OfficerMeatbeef's forum posts

#1 Posted by OfficerMeatbeef (93 posts) -

@liquidprince said:

@patrickklepek I'm not saying that Uplay or Origin are services that are as good as steam (because they aren't) but this is definitely a good thing in that it gives Steam competitors. Having one company be the sole distributor of all digital PC games, and basically have a monopoly can end up being really messed up and detrimental. Right now, people are good with steam because they for the most part agree with the way the service is run. However if tomorrow Valve made some drastic decision that you don't like, it's good to know that there are alternative methods and sources to get your digital games.

This thing with this argument is that nothing has changed with regards to Steam having more competitors; these alternate stores aren't new in any way, people have been free to buy pretty much any things from wherever they want for years now. Steam cannot be considered a monopoly because Valve quite clearly makes no demands of exclusivity or sole distribution to anyone ever for any product they offer. Yes, probably even their own.

(Since Valve products are even available on at least one other storefront, I would hazard a guess that Uplay or Origin would also be free to carry their stuff as well if they were so inclined. In fact, rather hilariously, up until some time in the recent past the Ubisoft store apparently actually sold Portal 2.)

It's certainly their prerogative to sell (or not sell) their products where they want, but don't fall for the fallacy that says making stuff just not available on Steam somehow makes Uplay or Origin better or more preferable services in any way. In fact, it's actually much closer to just making them the uncompetitive monopoly people complain Steam supposedly is.

If they actually wanted to provide a better option for consumers than Steam rather than just snubbing it, Ubisoft could simply use the fact that they don't have to pay anyone a cut on their own store for their own product to undercut the Steam price and still make more per-unit than they would have on Steam. This would be a step towards the actual competition people claim to want to see so much from these other services.

@hassun said:

@humanity: But can you prove that's true? Seems kind of harsh to lump everyone who complains about the service into a group labelled "hate bandwagon" or something. It should be possible to pick out the people who have had actual issues with the service.

Personally, if I were to rank the services from the most/biggest problems I've had with them to the fewest/smallest (relative to the amount of time spent/games played) it would be GFWL, then Uplay, then Origin and then Steam.

Yeah, I would not really have any issues with Uplay popping up when I launched a Ubi game on Steam if it was GOOD, or at the very least, didn't often suck. But it too often has, and for no appreciable gain for me as a user besides gaining dumb Uplay points for useless things I don't care about. It can't compare with the complete trash that was GFWL, because hopefully nothing ever will, but me and my friends have had enough similar troubles with regards to Uplay straight-up not updating properly, performing inexplicably slowly, being unavailable for long periods of time, messing with saves due to half-assed cloud implementation, etc. to make us very unhappy & wary when we have to deal with the thing.

Have I occasionally had issues with Steam too? Yes, of course. But as @hassun alluded to up there, I've used Steam probably nearly every day for years, whereas I've only had to use Uplay when I occasionally play a game that requires it. Yet in that much, much smaller usage time, I've had what feels like at least the same amount of trouble, percentage of use wise, as I have had in my entire Steam lifetime use. My personal experience has unquestionably shown Uplay to be a much poorer service for me, statistically, than Steam, while providing no advantages that Steam doesn't provide as well if not better.

One last fun thing to consider: if you are someone who really doesn't like Steam (and I can respect that opinion, even if it doesn't really much sense to me), only buying stuff from other stores and then downloading it on Steam is arguably one of the best ways you have to stick it to Valve. You're literally only costing them money this way. Fight a power!

#3 Edited by OfficerMeatbeef (93 posts) -
@spraynardtatum said:

Maybe you're right. I just disagree with this bizarre public shaming of him and want to stick up for the guy because someone needs to.

I think it's important to point out once more that he is the one who made Valve's private email response publicly available. Valve almost certainly would have just pulled the game and that would be that. In fact, that's exactly what they did. He certainly has the right to tell his side of the story, but in doing so he also accepts the risk that he's going to incriminate himself, and that's exactly what this guy has done.

Thought that's not to say I necessarily agree with people bombarding him with shit for it. They're not really any better, no.

It's kinda why I do take a littttle bit of issue with this one part from @patrickklepek's article:

Would this have been quietly dealt with privately in another kind of environment? Possibly. But we don't live in that environment right now.

Again, this guy (the one who committed the offense) is the party who continued to make this public; besides (quietly) pulling the game from the store, Valve has dealt with this matter entirely privately and quietly as far as I can tell.

Now, would any news sites have noticed if dude hadn't continued to blow up? No way to know that of course, but games getting pulled from Steam entirely is rare enough that I think it would have been at least noticed regardless of environment, and the flashpoint of the whole thing was quite obviously inherently public regardless.

#4 Edited by OfficerMeatbeef (93 posts) -
@splodge said:

I hope he has a good life from now on. This needs to be something he learns from.

Yeah, I'd like to see that but doubt he will. He has a loooong way to go. It's telling that he is the one who provided Valve's "we're done with you" email to journo sites for publication. I'm pretty certain he honestly thought he was in the right and would get generally lauded for... something? Taking a stand against Valve for putting up the wrong (promo) image for a while? I get that they've had difficulty with getting on Steam and all, but wow.

Don't get the sentiment that this was a "single moment of stupidity" some are taking from this either; the death threat was the proverbial straw, but this guy has quite clearly got a fairly long-standing history of being a total ass. There was nothing particularly constructive about calling his business partner "incompetent piece[s] of fucking shit" for a simple wrong promo image, and it's frankly astounding to me that Valve would typically even let that shit slide; they certainly have no need or requirement to do business with someone acting that unprofessional and repugnant.

I feel sorry for this awful person only in the sense that I feel sorry for any human being who somehow ends up being such a mess, but he deserves exactly what he's gotten here. Otherwise, yeah, my only real sympathy is reserved for the other people in his company.

#5 Edited by OfficerMeatbeef (93 posts) -

Thank you for making this official statement, guys. Not that I had any doubt it was your stance on the matter, but I'm still glad you made it clear. I think that was important.

I know y'all are in a tough spot on the whole thing. Certainly not the toughest, but up there. Like Jeff was saying, in many ways silence is arguably the best call on a lot of this garbage, rather than in some way "legitimizing" the "movement" by giving it attention. At the same time, being able to choose silence is a luxury the people who are really being hurt by this don't get, and I believe there's a point where making your stance clear and supporting those people receiving all this abuse becomes more important than that. Sadly, I think this whole mess became that within about a week or two.

The only thing in the statement I kinda take a bit of issue with is the "one side attacking the other side"/"us vs. us" bit. I get that it is meant as a more general philosophy, and I agree with the idea. But I think given the situation it might be a bit too reductive because part of the reason this awful shit has continued so long is it quickly wasn't "one side vs. another side". It became "one side vs. another side, with a THIRD side that thought they were supporting the ideals of the other side without realizing the true, terrifying ideals at the rotten core of the beast".

I saw plenty of people on twitter falling for this stuff; decent people with legitimate concerns about gaming journalism (and make no mistake, there are plenty of those to consider) falling in with something with a "snappy" (well, shitty, but at least it was trending or whatever) name that seemed to be getting a lot of traction and attention, selling itself as all about those concerns, really! The only thing scarier than a hate group with some traction is a hate group with traction who's just cunning enough to try and pretend they're something legitimate.

Terrifying stuff all-around. But I think (well, want to believe) most of that is drying up now. Decent people are realizing what GamerGate really is, and I believe much of that is because of statements like this from important voices like y'all. Thank you again.

#6 Posted by OfficerMeatbeef (93 posts) -


Yes because one side is "fucking gamer culture is the worst" and the other is CONSTANT DEATH AND RAPE THREATS TO REAL, IDENTIFIABLE PEOPLE.

Anyone who has done ANY real research into the true nature of this horseshit "movement" and does subsequently not "follow lock step in condemning" it is garbage. Unequivocal trash.

It does not matter that some parts of the GamerGate thing may have some merit. It is inextricably tainted by this awful shit it started with, and continues to exhibit, already. Something legitimate can replace it, but this monster needs to die.

#7 Edited by OfficerMeatbeef (93 posts) -

@scotto said:

So this is what the argument has been reduced to? "It was posted in the news section, and not clearly marked enough". This is the basis for a "-gate" scandal these days?

And for that, she was subjected to the same avalanche of juvenile misogynists who have been abusing Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian.

Not just that, a real, honest-to-god, 193-year-old respected newspaper posted a disclaimer following their original choice of editing for what was extremely clear to anyone with slightest bit of reading comprehension an op-ed piece, and they were obviously LYING ABOUT IT. A publication with almost 2 centuries of established journalistic credibility is willing to risk throwing that all away just to get some insane heat off a freelancer who was never even in their employ, because... ummmmm.... COLLUSION!?!?

If you think you're part of GamerGate, well, I hope you're looking reaaaaal close here, because there's no better example of what it REALLY represents. It's a "movement" focused on insane conspiracy, provably false mudslinging, and "examining journalistic integrity" by people who don't really understand what journalism OR integrity are, while gleefully ignoring the dozens upon dozens of easily-confirmed, easy to find, and indisputable conflicts of interest that would actually be worthy of severe scrutiny and discussion. Because none of those targets fit their actual agenda of hatred and batshit craziness.

@milkman said:

@joshwent: seems pretty unfair to think someone should have to take abuse from a bunch of ungrateful pricks every hour of the day but then when he fires back a (completely harmless) quip, he should be crucified. Patrick is about a thousand times more patient with these than I would ever be in his position.

This. Ignorance is one thing, but willfully spreading a false narrative because you haven't taken any time to actually do any critical thinking or research on your part is irresponsible and deserving of nothing but scorn. And if you don't know or understand what an "op-ed" piece is, sorry, your opinions and "critiques" of journalism are useless, because you quite clearly lack a fundamental understanding of the field.

What's more, even if you didn't realize the piece was an op-ed... I can't even find a part of it that anyone could argue as false? Everything Frank mentions is easily verifiable as having happened. I was there on Twitter when it all broke down, I saw it happen. Though again, the point is moot because if you couldn't tell the piece was an op-ed from the way it was written, your clear lack of critical thinking and reading comprehension abilities means any criticism you have of journalism is fundamentally worthless.

Losing Frank as a writer is one of the saddest goddamn things. Even the most cursory examination of her work and career makes it clear she loves games and just wanted to write what she loved, yet every single step of the way has been dogged with this kind of bullshit. It's a testament to how much she actually does love games that she stayed around as long as she did. The same could be said about any of the women involved in this, because who the fuck would want to subject themselves to this kind of horseshit on a daily basis for terrible pay and no job security if they didn't actually love the field?

I mean, I don't even have to deal with this kind of abuse and just seeing it happen makes me want to have nothing to do with games or gamers at all.

#8 Posted by OfficerMeatbeef (93 posts) -
@sergio said:

@scarycrayons: I don't get why she included Jennifer Lawrence in the beginning. She has nothing to do with any of this. Female celebrities weren't hacked because these men hate women or feminism, or because they're MRAs, or any other bogeyman. They were hacked because these criminals were perverts and had no scruples about invading their privacy and posting their pictures online. They wanted to see nude celebrities that they couldn't find on Mr.Skin.

I get what you're trying to say here, but you seem to be under-informed as to what the idea of misogyny actually encompasses. Misogyny doesn't just manifest in straight-up vaguely-cartoony moustache-twirling "hatred" for women, the kind where you think they should be barefoot in the kitchen and only speak until spoken to and you should be able to hit them whenever you feel like it. It doesn't have to be something indefensible or incredibly heinous to be misogyny.

Sexual objectification of women (particularly unconsenting) is part of the concept of misogyny. Seeing a female (celebrity or otherwise) as an sexual object whose private photos you have a right to view just because they're available is still misogyny. It's showing a lack of respect for someone because she happens to be a pretty lady you want to see without her clothes on, which you can pretty easily break down to "lack of respect for someone because they're female" because obviously if they weren't female, you wouldn't care about seeing them.

I hope that last extrapolation helps make it pretty clear? After all, how can disrespecting someone precisely because they are female and have something you want NOT be misogyny at some of its very simplest?

It can be a crime (the actual hackers), probably not quite a crime but still shady as shit (having a large hand in distributing the pictures) or even relatively "innocent" ("I still respect her as a person but I reaaaally want to see her boobs and it's not like little old me looking at them is really hurting anyone, really"). It can be any of these things and still also be misogyny.

#9 Edited by OfficerMeatbeef (93 posts) -

@juno500 said:

As you can see on this chart, hashtag GamerGate was first used on August 27th. It was used to spread videos about Zoe Quinn.

As you can see here, Alexander's article was written August 28th, after the hashtag was first being used.

So yes, it absolutely did start as an attack on Zoe Quinn, and yes, people absolutely were using the hashtag before Alexander wrote that article.

Yep. "GamerGate", from its very inception, was a sham based on hate, misinformation, and downright lies.

Corruption, cronyism, all that business is unquestionably an important issue we need to consider in games journalism, and I am sure there are plenty of moderate, reasonable people who saw the "GamerGate" thing and thought "yes, finally, this movement is for me, there's a lot of problems in games journalism!". But at the same time, it should have been pretty clear with a bit of research that the whole thing was rotten at its very core.

If you're a reasonable person with legitimate grievances about games journalism, that's awesome, because there are definitely plenty of those that we should be considering. I can stand with that! Like how the GB crew is such awesome pals with Harmonix, yet they've frequently reviewed many of their games! COLLUSION*.

But if you're associating yourself with "GamerGate" for that, I'm sorry but I'm afraid you've hitched your wagon to a train of shit. Find a better movement. Make a better movement. Don't attach yourself to hate because it happened to gain some traction, or waste your time trying to "legitimize" something started with such an INCREDIBLY obvious agenda of hatred and misogyny.

*Note: no, I don't think GB is corrupt for being friends with Harmonix. I think that is silly. Yet it's an incredibly obvious and overt close dev/journalism relationship that seems to be exactly the kind of thing GamerGate is so upset by, but somehow it completely slipped under their radar? How odd that the bastions of research and fact-checking that is the GamerGate movement somehow missed such an easily-confirmed target for one of the centerpieces of their "concerns". Huh. Weird, that.

#10 Posted by OfficerMeatbeef (93 posts) -

Lot of people saying this is an attempt to tie games to Ferguson. This article never once directly mentions Ferguson though? It links to several recent images of cops in Ferguson, yes, because those images are currently pertinent, plentiful, and [i]goddamn terrifying[/i].

I mean, the article was certainly prompted by/links to Ferguson, in that hopefully that whole situation has opened people's eyes to the fact that the militarization of the police (all that "cool stuff" the exec. producer was so excited about back in E3) is maybe unnecessary, excessive, and very troubling?

There's a lot of claims of opportunism here too, but why should we be vilifying a piece just because it's been prompted by current events? Of course when people are seeing awful images of questionable things they're going to be prompted to write about them.That's kind of what journalism is.

I get that Hardline is being a crazy, action-movie type cop thing. That can be fine! That can be fun! That doesn't mean it doesn't help glorify the idea of "the police are the good guys and will do the right thing, so they definitely need and can be trusted with all this 'cool stuff', and that's something worth addressing. Because like the exec. producer clearly says,

"We did some research on the [internet]," Papoutsis said, "and we found out law enforcement have a lot of cool, kick ass stuff."

It's worth considering the SWAT games here. They also did a lot of research (more than just "the internet", certainly) and they implemented a lot of "cool stuff". However, all the SWAT shooters are very clearly based on attempting to preserve life, despite most scenarios in the game being pretty extreme for a single SWAT element. Every time you have to kill a dude in SWAT 3 or 4 is at least a small failure; even a necessary, justified shooting incurs a small penalty in your rating at the end of a mission. You'll never get in trouble for shooting someone who points a weapon at you or someone else, but you're constantly encouraged to consider "could I have dealt with that situation in such a way that nobody had to die? Could I have done that a better way?"

I'm pretty sure in at least SWAT 3, you could outright game over your career if you just ran around shooting people (even suspects/terrorists!) without proper cause. But even if I'm incorrect, you always end up with a better rating at the end if you bring someone in alive, even wounded, rather than dead.

I think that was a pretty damn responsible way to deal with these themes, while still making a very fun shooter. You got to play with a bunch of cool police toys and weapons, sure. But the games always reinforced the idea that you were still a police officer. You're there to save and preserve life, whether victim or perpetrator, albeit in very extreme situations.

Again, Hardline isn't necessarily committing any kind of crime by taking this stuff and going all balls-out action movie with it. But that doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye towards the fact that yes, this stuff does glorify the idea of "cops as rad home-soil soldiers" that has allowed the kind of extreme militarization we've seen so clearly these last few days to propagate all across the states with very little apparent concern from the general populace. That's the whole point of the article, and I think it's very relevant indeed.