise a more ethical and honest approach. This also drove a lot of people to Youtubers, who were more separated from games advertisers. As Youtube became more popular, the same corruption issues began to appear there[48]. With Youtube's old advertising model being undermined and Youtubers needing to look elsewhere for revenue, this is only likely to get worse and smaller websites have a hard time becoming self-sufficient too.

  The Indie Scene

  Corruptions and grubbiness was the status quo when it came to big games companies and the media, but there was a new movement of independent and small-scale games production that promised to be something different.

  To start with 'Indie' just meant 'Independent'. This was down to small companies and individual game creators selling their material online themselves or via Steam and other marketplaces. Many also gave their games away for free. This was possibly the biggest and most exciting change in games development since the 'bedroom programmer' era of the ZX Spectrum and C64 or the shareware and demo scene of the 16-bit era.

  Inevitably the Indie games scene began to become political, just as independent publishing and music had. Rather than meaning 'independent', Indie started to mean progressive or 'right on', sometimes to an absurd degree[49]. The games media, populated with frustrated people who wanted to be 'real writers' and wanted what they did to mean something, this was a godsend. Suddenly games sites were flush with politicised game reporting, and this began to bleed into reviews of mainstream games. Suddenly points were being lost for 'sexualised design'[50] or failure to include minorities. Gamers, who mainly didn't care, or at least didn't think this was the most important thing, were left asking an important question:

  “Yeah, OK, but is the game any good?”

  Indie games were being treated like the second coming; their creators were being held up as moral paragons. All the while more and more coverage was being given to 'non-games'[51]. Regular games were, at the same time, being judged on increasingly esoteric and politicised standards. Any challenge or question to this emerging order was, of course, dismissed as bigotry. Gamers began to build up a steam of resentment and annoyance at being talked down to, told off, judged and not being told what they needed to know.

  Whether the game was any good or not.

  I like the experimental edge one finds in true indie games, whether that be computer games or tabletop games. I, however, loathe the politicisation and the way promoting many of these games seems to come down to spitting on the things that other people love. Being independent should mean just that, not exchanging a set of commercial restrictions for an even harsher set of political demands. The point of being Indie should be just that, to be independent and free.

  Pseudo-Academia

  We've talked earlier about how social science is barely worthy of the name science, its issues with peer review, reproducibility and so forth. To quote Peter Bishop: “It's not even science!” How, then, would it get its fingers into games culture? Many of these pseudo-academics don't appear to be gamers or involved in game culture in any meaningful way, yet they make pronouncements and are parroted by the games media. How and why? Those that are gamers don't seem to be being objective and appear to be involved only so far as they want to wreck everything that exists. Not to make anything new.

  Games still aren't a particularly prestigious arena to study, but as money in the games industry increases and its social importance increases it has become more attractive to academics. They appear to be trying to subject games to the same kinds of examination they have with other cultural artefacts using postmodernism and critical theory[52]. This has had questionable value in other areas where it has been applied, but the uniquely interactive nature of games makes it even more worthless than usual. Further, it is not only a method and means to supposedly examine and understand society and media but to actively try and change it.

  It's an invitation to meddle, to mess, to destroy. To try and censor and control creative people.

  Pseudo-academic groups like DiGRA[53] drive a lot of this absurdity. They produce mountains of mostly spurious analysis and navel gazing that is either impenetrably opaque, breathtakingly absurd or manifestly ill-informed to all but the most casual gamers. Nonetheless, it provides article fodder for ga
mes media sites, and many of the humanities and journalism graduates now working as games journalists have been through similar propaganda mills. Unsurprisingly they come out with similar ideas and a similar impetus to change the world. Perhaps they resent that they've ended up writing about Mario and console themselves (no pun intended) that they can make the world a better place by writing a feminist perspective on Princess Peach. Their audience couldn't give a tuppeny toss about the 'cisnormative heteropatriarchal coding found within Streetfighter and its implications with regard to the female-identified interpretation of Asian-American history' and laugh at anyone who does. Their audience, however, seems to be their peers, not their customers.

  This pseudo-academia does lend a thin veneer of respectability to the people who apparently want to destroy the things they're supposed to be reporting on and causes the mainstream media to take their assertions seriously. They don't know any better.

  Let's be clear here, however, this isn't anti-intellectualism. If anything it is the opposite. Most gamers have great respect for science and technology, but the reasons social sciences are seen as second (or third) class by other fields are also the reasons many gamers don't take social sciences seriously. It is their intellectual failings, their lack of adherence to proper method and objectivity that fuels objections. Not inverse snobbery.

  Gamergate's Place in this Narrative

  So where does Gamergate fit into all this?

  I've gone to great pains to explain the history of the persecution and misunderstanding of subcultural media to show that this is nothing new. Gamergate is part of a long tradition of these subcultures fighting back with humour, counter-narratives and ironic adoption of the insults hurled at them[54].