Archive All • Download Newest

Read Later

Silent Alarm: EA spannt mit der Waffenindustrie zusammen. Und keiner sagt was.
superlevel.de

Medium Difficulty
mediumdifficulty.com

John Hemingway Must Die!
mediumdifficulty.com

Open Letter To Randy Pitchford, President Of Gearbox Software
howtonotsuckatgamedesign.com

Feminism 101: Offensive Language and Dismissal of Responsibility
borderhouseblog.com

Your Nasty, Nerdy Sexism Isn't Cute
gizmodo.com

For Women Like You
bitcreature.com

The PA Report - Going broke with success: how an app with 200,000 downloads led to developer homelessness
penny-arcade.com

Let’s Play The Number Game – gamescom Edition
gelurzt.at

Archive All • Download Newest

Become an Instapaper Subscriber for just $1/month to get up to 50 articles at a time and support Instapaper’s development. Visit the Account section of Instapaper.com to subscribe.

Silent Alarm: EA spannt mit der Waffenindustrie zusammen. Und keiner sagt was.

superlevel.de • Archive • Like & Archive • Like

Silent Alarm: EA spannt mit der Waffenindustrie zusammen. Und keiner sagt was.

Die Geschichte scheint zu absurd, um wahr zu sein. Halten wir uns darum an die Fakten: EA beschloss unlängst, für die US-Werbekampagne des im Oktober erscheinenden Medal of Honor: Warfighter neue Wege zu gehen. Dazu gehört ein Programm, das einen Teil des Erlöses der Merchandiseartikel zum Spiel wohltätigen Zwecken (meist im Armee- oder Kriegskontext) zukommen lässt. Dazu gehören aber auch die Merchandiseartikel selbst, für die EA, wie „stolz“ auf der entsprechenden Website verkündet wird, Partnerschaften mit diversen US-Firmen eingegangen ist: Da ist etwa SOG, die sich spezialisiert haben auf die Produktion von Klingenwaffen und für EA eine exklusive, vollfunktionale Medal of Honor-Kampfaxt fertigen werden.

Oder die McMillan Group, die, wie EA enthusiastisch in einem Blogeintrag versichert, seit Jahrzehnten ein führender Produzent von Armeewaffen ist. Auch hier bedeutet Partnerschaft nicht lediglich, dass man zur Gewährleistung (respektive Vorspiegelung) von Authentizität Informationen von Waffenherstellern einholt. Links auf der EA-Seite führen vielmehr direkt zur Seite dieser Firmen, wo man die Vorbilder der fiktiven Game-Waffen für den eigenen Gebrauch bestellen kann – keine Nachbildungen, wohlgemerkt, sondern vollfunktionale, kriegstaugliche Maschinen- und Scharfschützengewehre. Man muss es wiederholen: Ein Computerspielhersteller fährt eine Werbekampagne für ein Spiel, die ohne wesentliche Umwege zugleich Werbung ist für den Kauf von einsatzfähigen (und das heisst natürlich: potentiell vollumfänglich tödlichen) Armeewaffen.

“AUTHENTIC GAME. AUTHENTIC BRANDS.”

Als Ryan Smith von der Gameological Society diese Geschäftspraktiken vor einigen Tagen öffentlich in Frage stellte, schien ein Skandal vorprogrammiert. Umso irritierender ist es, dass ein Sturm der Entrüstung – der in der Regel weiß Gott nicht schwer zu entfachen ist in den game-affinen Teilen der Welt – bislang ausblieb. Liegt es daran, dass die Aufmerksamkeit anderen problematischen Ereignissen galt? Oder daran, dass die Game-Presse in dieser Woche geschlossen Richtung Köln blickt? Fest steht, dass weder die Kampagne noch Smiths Artikel bislang groß Wellen geworfen hat. Auf US-amerikanischer Seite etwa hat lediglich das Borderhouse die Geschichte angesprochen und sie als „verstörend“ bezeichnet. Dass sich einzig dieser Blog, eine Art Gewissen der Gaming-Blogosphäre, zu Wort meldet, mag allerdings auch ein Indiz sein für die in Sachen Waffenbesitz empfindliche politische US-Seele; ob die EA-Kampagne von all den stummen Seiten nun nicht als skandalös empfunden wird oder ob man sie aus Rücksicht auf potentiell vergrämte Leser nicht kommentieren will, ist schwer zu sagen.

Auffällig ist auf jeden Fall, dass die einzigen großen Publikationen, die sich mittlerweile zur Medal of Honor-Kampagne geäußerst haben, europäisch sind. Tom Bramwell fühlt sich für Eurogamer unangenehm daran erinnert, wie unterschiedlich die amerikanische und die englische Sensibilität trotz aller popkultureller Gemeinsamkeiten ist. Für ihn steht außer Frage, dass die Geschäftspraktik von EA mit dieser Aktion aufgehört hat, lediglich anstößig zu sein und anfängt, geradezu beängstigende Dimensionen anzunehmen. Und auch die britische Edge verurteilt EA aufs Schärfste: „Krieg ist, gelinde gesagt, ein widerliches Geschäft – dies ist nur einer von vielen Gründen warum wir nicht dem Militär beigetreten sind. Aber auch wenn die Werbung mit lizensierten Produktion nichts Neues für die Spieleindustrie darstellt und Warfighter bei weitem nicht der erste Shooter mit offiziell lizensierten Waffen ist, betritt all dies doch eine völlig neue Ebene. Wenn dies eure ‚Authentizität‘ ist, dann könnt ihr sie behalten.“

Dass die Kampagne eine moralische Grenze verletzt, ist das eine Skandalon. Für viele jens- und einige diesseits des großen Teiches ist es vielleicht auch keines; moralische Grenzen sind nunmal persönliche. (Und, um hier keine Zweifel aufkommen zu lassen: Ich persönlich schließe mich dem Urteil von Edge und Eurogamer an. Ich finde die Aktion bedenklich und ethisch verwerflich genug, um EA-Spiele künftig zu boykottieren.)

Das darf man natürlich auch anders sehen. Doch selbst wenn man seine Grenzen an anderer Stelle zieht, bleibt das zweite Skandalon: EAs Handeln ist unverantwortlich, eigennützig und extrem kurzsichtig. Was die Warfighter-Kampagne geradewegs gefährlich macht, ist exakt, dass es hier mitnichten um persönliche Dinge und Entscheidungen geht, oder auch nur um nationale. Was Electronic Arts – ein Name, der zunehmend zynisch wirkt – hier tut, kann Konsequenzen haben weit über den nächsten Geschäftsbericht und die eigenen Landesgrenzen hinaus. (Man kann sich entsprechend nur wünschen, dass die US-Geschäftsstelle von ihren internationalen Partnern zur Rede gestellt wird – wo ist Martin Lorber, wenn man ihn braucht?)

Wie Ryan Smith nämlich zu Recht bemerkt, pflegt die Game-Industrie zwar schon seit Jahrzehnten ein vollkommen unkritisches Verhältnis zur Waffen- und Kriegsindustrie – stellschweigend geduldet von Spielern wie ihm. Die Linie, die EA mit dem neuen Medal of Honor überschreitet, ist aber nicht bloß moralisch. Es ist vor allem auch eine Trennlinie, hinter der sich die Game-Industrie in Härtefällen immer wieder dankend zurückziehen konnte: Die zwischen Fiktion und Realität. Eine Grenze, deren Durchlässigkeit von der Wissenschaft bislang weder bewiesen noch widerlegt werden konnte – eine Grenze, die aber dennoch immer wieder predigend als Schutzschild herhalten musste, wenn überreizte Medien einen simplen Sündenbock suchten und ihn in der „Mord-Simulation“ Computerspiel fanden. Im verzweifelt anmutenden Versuch, sich von der Konkurrenz abzuheben, schießt EA nun der eigenen Industrie mit großem Kaliber vollautomatisch in den Fuß und gibt allen „Killerspiel!“-Schreiern zugleich ein Killer-Argument an die Hand. EA doch egal? Was aber, wenn jemand mit einer der angepriesenen Waffen einen, oder gar mehrere, Morde durchführt? Immer noch egal? Was, wenn im Zuge der Ermittlungen der Name Medal of Honor: Warfighter fällt? Dass dieses Risiko entweder übersehen oder kalkuliert in Kauf genommen wurde, kann einem, je nach moralischer Verfassung, die Galle hochbringen oder wenigstens den Kopf Richtung Tischplatte schleudern.

Electronic Arts wurde früher in diesem Jahr zum schlechtesten Unternehmen der USA gewählt. Für die Wahl ausschlaggebend waren damals verhältnismässig kleinliche Dinge wie missglückte Game-Enden oder fragwürdige Veröffentlichungspolitiken. Mit der Warface-Kampagne scheint EA zu versuchen, seinem Titel gerecht zu werden.

Addendum: Mittlerweile wurden die direkten Links zu den Waffenherstellern von der Medal of Honor-Seite entfernt. An der Kampagne und am Kern der Sache ändern solche verhuschten Versuche der Schadensbegrenzung aber natürlich nichts.

superlevel.de • Archive • Like & Archive • Like

Medium Difficulty

mediumdifficulty.com • Archive • Like & Archive • Like

Adam Maresca

America is slowly recovering from a flashpoint of public violence. Having learned nothing from the warnings of experts in the past, our news media has fostered an environment for a succession of copycats in the slaughter of the innocent. Motives may be varied, but the yield of needless death has come due in Oak Creek and Aurora in just the past month alone. In that last case, even through something as innocuous as Guitar Hero, again video games have wormed their way into dialog over American gun culture.

It is in these times that EA’s Medal of Honor: Warfighter is under (well-deserved) fire for their strategic sponsorships with gun manufacturers. Including links to websites where weapons found in-game can be made to order and purchased for real-world ownership should be the kind of crass behavior more thoroughly decried, but that isn’t the world we live in. There’s a gulf in difference between a Porsche and tomahawk, so it’s probably for the best that there are at least half-measures being taken in response to criticism. Licensing the likenesses and brands of real guns isn’t new or shocking by any stretch of the imagination, but the shamelessness of the cross-promotion is worth a few red flags.

This isn’t the only dubious partnership recently fostered by a triple-A shooter, either. Several weeks ago, Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails happily made public his soundtrack work for Call of Duty: Black Ops II. We’re a long ways out from Quake, and everybody from HEALTH to David Bowie has tried their hand at video game soundtracks in that time. Those soundtracks, however, didn’t involve going against the image and ideals you’ve come to espouse over the course of two decades. Who knows, maybe there’s some hidden dimension of meaning that comes with sharing space on credits with a man responsible for selling arms to Iran to help fund to Nicarguan guerillas who murdered nuns. Or it’s a paycheck. “Bow down before the one you serve” indeed.

In essence, these sorts of reprehensible marketing bullet points are the endgame you get after competing for the worst atrocity developers can get a player to commit as part of a military FPS. There’s a through-line running from the sensation caused by “No Russian” to the revolting artlessness of the ‘hide in the mass grave’ objective in Homefront to the debunked faux-profundity of the white phosphorous civilian attack in Spec Ops: The Line. The boogeymen are almost always poor and/or foreign, and the leader soldier of the heroic superhuman squadron is a white male brunette with equal frequency. Because being blonde and blue-eyed would be a little too overt for the 21st century.

The reason these are the game we talk about are because of the magnitude of their commercial and critical success. (Or failure, in the case of Homefront.) There have been forays into video games by organizations with even more blatant agendas. There was the Kinect-supported game glorifying the exploits of Academi, née Xe, née Blackwater. It was fortunate, then, that compounded with the disgusting heritage of the game, it also happened to be an utter failure. Of course, when that same intrusion of reality happened for the three-game America’s Army series on PC, there was far less of an outcry. Even if it has been a few years since an installment and the daily player base is only three digits, the presence within the industry is felt at all level. Their ads find their way into other games and on “gamer-friendly” networks like Spike and G4, and recruitment booths are always fairly easy to find on the floors of major conventions. Even if they don’t come away with much meat for the grinder, this is one of their primary bases of support.

These are the words of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, speaking in 1961 on the changes seen after World War II and in the time before, during, and after his term in office. In in speech, he takes a great deal of stock in his 50 years of service in some capacity.

mediumdifficulty.com • Archive • Like & Archive • Like

John Hemingway Must Die!

mediumdifficulty.com • Archive • Like & Archive • Like

Cohen Edenfield

John Hemingway, a Gearbox developer working on Borderlands 2, referred to the Mechromancer’s “Best Friends Forever” skill tree, one aimed towards casual inclusion, as the “girlfriend skill tree” when speaking with Eurogamer. People took this quote, changed it slightly—all the reaction, and the trending twitter phrase, refers to “girlfriend mode,” which suggests something different—and ran with it. It’s not hard to see why, especially considering the story that most were getting second or third-hand: “Borderlands 2 has a girlfriend mode, because they think women suck at video games!”

Gearbox was quick to distance itself from this. On twitter, Gearbox president Randy Pitchford declared: “Borderlands 2 does NOT have a girlfriend mode. Anyone that says otherwise is misinformed or trying to stir up something that isn’t there.” Pitchford explained what Hemingway had already explained. It’s a skill tree designed for less-skilled players of any gender. A few tweets later, he stated that “There is no universe where Hemingway is a sexist – all the women at Gearbox would beat his and anyone else’s ass.”

The justification that a company can’t be sexist because it employs tough women is ridiculous, of course. One also wonders where these women were when Duke Nukem Forever was being shat out. But maybe we’re being optimistic, and the mea culpa is accepted—with a grain of salt, considering the company’s checkered gender legacy. And maybe we ignore that a company with a shaky history of gender politics is acting like it’s ludicrous that an employee and spokesperson’s sexist “anecdote” is being reported, and accepted, as sexist.

If we accept all of this, it might seem that the response to this gaffe has been exaggerated. If this happened in a vacuum, if this wasn’t coming from the company that produced Duke Fucking Nukem Forever with a straight face, if the culture of gaming wasn’t still inundated with dog-whistle sexism—in short, if everything about gender politics in gaming was very, very different—then yes, this would be an inordinate response.

People are being accused of picking fights and looking for something to be upset about. That’s wrong. That’s a fundamental misunderstanding of the state of affairs. They know what they’re upset about—a culture of sexism that’s largely impossible to confront precisely because it’s so pervasive and unspoken. Why not just do an indictment against the culture at large? Well, that can have unintended repercussions. It’s more effective, and frankly safer, to attack sexism whenever it rears up in an undeniable, indefensible way.

And believe it or not, an “outsized” response changes things for the better. As Michael Robinson put it, “An environment where one guy feels ok being casually sexist is an environment of casual sexism.” Conversely, an environment where a guy is crucified for being casually sexist is an environment that doesn’t permit casual sexism. Even rats can learn to avoid an electric shock, and even jackasses like Joe Peacock realize that blatant sexism isn’t taken well by the culture at large. Sure, they won’t apologize. Like Gearbox, all you’ll hear is an explanation of how this is a misrepresentation of their intent, or how this was just one producer, or one developer, and it doesn’t represent the company and all the tough sexism-punching ladies they have in their employ. But the next time they, or someone else, is about to say something repulsively sexist, or homophobic, or transphobic, or racist, they’ll feel the twinge of pain from the last time they did. Less sexist, homophobic, transphobic, racist conversation means that the zeitgeist moves away from that type of thinking. 60% of Americans are accepting of gay marriage today, as opposed to 49% two years ago, because the national conversation has moved towards casting those opposed to it as backwards, atavistic thugs on the wrong side of history.

Does John Hemingway deserve to be flayed alive for an offhand, if very revealing, comment? No, not really. The reaction is disproportionate. But it has to be. Incidents like this become a referendum-by-proxy on geek culture because there is no other productive way to have a conversation about a culture whose very DNA is the casual sexism and racism of privileged power fantasies. Let me be clear: Things are getting better. Let me be clear again: That didn’t happen by accident, and it can get worse again. Horace put it best when he advised that we must “be alert in guarding against relapse following a renaissance.” If we don’t continue to aggressively stamp out sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, all of it, then we tacitly accept it. And if we accept it, we encourage it. If the goal is to change the status quo, to give that DNA some gene therapy, then fence-sitting is tantamount to endorsement.

I’ve rolled my eyes before at the concept of “geek culture,” because it can certainly seem like something that was only codified as a means of self-aggrandizing and out-grouping: “I’m special because my parents got me a video game when I was eight, and you’re not because yours didn’t.” But the fact remains that there is a gestalt culture centered around video games, comics, and everything else geek-associated, and as that culture has grown more inclusive I’ve been impressed at its ability to police itself. Five years ago, John Hemingway’s “girlfriend skill tree” comment would have only been criticized on forward-thinking blogs, and that criticism would been roundly mocked and dismissed by the general culture. Ten years ago it would have gone unnoticed, and fifteen years ago GIRLFRIEND MODE would have been advertised on the back of the box and changed your character into a cheerleader with six-inch heels and her ass hanging out. So, you know. Good work, everyone.

Keep it up.

Cohen Edenfield is a biomechanical construct with a BA in Literature, commonly found in the American Southeast. He’s the author of Reign in Hell, an infrequently-updating comic just gearing back up again. You can follow him on twitter or read his uncomfortably honest journal-comic here.

mediumdifficulty.com • Archive • Like & Archive • Like

Open Letter To Randy Pitchford, President Of Gearbox Software

howtonotsuckatgamedesign.com • Archive • Like & Archive • Like

Dear Mr. Pitchford.

Today eurogamer.net published an article in which Borderlands 2 lead designer John Hemingway got quoted to refer to a game mode – specifically designed to accommodate people “who suck at first-person shooters”– as “girlfriend mode”. In the quotes provided by eurogamer.net, he dubbed this mode “girlfriend mode” on two occasions and no additional qualifiers were given.

I’d like to address, what Hemingway’s statement does to the discourse, how eurogamer.net adds to the problem and how I think you failed to address the situation properly.

So in the way the article quotes Mr.Hemingway, the lead designer of Gearbox Software publicly labels people “who suck at first person shooters” as “girlfriends”, without any additional information to qualify his statement. This, on face value at least, is a crass and derogatory statement to make. Especially in an environment like the video game community, where women and girls have to struggle for recognition, it is also a very toxic statement to make.

Of course any assumption regarding if Mr.Hemingway actually wanted to make this toxic comparison or if he actually thinks that girlfriends suck at first person shooters is nothing more than an assumption. And any attack based on that assumption is of course unwarranted and unfair. Unfortunately Hemingway’s original intent – how inclusive and women-friendly it may have been – doesn’t offset the crass, derogatory and toxic properties of that published statement.

The statement as published on eurogamer.net feeds into a very strong and damaging narrative, in which female gamers are deemed second class gamers. This narrative comes in many forms, like the fake-geek-girl or the incompetent girlfriend. It also feeds into another even stronger and even more damaging narrative, in which women and girls are considered less competent in regards to technology than men. This narrative comes in many forms, like the meme that women can’t park cars or the incompetent gamer girlfriend.

Even worse, Hemingway’s statement did not only feed into those two narratives, it officially sanctioned them. Hemingway is a lead designer, he is someone who made it big in the game community, an authority. And he is your lead designer, working on the next big first person shooter from Gearbox Software…

Now this got a lot of people angry. Not unexpected for me. And definitely not unexpected for the writers at eurogamer.net, who realized how controversial Hemingway’s wording would be and then had the audacity to put it into the headline. They even phrased the headline in a particular way, suggesting that “girlfriend mode” is the official name of newly revealed game mode.

So it is completely understandable, that you called eurogamer.net out for being sensationalist and it is also very much understandable – admirable even – that you do not throw your employees under the bus, when a controversy comes up. So, it’s very much okay for you to jump to Hemingway’s defense.

But – and this is a big but – you failed to address the damage, that this statement did to the state of female gaming and therefore to the gaming community at large. All your damage control focussed on Gearbox, Borderlands 2 and John Hemingway and no consideration to the crass, derogatory and damaging attack females have suffered today was given. On the contrary! In your efforts to make Hemingway’s statement a non-issue, you declared the anger around the statement a non-issue, you declared the sexist connotations a non-issue… You threw concerned and affected people under the bus.

Whoever is responsible for the official Gearbox Software tweets treated the issue much smarter and not only corrected Hemingway’s stance by making a gender equality statement (“Gaming is divided by skill, not gender.”) but also managed to slip in two apologies to the female gaming community. Whoever that is, deserves a raise!

Anyway, I hope you understand how your narrow focussed defenses only perpetuated the problem. Though in the end you seem to be quite alright with how crass, derogatory and damaging the “girlfriend mode” remarks are since it obviously pays out for you:

Congratulations.
Anjin Anhut

Below are screenshots of all related tweets of Gearbox Software and Randy Pitchford as of the moment the article was written:

howtonotsuckatgamedesign.com • Archive • Like & Archive • Like

Feminism 101: Offensive Language and Dismissal of Responsibility

borderhouseblog.com • Archive • Like & Archive • Like

Welcome to another day in which a games journalist dismisses the criticism of many gamers and misses the point completely.  This article at IGN by Colin Moriarty shows exactly why gaming culture is what it is, and why it’s so difficult to make any real change.

Backstory: Borderlands 2 Lead Designer Hemingway refers to the game’s “easy mode” as the Girlfriend mode, which we covered.  Many game critics erupted in upset over yet another example where women are stereotyped into byproducts of the gaming industry without the skill required to play games as they’re designed.  Now, this IGN article has decided to counter the criticism and put us in our place.  Us being anyone with a single fuck to give about sensitive language and inclusivity in games, that is.

Let me lay just a little bit of Feminism 101 on you (which also equates to “being a decent person 101″):

1. If you are not offended, it doesn’t mean what was said wasn’t offensive.

Here’s the thing, we all have different perspectives in life.  I’m personally an able-bodied woman, and I recognize that privilege.  I am not going to be personally offended by ableist terms, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t know it’s wrong to say them.  I still have empathy for the people whom I am potentially offending.  I check my privilege when I speak, and make sure that I’m not being dismissive of concerns that are very real and very personal for people.

There is just about nothing in the world that is universally offensive to every person.  That’s not how offense works.  You don’t get a free pass to say whatever you want because you’re not personally affected by it.

Moriarty states:

Remember, Mr. Hemingway didn’t actually say anything offensive. People wanting to be offended are simply looking for anything to jump on, consequences for anyone and anything be damned.

Because Moriarty isn’t offended, that makes the phrase perfectly okay to say.  Never mind the feelings of other people.  And, it’s no surprise whatsoever that Moriarty is male, speaking up for the women (the “girlfriends”) who are stating that they’re personally offended by what Hemingway said.  Don’t worry, ladies, this guy’s got it under control.  We should all stop getting so hysterical over this tiny, minor injustice in the world that doesn’t mean a thing.  Except that it does.

I think it’s even worse to understand that people are offended yet belittle and shit upon their feelings than it is to say the offensive slur in the first place.

2. You don’t have to be racist to say racist things.  You don’t have to be sexist to say sexist phrases.

This is one of the most common dismissals that occurs.  Sometimes it manifests as “I have a gay friend” and other times it’s “but, I’m not racist.  I love black people!”

Someone who is a wonderful person can say offensive things, and they can offend people.  Someone who isn’t racist can not only say incredibly racist things (perhaps without realizing it) but can also assist on a day-by-day basis with perpetuating the larger culture of racism that exists today.  A person who has no personal issues with LGBT individuals can say things that other, disrespect, and shit upon gay people.  You don’t have to be a terrible person to be uneducated about offensive language and therefore use it without realizing who you are hurting in the process.  But when you DO end up hurting someone, that’s your opportunity to realize what you have done and own up to the mistake.  The fact that so many are quick to blame the person for being offended instead of checking their own privilege is a major cultural problem that perpetuates all of the issues that exist with intersectionality.

3.  Saying that you didn’t intend to offend someone does not erase the fact that you did.

Like above, if you claim to be a great person who isn’t sexist yet you use a sexist phrase, you better be prepared to apologize and learn from your mistake when you’re called on it.  If you say “I’m not sexist and I didn’t mean that to be a sexist phrase” does not correct your mistake.  It only hurts your argument if you continue to argue that what you said wasn’t meant to hurt people.  The fact is, it did.  Own up.

There are words, and there is intent behind them.  In many cases, the intent doesn’t matter.  You used the offensive phrase, and the damage was done.  Educate yourself and don’t use offensive phrases, and you’ll find yourself being a much more decent human being.

—

Finally, I just want to comment on the last bit here:

So expect to hear a lot less from developers in the future because of episodes like this, and a lot more canned responses from PR as a result.

Excuse me while I pick my jaw up from the floor.  If developers can’t speak about their games without offending people, I’d *rather* hear from PR.  I know that as a game journalist in the competitive field of scooping other media for the story you are most interested in hearing something sensational that will get you web hits.   But I’d rather just hear about the games and the features in a way that doesn’t make me feel like an outsider. Never in my life did I think I’d hear the argument “if we call someone out for being offensive, we’re going to hear a lot less from them.”  Shame on us for being critical of what a representative of a company has to say.   Shame on us for being so sensitive and trying to pick fights.

Thank goodness this IGN piece says “Opinion” right in the title, because I’m going to set it aside and call it one person’s very privileged and dismissing viewpoint.

borderhouseblog.com • Archive • Like & Archive • Like

Your Nasty, Nerdy Sexism Isn't Cute

gizmodo.com • Archive • Like & Archive • Like

Aug 16, 2012 7:00 PM 93,966

Get our top stories

follow gizmodo

Follow @Gizmodo

Your Nasty, Nerdy Sexism Isn’t Cute

Molly Oswaks

There are now two female staffers writing for Gizmodo, myself and Leslie Horn, and neither of us blew anyone for our job.

Some of you seem to be under the misguided impression that sexual favors are the only way a woman could possibly end up writing for a tech blog—wrong. And you know what? It’s not just wrong, it’s rude.

It’s rude to come into our posts and say that the only reason we have the jobs that we do is because Gizmodo needed to fulfill some imagined gender quota. It’s fucking rude to say that we’re only writing for Gizmodo because we “lipstick shampooed” some guy’s “jock” to “get our job.” (Your over-evolved metaphor only further proves your immaturity; just say “blow job”!) But either way, if you say these things, you can bet your cowardly, juvenile ass you’re going to get dismissed from the discussion.

Technology Is Not a Male Subject

It’s not. Tech is a human subject. We all use all sorts of technology on a daily basis. In fact, an argument could be made that women use more tech than men do. You know what’s a brilliant technology? The tampon. You know what else is? Condoms. The pill is a brilliant example of biotechnology. A pill that prevents you from getting pregnant! It is incredible! And ohmygod how about all the forms of implantable contraception. Technology, folks. That is also technology.

Do you like it when your girlfriend sexts you naughty pictures? She is using technology to do that! (Of course some of you reading this right now are female, and some of you women have boyfriends and others girlfriends, but I’m addressing the straight male readers right now, because they are the ones who’ve moved me to do so. And the idea of a self-hating woman Giz reader is simply too much for me to handle right now, and, quite frankly, an island unto herself.)

Let’s jump inside your sexist mind for second—a place where women belong in the home while you, the “man”, are off at work. There is SO MUCH technology at home. Vacuum cleaners. Hand mixers. TVs, stereos. Juicers! See? Even a ridiculously backward, sexist notion of a woman’s place places her with a shit load of technology.

Have I made my point? It’s that women use so much technology alllllll the time. Just as men do. Which apparently is always already assumed as fact. Hmphh.

If I Make a Mistake, It’s Not Because I Have Ovaries

I can guarantee you that no mistake I have ever made in a Gizmodo post has anything to do with the fact that you have a penis and I do not. Errors of fact are not female problems. If you don’t like what I have to say about the Galaxy S III, say, or the forthcoming iPhone 5—that, sweetheart, is on you. You don’t have to agree with me! That is your right as a reader. Cherish it.

You have absolutely no obligation to agree with my opinions. I am but one human on a planet of many, and if you don’t like what I have to say about something, that is so fine. You don’t have to! I didn’t write this to make you smile. I wrote it because I have an opinion and a platform and if you are jealous of that then please by all means start your own blog it’s so easy now, and free.

This Is My Playground

Since I began at Gizmodo, I’ve written several pieces about the pink-washed gender constructs so present in the tech and gadgets we see today. Pink smartphones. Birchbox’s strange, strict notions of what woman enjoy versus what men want. Some of you seem to think I should let it go. That I’ve said my piece and it’s time to move on. Nope.

While I’m working, this is my playground. I will bring you news, ideally as often as there is news to report. But, when I have the time and space and wherewithal, I will also bring you commentary and opinion. If this is displeasing to you, I don’t really care.

It’s important to acknowledge the cultural climate of an industry. It is so important.

If you disagree or find this boring, read a different post, or a different site! Because, if you truly think such subjects do not matter, then you probably don’t have anything of value to contribute to the conversation anyway.

Powered by the Parse.ly Publisher Platform (P3).

gizmodo.com • Archive • Like & Archive • Like

For Women Like You

bitcreature.com • Archive • Like & Archive • Like

Originals

08/06/2012

Identifying with Lollipop Chainsaw’s heroine, Juliet.

Patricia Hernandez

458

“You need to start taking better care of yourself. You need all the help you can get. Men don’t go for women like you.”

“What is ‘like me’?”

We are at a department store. My mother picks up a brassiere and hovers it over my chest as she closes one eye, sizing me up.

“Raped women. Women who have been used up. Here, try these on.”

I walk into the dressing room and I strip. I stare at myself in the mirror, cocking my head to the side as I trace the contours of my body, chalking an outline of the crime scene.

____

Juliet, the protagonist of Lollipop Chainsaw, is what you’d call “perfect” – as dictated by the most stereotypical features of western beauty ideals, anyway. Blonde. Blue eyed. Big chest.

She knows her place, and her role very well, too. She’s bubbly and airheaded. The camera pans around and she willingly bends over, or she giggles when a character says something crass or untoward.

I should dislike her and everything she stands for. I should reject such a flippant depiction of gender and sex in a medium I want to see grow, see mature. I should be repulsed.

Should.

I don’t. She’s the woman I’ve desperately wanted to look like all these years.

Growing up I was always the chubby tomboy the boys largely ignored. No hard feelings or anything. You’re a great girl, they’d say. Smart as hell. Funny – they’d compliment my sense of humor. Still, they’d dismiss me with a shake of the head as if saying oh you foolish, silly girl. What made me think I deserved affection or love, looking the way I did?

My body changed completely that summer as I dropped 80 pounds in a few months. Anorexia. Nobody batted an eyelash at the sudden weight loss – rather, it was taken as the natural outcome of a young woman who finally understood the way things worked. Womanhood, after all, means being prim and proper – make up, feminine clothes, pursuing sex appeal.

Juliet uses a chainsaw. My deadly weapon was my appearance. I knew this – that’s why I started picking clothes that would catch eyes, turn heads. Shirts unbuttoned slightly too low, sometimes enough to catch a glimpse of what was inside. Pants that were so tight it was difficult to raise my legs.

Clothes, you might say, that asked for it—

____

Weapons can be used against the wielders, I thought to myself as I picked up my clothes from the floor and my assailant left the room. I recall this moment as a zombie takes Juliet by force. Let me go! I mash the X button frantically.

Maybe the rape was unavoidable, I think to myself as I play. I developed anorexia months beforehand specifically to get guys like him to notice me. Well, they noticed me. I knew I started looking good, but the self-hatred they made me develop was so palpable, so tangible, resentment won out every time. I rejected all of them. You can look but you can’t touch. It was like some twisted form of revenge.

I get the zombie to unleash his vice grip, but then a slew of mindless zombies chase after me. Hands outreached, they call out to me, tell me what they’d do to me if I just let them. That horde closes in on me. I’m cornered, but this means the enemies are lined up, too. They’re all men. I chop off all their heads in a special attack – the screen sparkles in a rainbow. Juliet cheers. I feel nothing.

Still, Juliet takes some damage. Thankfully, there’s a lollipop in the room to replenish her health. It’s Juliet’s favorite food – ostensibly, because it’s light enough for her to feel okay eating it. It’s her “fetish” after all, and it implies that she’s self conscious about her weight: she likes being told that she’s not fat.

I pause. The ‘zombie cookbook’ comes up, which details the most lethal combos to use against my enemies. I try to memorize them, but I think I enjoy the game more if I just play it by feel, without worrying about the minutia. I’m not anorexic anymore, I still count every single calorie. It can suck the pleasure out of eating, but some things internalize themselves so deeply that you never let go of them.

____

My friend sitting next to me takes this opportunity to ask me if the game is fun to play, especially since they’d heard it was terrible – so why was I indulging in it? I realize then that finishing Lollipop Chainsaw is going to be a test of endurance, and all for what? The aesthetic? That superficial thing that shouldn’t matter but I care about so much anyway? Isn’t it the gameplay that should count above all? That innate thing about the medium that makes it special?

I start playing again, but I’m not really paying attention anymore. Juliet gets engulfed. She’s eaten alive. The game over screen flashes. It’s Juliet doubling over.

It kind of sounds like I dropped a plastic barbie doll on the floor.

[art credit]

digg2 reddit1

Patricia Hernandez is the editor-in-chief of Nightmare Mode, a site devoted to writing critically about games, as well as a weekly contributor to Kotaku. She can be emailed at patricia (at) nightmaremode (dot) net.

- Originals
Gaming as Taming
If idle hands are the devil’s playthings, then video games are proof that God loves us and wants us to…

- Originals
The Pinball Apprentice
I found myself walking through the home of a complete stranger, entering a kitchen where a woman in full chef…

- Originals
Transacting Happiness
We become odd, cynical people when we are lonely. When we want company, we’ll do nearly anything to get it….

- Originals
Six Days To Live
This is a running meditation on the flash game One Chance, and thus is heavy on spoilers. You can play…

- Originals
Staying Whole

© 2012 bit creature

bitcreature.com • Archive • Like & Archive • Like

The PA Report - Going broke with success: how an app with 200,000 downloads led to developer homelessness

penny-arcade.com • Archive • Like & Archive • Like

Photo Credit / Dabe Alan
-

Going broke with success: how an app with 200,000 downloads led to developer homelessness

Ben Kuchera / Wed, Aug 15, 2012

- Share on Reddit

- Share on Facebook

- Share on Twitter

- Business/

- Production/

- Play/

- People/

Michael Boxleiter and Greg Wohlwend are the two men behind Mikengreg, an Iowa-based studio that spent two years working on the iPad title Gasketball. Their inspired take on H.O.R.S.E. features a system that allows you to set up trick shots and share them with your friends, and the asynchronous multiplayer has already helped to make the game a hit: It has been downloaded around 200,000 times, and for a time enjoyed a choice spot near the top of the iTunes games charts.

This may seem like one of the happy success stories on the iOS platform, but the reality of the situation is more grim than it may at first appear. Gasketball was released for free, with a one-time in-app purchase that unlocks the rest of the game offered for $2.99. The conversion rate to the paid version of the game sits at 0.67%.

Death by success

Wohlwend defended the idea of the in-app purchase when I asked about simply selling the game for a set price. “Something like 20 of the top 25 grossing games on iOS are free with IAPs. And for the most part, those IAPs are all pretty gross in a kind of predatory way,” he said. “The #1 grossing app right now is called DragonVale. I just downloaded it last night. It makes me sick to my stomach as it so transparently preys on the weaknesses like addiction and compulsion.”

This is the situation they wanted to avoid, a grind where you had to pay to continue to play. “In [Dragonvale], you simply buy things, build them, and then buy more things that buy more things to build more things that then need more things bought in order to build more. Yep. Zero gameplay. I shouldn’t be surprised, this kind of thing has been around for awhile, but I actually think it’s more disgusting that any cigarette manufacturer. Maybe at some point we’ll find out that this kind of game causes depression and they’ll have to put warnings on the game everywhere.”

So they knew two things from looking at the successes on the iOS market: Releasing a free game with in-app purchases can lead to monetary success, but they wanted to do it the right way, with much content unlocked from the beginning and a single purchase unlocking the entire game. “We wanted the game to be free but also we want to make a living off of it since we’ve spent 2 years on it. So we felt being honest and up front that this game has content, you unlock it once and you have it all forever was The Right Thing To Do. So far, humanity is proving to us that we can’t have it both ways.”

Boxleiter was likewise pessimistic about the early sales of the game. “At the moment it’s pretty bad, we’re trying to go with ‘good’ IAP that you just buy once and unlock, but conversion rate is currently at 0.67% and we’re not even in the top 200 grossing chart. Which is kind of a nightmare for the launch week,” he said. “We’ve got an update in the pipe that we hope will help out the conversions and simplify the IAP to just one unlock option, but we’re worried we’ll fall out of our chart position before that makes much difference.”

Thinking like businessmen

The financials of indie development are complicated, since working on a game full-time means there is little energy left for contract work. Developers who work for a major studio may have projects canceled, but they’re paid their salary for the time spent working on the game. When you’re developing and ultimately releasing your own product, you’re making little to nothing during the development cycle, with the hopes of a big payday upon release to make the time worthwhile.

Boxleiter and Wohlwend lived off the profits from their first game, Solipskier, during the development of Gasketball. “We didn’t get anywhere close to rich from it, but we did make enough to live on in Iowa, about $20-25,000 a year each for two years,” Boxleiter explained. “Greg has had a little more income than me by finding other developers to collaborate with, like Asher Vollmer on Puzzlejuice.  He’s shared his earnings with me so we wouldn’t have to stop development and take contract work, which always kills momentum.”

That money has since dried up, and Boxleiter was forced to take out a loan from his parents due to the lack of revenue coming from the success of Gasketball. Both men are now homeless, floating around and sleeping on the couches of friends until their financial situations improve.

You can have a wonderful game with a large number of satisfied players and still lose money, and that’s a hard lesson to learn in indie game development when it’s your own capital and time invested in the game. A few design decisions and faulty assumptions may have led to the lack of paying customers, and that’s something the two men are trying to fix. Quickly.

“A common complaint on the release build of Gasketball was that even our friends couldn’t find out how to buy the game. Obviously that’s a huge problem and we’ve remedied that in this patch update that we just released,” Wohlwend said. “Furthermore, we might need to add advertisements to supplement income, or dream up something completely different. We really want to stick to the ‘free and pay 2.99 to unlock’ model, but if only .5% of users buy our game, we’re going to have to figure something else out. It’s very malleable at this point. Perhaps we’re giving too much away for free, it’s really hard to say until we see more data.”

This was fascinating to me. I had downloaded the game based on the positive word of mouth, and had already enjoyed what felt like a wide amount of content without paying anything. I wasn’t even aware there was anything to pay for to unlock, and when I learned I could buy the game to support the developer I went looking for that option in the game’s menus. It took me a few minutes to figure out how to pay for the game, and I was specifically looking for the menu. There’s nothing shocking about the low amount of paid sales; the value proposition is never made explicit. There was an update available for the game, and after applying it, an “unlock the full game” message was added under the main logo.

The game continues to benefit from the strong word of mouth and viral success, and it’s surprising to hear how few people need to pay for the unlock to make the game a success. “As of this now we have 200K downloads, probably more,” Wohlwend said. “I have no idea how many downloads we’ll get but if we get 5 million over the game’s lifetime, which might be conservative, then we’d want to see at least 2% of people buying our game in order to continue with Mikengreg as planned.”

This is part of the independent game experience that’s rarely talked about. You can work, create a good game, and a few issues with your monetization strategy can hinder your ability to make money from your hit game. “Indies give up a lot to do what they do. At the height of my career/affluence with Solipskier being the hit that it was, I made around $4.50 per hour,” Wohlwend said. “That’s 100 hours a week at a 24K per year salary without vacation or weekends. That takes a hit. It’s easy to get severely depressed pouring everything into it.”

For now, the challenge is looking at the data, adjusting the app, and finding a way to get to that mythical 2% conversion rate to begin earning revenue for the years of work the duo have invested. “Sounds crazy right?” Wohlwend said. “98% of people won’t buy our game, and we’d be able to continue.”

penny-arcade.com • Archive • Like & Archive • Like

Let’s Play The Number Game – gamescom Edition

gelurzt.at • Archive • Like & Archive • Like

Let’s Play The Number Game – gamescom Edition

14.08.2012 -

Die dritte Augustwoche ist angebrochen und im Gegensatz zu den letzten neun Jahren werden diese Zeilen nicht in einem Zug, während der Wartezeit auf einem Flughafen oder in einem Hotel in Köln verfasst. Das Notebook steht an seinem vertrauten heimatlichen Platz und anstatt in persönlichen Anekdote zu schwelgen (gamescom 2011 Fazit) fällt die Gefühlsduselei aus und der numerische Nutzen der gamescom steht am Programm. Auch wenn es öffentlich anderes präsentiert wird sind die Spieler nur eine angenehme Randerscheinung der Messe, denn tatsächlich geht es darum die Absatzmengen für die in der Branche wichtige Holiday Season soweit wie möglich zu fixieren, aber alles der Reihe nach.

Trotz steigender Zahlen (Besucher, Fläche, Aussteller, Essensstände, Toiletten, …) haben sich dieses Jahr einige Größen der Branche entschlossen Köln nicht zu beeheren: THQ, Sega, Nintendo und auch Microsoft bleiben der Messe fern. Das sind vier der 13 Mitglieder des Bundesverband Interaktive Unterhaltungssoftware (BIU), welcher Mitveranstalter und ideeller Träger der gamescom sein sollte ist. Der Grund oder das Problem liegt am Konzept einer Spielemesse mit öffentlichen Besucherverkehr, welches schlichtweg nicht mehr attraktiv ist. Die anfallenden Kosten sind zu hoch, der wirtschaftliche Nutzen zu gering und sind wir mal ehrlich, was bringt es im Bezug auf die Verkaufszahlen die dreunte Auflage von FIFA, Battlefield, Call of Duty, Halo oder dem Landwirtschaftssimulator zu präsentieren? Die Besucher der Messe kaufen die Spiele so oder so, also warum Unsummen von Geld für unnötige Präsentationen aus dem Fenster werfen?

Um die wirtschaftliche Sinnlosigkeit zu verstehen reicht es sich die Zahlen anzusehen und den Taschenrechner etwas zu bemühen. Grundlegend lässt sich die Messe in zwei Teile trennen, den Besucherbereich und den Fachbesucher- / Pressebereich. Die Messe positioniert sich selbst als Verkaufsplattform der Hersteller und Einkaufsplattform für Händler, die den öffentlichen Besucherbereich als Gradmesser für einen möglichen Verkaufserfolg anstehender Produkte nutzt. Die für Spieler mittlerweile üblichen Warteschlangen mit Anstehzeiten jenseits von vier Stunden sind zu einem Verkaufsargument mutiert und dienen zur Untermauerung des möglichen Verkaufspotentials einen Titels im Einzelhandel. Die Tatsache, dass man als Aussteller die Länge der Schlange bewusst planen kann, lassen wir einfach mal unter den Tisch fallen. Ein Schelm der Böses dabei denkt, wenn er in den nächsten Tagen Berichte über neue Warteschlangenrekorde liest oder sich selbst in einer solchen befindet.

Aber nun tatsächlich in die unterhaltsame Welt der Zahlen und dem Versuch sich von der Illusion der Effektivität einer Produktpräsentation im Besucherbereich der gamescom zu verabschieden. Im Gegensatz zu früher sind heutige Unterhaltungsprodukte komplexer und eine reine visuelle Darstellung funktioniert oft nicht mehr. Bei bewegungs- oder berührungsgesteuerten Spielen reicht das alleinige Zusehen nicht aus um potentielle Kunden zu überzeugen, vielmehr ist es das Ziel den möglichen Käufer selbst Hand anlegen zu lassen, damit er in kurzer Zeit ein hoffentlich positives Urteil über seine zukünftige Kaufabsicht fällt. Genau hier setzt die Überlegung an und analog den Kosten pro Klick bei Werbebannern im Internet sind die Kosten pro qualifizierter Anspielsitzung interessant.

EA als Beispiel hatte 2011 eine Ausstellungsfläche von etwa 1.600 qm (*1) was bei regulären Konditionen Mietkosten von 176.160 Euro verursacht (*2). Die tatsächlichen Kosten liegen optimistisch geschätzt bei einem Faktor von Zehn und betragen unter Berücksichtigung einer Rabattierung zumindest in dieser Milchmädchenrechnung 1.500.000 Euro (*3). Bei 350 Konsolen und Computern (*4) entfallen dadurch Kosten von etwas mehr als 4.285 Euro auf eine Station. Die qualifizierte Zeit um einen Kunden zu erreichen liegt bei etwa zwölf Minuten, wodurch pro Messetag (zehn Stunden) unter optimalen Bedingungen etwa 50 Spieler pro Station selbst Hand anlegen können. Über die gesamte Zeit addiert und als Divisor für die Kosten pro Station ergeben sich somit pro tatsächlichen direkten qualifizierten Kundenkontakt Kosten in Höhe von etwas mehr als 21,4 Euro. Ein stolzer Betrag und er vervierfacht sich wenn man bedenkt, dass geschätzte 50% der erreichten direkten Kundenkontakte auf Besucher entfallen, die bei AAA-Titeln bereits vor dem Anspielen eine positive Kaufentscheidung getroffen haben. Die restliche Hälfte teilt sich gleichmäßig in Kunden die hoffentlich überzeugt wurden und in Kunden die nicht überzeugt wurden.

Milchmädchenrechnung? Vielleicht, aber tendenziell sind die Gesamtkosten unter Berücksichtigung der höheren Kosten in Köln sowie der stetig steigenden Inflation meiner Meinung nach noch zu gering angesetzt. Leider geizen die Firmen mit aktuellen Zahlen, aber realistisch betrachtet ist der öffentliche Bereich der gamescom wirtschaftlich für die Aussteller höchst unrentabel. Jegliche Argumente mit Medienwirksamkeit sind ebenso irrelevant, da die Anzahl der zusätzlich verkauften Spiele aufgrund eines Fernsehbeitrags / Artikels / Blogposts über Warteschlangen beim drelften Nachfolgers der XY Serie minimal bis praktisch nicht von Relevanz ist.

Die sogenannte entertainment area der gamescom dient rein zur Bespaßung der Besucher, welche als Pseudolockmittelargument der Messeveranstalter dienen. Einige Unternehmen verstehen dies langsam aber sicher und ziehen sich daher wohl auch zurück. Das aktuelle Konzept der gamescom basiert auf einem Auslaufmodell und der Höhepunkt des Zenits wird wohl dieses Jahr erreicht. Die Branche entwickelt sich glücklicherweise weiter und setzt zukünftig mit relativer Sicherheit vermehrt auf kleinere lokale Events oder direkte Fanveranstaltungen wie die Call of Duty XP, die Blizzcon oder zum Beispiel die Xbox Summer Party in Österreich. Aber noch ist der Schritt nicht komplett vollzogen und spätestens am Sonntag nachdem die letzte Tür am Messegelände verschlossen wurde folgt eine Pressemeldung gefüllt mit neuer Fantasiezahlen und neuen Rekorde. Let’s Play The Number Game Again And Again!

Disclaimer: Alle Werte basieren auf Daten die frei im Internet verfügbar sind (siehe Quellen *1 bis *4). Es wurden keine Zahlen genutzt, zu denen ich während meiner Tätigkeit für EA (2004 bis 2008) Zugriff hatte. EA hat im Vergleich zu vielen anderen Ausstellern einen sehr komplexen Stand, wodurch die Kosten deutlich höher liegen. Die Messe Köln beziffert den Faktor Standmiete zu tatsächlichen Kosten mit dem Wert 5, welcher jedoch meiner persönlichen Erfahrung nach deutlich zu tief angesetzt ist. Der Faktor 10 ist eine Mischkalkulation aus dem Faktor 5 der Messe und dem von mir als realistisch eingestuften Faktor 15.

Quellen:
*1 – Fläche / EA 2011
*2 – Standmiete / Kölnmesse 2012
*3 – Gesamtkosten / Handelsblatt 2009
*4 – Spielstationen / EA 2011

gelurzt.at • Archive • Like & Archive • Like

♦

Archive All • Download Newest

Become an Instapaper Subscriber for just $1/month to get up to 50 articles at a time and support Instapaper’s development. Visit the Account section of Instapaper.com to subscribe.