Response to this:
I found these quite interesting
- They (gaming media) are outraged at being called corrupt
- They (gaming media) are upset at the suggestion that the gaming media has some sort of organized conspiracy
- They (general) believe gamers are inherently insular and want to shout down any attempts at reforming it.
- They (general) believe gamers are entitled and thin-skinned, unable to show empathy or accept even mild criticism of their hobby.
I would like to think you are dishonestly presenting the anti-GG side, because if these are true, they are utterly damning.
1: The IndieCade and IGF imbroglios are prima facia cases of corruption. You don’t get to judge products you have a financial interest in. You don’t get to judge products represented by someone you have a romantic or sexual relationship with. This can not actually be a surprise to anyone. Any “game journalist” who hasn’t trashed the people involved is an accomplice to the corruption, and has no grounds to complain about being tarred with that brush.
2: I think the release of the GameJournosPros emails conclusively lays this one to rest.
Then there’s the other two. The knock on the Puritans was “they were deathly afraid that someone, somewhere, was having fun.” For these modern Puritans, the complaint is the same: “how dare you want to have fun playing games that we don’t like?” “How dare you have a hobby that we don’t approve of?
You want to know what an indignant, whiny, entitled person looks like? Check out the people who think they have the right to tell other people what hobbies those other people are allowed to have. Check out the people who think that gaming companies should ignore their paying customers, and instead pay attention to whining SJWs and game “journalists” prancing about on their hobby horses.
What’s driving GamerGate? Well, the fact that their opponents are utterly without a shred of legitmacy.