TadThuggish

It's amazing and alarming when you realize just how fundamentally awful Kotaku is. In my case, I actually agreed with Hernandez - Temkin is probably a rapist, and if not then a rape apologist. But the fact that Kotaku felt the need to cover the story at all is indicative of how gross and tabloidish they are. It's just another example in a long list of examples of Kotaku doing something terrible for hits, which is a complaint lodged against them no matter the individual's personal beliefs. It's like the world can be united in calling that site out on their bullshit. If Jeff or somebody really liked The Cosby Show as a kid, he's not going to publish a ~breaking news~ story about how we're to damn Bill Cosby for his allegations. That's not to say we shouldn't, it just isn't appropriate for the site's character. The three or four good articles a year don't overweigh the trash, and even if they did it wouldn't give the trash a valid excuse for existing.

I have full confidence in Patrick's ability to produce good content for any site, but the good content will never be as good as the bad content is bad.

What an incredible step down in the world. I wish him the best, but when you work for Gawker the best only goes so far. No ill will to him personally, it's just an awful institution. I'll keep the good memories. I ranted about it on Twitter but thinking about the outside gaming media (Kotaku/Polygon/Destructoid/IGN/whatever) just makes me more happy Giant Bomb exists.

Patrick, thank you for writing this article. Giant Bomb can cover serious, personal issues while still making silly videos. My one criticism is with this: "All three cases have come in the wake of GamerGate, a rhetorically loud hashtag ostensibly about problems in games journalism, but one that has been mired in incidents of extreme harassment."

The problem here is that GamerGate IS harassment. That's the point. It hasn't been mired in the harassment, it exists to harass. Actual problems with games journalism are being completely ignored, or actively encouraged, while GamerGate destroys the lives of every woman in the industry who won't conform to little boys's standards. Don't try to play nice by making it even sound like there's some merit to their claims of corrupt games journalism, because the harassment overshadows it, IS it, and ignores actual corruption anyway. Please don't be afraid to dismiss GamerGater-s (or maybe just "gam3rz") from the site entirely.

Competition. Not to say EA's initiative will be good (because EA), but if subscription models start being served up per-publisher it means there will be less of an incentive to subscribe per-console manufacturer. It's the cable company/cable channel dynamic again.

This is a really great progressive move from a company that's been relatively shitty on the business and creative side for the past several years. A Netflix-style model where you give an annual fee to access all a publisher's forthcoming/previous titles would benefit consumers with an overall lower price point and might(?) give the publisher more money overall than each game would at 60 a pop. Now, it's EA, so surely they'll find a way to screw things up. But the idea is sound. I pay for Netflix, Amazon Prime, PlayStation Plus, and the WWE Network, and all have been very good deals that save me money in the long run. Just imagine if Valve or Nintendo or even a small developer like Devolver Digital adopted this idea (it's basically a Patreon). People would eat a valuable subscription service up.

Those who are negative on this are letting their rightful distrust of EA initiatives blind them to the actual words in the actual news story. And if there's a section out there that really hates the idea of saving money while positively supporting publishers (EA or otherwise), well, they're the same people who would've said streaming movies was for dumb idiots back in 2007.

I'm excited to play this a year after release when a "Game of the Year/Complete" Edition appears on Steam at a reasonable price.

I agree with what you're saying but in my mind I'm witnessing Cesaro on a quick look and Zoe Quinn winning a ladder match.

@jaqen_hghar: I agree with most of what you say, but it's important to note that multiple women who applied would've been "the best choice." There are a bunch of people who are all cool and would work well here, all with slightly different perspectives, of course, so then it becomes a question of diversity. Dan isn't objectively better, he's just a best choice among multiple best choice applicants.

Oh, just another thought that is floating in my brain from before and need to dump here:

The idea that there are two separate decisions to be made in the hiring process, "qualified" and "diverse", is generally incorrect. There are a great number of games writers who can fit on the GB staff while also providing new perspectives. It's not an either-or conundrum. The reason why people aren't questioning if Dan will fit on staff is because he's already proven himself on past livestreams and Powerbombcasts. There are writers of different genders and races that can fit just as well, they've just been minimally highlighted here or not at all. I don't think the quality of the site would go down if Cara Ellison or Maddy Myers had been hired instead of Dan. Dan is cool and I'm happy to see him here too, but yeah. It's not this-or-that. They're all people.