Operation Krampus? Is this really a thing?

[Jux]

Yea, another GG thread. Found this interesting piece [http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2014/10/14/operation-krampus-the-gamergate-grinches-who-want-to-steal-christmas/] and my only thought was 'brilliant'.

As someone that feels the AAA publishers give us too many mainstream games that aren't particularly diverse or inclusive already, I can only say godspeed gg'ers. Please oh please go through with this, because maybe, hopefully, those AAA publishers will come to the realization that you cannot be relied upon as a customer base, and will start looking elsewhere to see what demographics can be courted. This is probably a really good chance for devs with ideas that go beyond the white, male, rugged, mid 30's protaganist in the action/adventure genre to get a chance to shine at center stage.

For those of you who don't feel like bothering to check the link, Operation Krampus is this:

Spoiler: Krampus

 

[Thorn14]

Does this really need a new thread?

And I've seen people discuss it on 8chan. A good number of people think its stupid as fuck. I included.

 

[Norithics]

You know what's funny to me? For all the rhetoric, the supposed SJW line was never able to affect sales of any game, ever, no matter how strong the support, no matter how loud the argument. Same happened with other issues; Chick-Fil-A was able to make a bundle on controversy.

So now, the idea that GamerGate is going to magically succeed where they failed is nothing short of knee-slappingly hilarious. For better or for worse, consumers don't care about social issues when they're making a purchase.

 

[Jux]

Does this really need a new thread?

And I've seen people discuss it on 8chan. A good number of people think its stupid as fuck. I included.

As I didn't see any other Operation Krampus threads, and had zero interest in posting in the echo chamber, where most people that aren't pro gg don't even go, yes, I think it does.

 

[DC_78]

Yeah a lot of GG's think this is kind of dumb. GG is about ethics in games media not hurting the developers that did nothing wrong. It is an idea floated out there and it will rise or fall on its own merits. Since we have no real organization everyone can do their own thing this X-mas. I have kiddos that want games. So they will get the games they asked the big guy for under the tree.

 

[Davroth]

Yea, another GG thread. Found this interesting piece [http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2014/10/14/operation-krampus-the-gamergate-grinches-who-want-to-steal-christmas/] and my only thought was 'brilliant'.

As someone that feels the AAA publishers give us too many mainstream games that aren't particularly diverse or inclusive already, I can only say godspeed gg'ers. Please oh please go through with this, because maybe, hopefully, those AAA publishers will come to the realization that you cannot be relied upon as a customer base, and will start looking elsewhere to see what demographics can be courted. This is probably a really good chance for devs with ideas that go beyond the white, male, rugged, mid 30's protaganist in the action/adventure genre to get a chance to shine at center stage.

For those of you who don't feel like bothering to check the link, Operation Krampus is this:

Spoiler: Krampus

They wont look elsewhere because they actually don't look at all. This is something that has been extensively reported on. So... I don't really know what you are going on about. Have you forgotten the whole focus testing debacle with The Last of Us? Also, even if all of GamerGate would boycott the holiday season, it would barely register on their bottom line, since sales are mostly driven by the uninformed masses, and they frankly don't care for any of this.

This mostly reminds me of that Hybrid car parody South Park ran a few years back. "I wanted to be part of the solution, not the problem." People who come up with stuff like that want to feel self-righteous. And they probably will. Frankly, most wont do it, even among those who say they will.

Oh yeah, and the reason the megathread feels like an echo chamber to you is because people like you don't bother going there anymore. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy at this point. Besides, if the prophet wont come to the mountain, the mountain will come to the prophet. Making this its own thread doesn't actually change anything.

 

[Jux]

Why would I go there anymore? I like my posts being seen. With the speed that that thread grows, it's like dumping a cup of water in the ocean. And theres no shortage of gg'ers that come into other threads to tell me that I'm wrong, misinformed, or supporting the real bad guys. There is literally zero upside to posting in that sarlaac pit. As sad as I find it, it's clearly evident the Escapist is going to continue to provide ya'll with the platform for gg to tilt at windmills. So ya'll can keep your multihundred page clubhouse, I'll stick to posting out here.

 

[Davroth]

Well, don't be surprised if this one shares to fate of so many other threads that didn't really need to be their own thread to begin with.

Also, you'll have to forgive people for calling you "wrong" seeing how you reference a blog which is rather obviously run by extremists. But I suppose extremists are cool when they agree with you. I just wish they cared about research as much as they do about their precious agenda, because Operation Krampus isn't really a thing and never was. You can tell an idea is bad when even anonymous assholes don't entertain it and bury it on their dumb, little image boards. But hey, no reason not to spin a story out of nothing, huh.

Extremists disgust me, no matter what side they are on.

 

[Jux]

First, by what criteria does one decide if a thread needs to be there? Threads critical of gg deserve to be out there. Most people not already on board with the movement don't go in that mega thread. That thread grows so fast that any criticism is bound to be buried in short order. Forcing everyone that wants to talk about gg to post in that thread basically ammounts to suppression of criticism, because that criticism is never going to reach its intended audience. Do you really think I'm making this post for ya'll? I'm not.

And as for WHTM being 'run by extremists', I would appreciate some reasoning beyond 'because I said so'. I fail to see how tracking and mocking misogyny on the internet ammounts to extremism, unless perhaps you agree with the people he's mocking. In which case you might want to ask yourself if maybe the concerns about gg having some misogynistic elements isn't just 'uninformed' people commenting on things they know nothing about.

Now, before you get in a twist, no, I'm not accusing you of being a misogynist, only suggesting that you take an outside perspective for a moment.

 

[Davroth]

First, by what criteria does one decide if a thread needs to be there? Threads critical of gg deserve to be out there. Most people not already on board with the movement don't go in that mega thread. That thread grows so fast that any criticism is bound to be buried in short order. Forcing everyone that wants to talk about gg to post in that thread basically ammounts to suppression of criticism, because that criticism is never going to reach its intended audience. Do you really think I'm making this post for ya'll? I'm not.

And as for WHTM being 'run by extremists', I would appreciate some reasoning beyond 'because I said so'. I fail to see how tracking and mocking misogyny on the internet ammounts to extremism, unless perhaps you agree with the people he's mocking. In which case you might want to ask yourself if maybe the concerns about gg having some misogynistic elements isn't just 'uninformed' people commenting on things they know nothing about.

Now, before you get in a twist, no, I'm not accusing you of being a misogynist, only suggesting that you take an outside perspective for a moment.

Well you might not make it for "us", whoever 'us' is. I was merely pointing out that the point of merging these threads is not to clutter the Off Topic section with GG and GG related threads, which this clearly is, something I think is reasonable, since this section shouldn't devolve into the GamerGate section. I'm also not sure why you are so keen to lump me together with 'them', whoever 'they' are.

I call the writer of that blog an extremist because his articles are poorly researched and clearly biased based on his political views, as evidenced by the article you linked. To answer your title, no, this isn't a thing. But you'd be forgiving for thinking that based on that article. Just because someone posts something on an image board that is loosely associated with a movement doesn't make it 'a thing' in that movement. And the thread in question has long since been buried, not to mention it was met with dismissal when it hit. All facts the author of that piece conveniently omits in favour of spinning a story that fits his narrative. That's what leads me to believe that that blog is run by an extremist.

Also, even if you accused me of being a misogynist, I wouldn't get boxers in a twist over it, so rest easy. My perspective of GamerGate is always usually an outside one. That might sound contradictive to you since I support the movement, however, I'll be the first to admit that I hate the fact that the only journalists who are willing to stand in the corner to fight for proper ethics in games journalism are right wing conservatives from outside the gaming sphere. I cannot properly relay to you how frustrating that is to me. That said, I only trust data I can check for myself, and any data I get out of that camp I check double before trusting it.

 

[IceForce]

Going after devs/publishers now? I thought this was supposed to be about journalistic ethics?

Jesus Christ. At this point the "Gamers are dead" articles have basically come true. They've become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

EA has been voted worst company in America 2 years in a row, and it hasn't seemed to affect their bottom line in the slightest, so I really doubt that most developers or publishers are going to care about what a fringe (and GG really is fringe) part of their demographic thinks about which gaming publications they associate with.

Having said that, "Operation Krampus" is a fucking radical name.

 

[Jux]

Well you might not make it for "us", whoever 'us' is.

Supporters of gg, more specifically, those sarcastically asking if this needed it's own thread.

I was merely pointing out that the point of merging these threads is not to clutter the Off Topic section with GG and GG related threads, which this clearly is, something I think is reasonable, since this section shouldn't devolve into the GamerGate section.

Perhaps gg would like to petition to have it's own subforum. Until then, I think my reasoning stands, unless you want to address what I actually said.

I'm also not sure why you are so keen to lump me together with 'them', whoever 'they' are.

Well you pretty much did that for me.

...I support the movement...

I call the writer of that blog an extremist because his articles are poorly researched and clearly biased based on his political views, as evidenced by the article you linked.

Poorly researched? How so? Because he didn't report that some gg'ers didn't like the idea? And since when does letting ones political views guide you make you an extremist? Are you saying his political views themselves are extreme?

To answer your title, no, this isn't a thing. But you'd be forgiving for thinking that based on that article. Just because someone posts something on an image board that is loosely associated with a movement doesn't make it 'a thing' in that movement. And the thread in question has long since been buried, not to mention it was met with dismissal when it hit. All facts the author of that piece conveniently omits in favour of spinning a story that fits his narrative. That's what leads me to believe that that blog is run by an extremist.

Ah, so ommitting or dismissing views that don't sync with your narrative is grounds for being labeled an extremist. I'll be sure to remember that for any time a gg'er dismisses my concerns about the misogynistic roots of the gg movement. Thanks for the tip.

Also, even if you accused me of being a misogynist, I wouldn't get boxers in a twist over it, so rest easy.

I'm not, so thankfully this is a non issue.

My perspective of GamerGate is always usually an outside one.

Well, you say right below that you support the movement, so this kinda reads as a meaningless platitude.

That might sound contradictive to you since I support the movement, however, I'll be the first to admit that I hate the fact that the only journalists who are willing to stand in the corner to fight for proper ethics in games journalism are right wing conservatives from outside the gaming sphere.

Have you ever considered that perhaps they aren't actually fighting for ethics ('Breitbart' and 'ethics' shouldn't be used in the same sentence unless the words 'has no' appear between them)? That maybe this is just scoring cheap political points? Something you seem to have plenty of distaste for based on your claims above?

I cannot properly relay to you how frustrating that is to me.

I'm sure.

That said, I only trust data I can check for myself, and any data I get out of that camp I check double before trusting it.

Well as gg'ers are so insistent on telling me all the time, they aren't a hivemind yes? And gg is a leaderless movement? So even if this particular thing hasn't caught on with all the crowd, there are still people that want to push this as part of the gg agenda. Still seems legit enough for me for the time being.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

Going after devs/publishers now? I thought this was supposed to be about journalistic ethics?

Jesus Christ. At this point the "Gamers are dead" articles have basically come true. They've become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I think it officially stopped being about journalistic ethics when GamerGate passed up on rallying against the whole shady business around Shadow of Mordor's pre-release review copies in favor of going after Brianna Wu, an indie developer, who had the audacity to make fun of GamerGate via some "memes".

For all the hot air blowing about journalistic ethics, GamerGate seems to be doing very little about that problem and a lot of complaining about feminism, women and being persecuted/vilified.

 

[Random Gamer]

As someone that feels the AAA publishers give us too many mainstream games that aren't particularly diverse or inclusive already, I can only say godspeed gg'ers. Please oh please go through with this, because maybe, hopefully, those AAA publishers will come to the realization that you cannot be relied upon as a customer base, and will start looking elsewhere to see what demographics can be courted. This is probably a really good chance for devs with ideas that go beyond the white, male, rugged, mid 30's protaganist in the action/adventure genre to get a chance to shine at center stage.

Then for any boycott to have at least a limited impact, people who want more diverse games appealing to new/other demographics would have to boycott as well - though I suspect a sizable portion of these people don't buy many AAA games to begin with, so the impact would be even more limited.

On the other hand, I'm not sure people wanting more "inclusive games" would be that big a demographics that they would be an alternative as juicy as the current one. I think this would mostly depend on the kind of games newly made, the kind of shift, and how radical it would be. Right now, I've the feeling that many casual gamers can't go much more into gaming due to time constraints and other activities and hobbies being as important for them - so obviously they're not going to turn hardcore who play 4 hours straight every evening. That said, I still suspect a significant - yet minor - portion of the more casual gamers could become more dedicated gamers with time. For some people, I definitely think casual games are basically the entryway into the gaming world; they're coming to terms with the fact they appreciate some kinds of games, and in the long run, they might test other more complex games and be hooked. I mean, back in the 80s and even to a lesser extent in the early 90s, many games were basically what current casual gamers play, we didn't have the likes of Civilization, SimCity Command and Conquer or Baldur's Gate (or Final Fantasy, in the West), but people who were into games liked the more diverse, innovative, more complex and lengthier games and became current core and hardcore gamers.

Still, as far as I'm concerned, the bottom-line to changing how big studios behave, what kind of games they release, and what botched released state they feel they can get away with, would be for video games not to be that profitable and not to be seen as a cow to be milked at will - because I don't see a huge shift of new demographics willing to put a ton of money buying other games to make it as profitable as the current models on both casual and core gaming. And I fear such a shift would require first a crash of epic proportions, after which investors would assume the field isn't that profitable anymore - like it happened for movies, 50 years ago.

 

[IceForce]

Going after devs/publishers now? I thought this was supposed to be about journalistic ethics?

Jesus Christ. At this point the "Gamers are dead" articles have basically come true. They've become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I think it officially stopped being about journalistic ethics when GamerGate passed up on rallying against the whole shady business around Shadow of Mordor's pre-release review copies in favor of going after Brianna Wu, an indie developer, who had the audacity to make fun of GamerGate via some "memes".

For all the hot air blowing about journalistic ethics, GamerGate seems to be doing very little about that problem and a lot of complaining about feminism, women and being persecuted/vilified.

And on top of that, they've come up with disdainful and silly names for the women they don't like, to avoid calling them by their real names. ("Literally Who", etc.)
So far, no MEN have been labelled with any names like this.

And they claim they're not 'anti-women'.

 

[Darks63]

Going after devs/publishers now? I thought this was supposed to be about journalistic ethics?

Jesus Christ. At this point the "Gamers are dead" articles have basically come true. They've become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I think it officially stopped being about journalistic ethics when GamerGate passed up on rallying against the whole shady business around Shadow of Mordor's pre-release review copies in favor of going after Brianna Wu, an indie developer, who had the audacity to make fun of GamerGate via some "memes".

For all the hot air blowing about journalistic ethics, GamerGate seems to be doing very little about that problem and a lot of complaining about feminism, women and being persecuted/vilified.

By shady business I'm assuming that the devs are still using the "give good scores or no more review copies for you!" business practice.

 

[Jux]

And on top of that, they've come up with disdainful and silly names for the women they don't like, to avoid calling them by their real names. ("Literally Who", etc.)
So far, no MEN have been labelled with any names like this.

And they claim they're not 'anti-women'.

That was somthing that struck me a couple of days ago. And I had meant to bring it up in another thread, but got distracted and forgot about it. How is it that a movement so vocal about not being anti women is completely fine with renaming two women in a very dehumanizing way? 'Literally Who?' and 'Literally Who 2?'. Those women have actual names gg'ers, it doesn't asuage anyones concerns that ya'll have issues with women when you 'literally' dehumanize women.

 

[IceForce]

And on top of that, they've come up with disdainful and silly names for the women they don't like, to avoid calling them by their real names. ("Literally Who", etc.)
So far, no MEN have been labelled with any names like this.

And they claim they're not 'anti-women'.

That was somthing that struck me a couple of days ago. And I had meant to bring it up in another thread, but got distracted and forgot about it. How is it that a movement so vocal about not being anti women is completely fine with renaming two women in a very dehumanizing way? 'Literally Who?' and 'Literally Who 2?'. Those women have actual names gg'ers, it doesn't asuage anyones concerns that ya'll have issues with women when you 'literally' dehumanize women.

They're also calling Brianna Wu "Literally Wu".

So yeah, it is only the women they do this to.