Valve, curator transparency and #GamerGate

[Mooshi]

For those not in the know, I will give a quick rundown on #GamerGate. The simple definition are gamers for transparency and against corruption. Gamers from all walks of life, creed, religion, race and gender. Unless you've been reading very bias articles and somehow believes that translates to virgin neckbeards who hate women, don't bother posting.

 

Now that we got this out of the way, looks like GabeN has changed some things with their Curators and policies in place. Essentially, if you've donated/were involved in any way towards a game you're recommending, you must disclose this fully to the public. I find this is a great idea because we don't need biased recommendations from people involved in projects, we need unbiased recommendations because the games were legitimately good.

 

 

 

Source: http://techgage.com/news/new-steam-curator-rules-participants-must-disclose-if-they-were-paid/

 

What are your thoughts on Valve wanting more transparency? 

[Si3Rra_7]

Old news ?

[StingBull]

Good. How very unlike Valve.

[ForsakenLive]

Old news ?

The new system and article from valve was introduced today..... read it.

[monstercameron]

it never made sense to me this hullabaloo, why does it matter if a person recommending something is biased or has an ulterior motive. by its very nature, a recommendation is biased.

[ttam]

People should stop being whiny babies and get over it. 

[StingBull]

it never made sense to me this hullabaloo, why does it matter if a person recommending something is biased or has an ulterior motive. by its very nature, a recommendation is biased.

 

It matters because people will say every game is good if paid even if the game is so bad that it gives people cancer and commits genocides every 25 seconds.

[Snickerzz]

rather old. its been out for a week or so

[Mooshi]

it never made sense to me this hullabaloo, why does it matter if a person recommending something is biased or has an ulterior motive. by its very nature, a recommendation is biased.

 

Because it's on par with someone working at Mcdonalds and recommending their own burgers over the rest because they are invested in some way. The general public, regardless of the product being pushed, deserves unbiased recommendations. Not be given glowing reviews on anything due to being involved. This is why full disclosure is a great thing. Independent 3rd parties don't have anything to gain vs someone directly involved in someway with their wallet.

[Si3Rra_7]

The new system and article from valve was introduced today..... read it.

 

rather old. its been out for a week or so

So who's right ?

[Snickerzz]

So who's right ?

ah never mind, i thought this post was just talking about curators bing a new feature. not that curators have to say if they are paid or not

[monstercameron]

Because it's on par with someone working at Mcdonalds and recommending their own burgers over the rest because they are invested in some way. The general public, regardless of the product being pushed, deserves unbiased recommendations. Not be given glowing reviews on anything due to being involved. This is why full disclosure is a great thing. Independent 3rd parties don't have anything to gain vs someone directly involved in someway with their wallet.

you understand what a recommendation is right? it cant be unbiased because it is literally  an opinion. I just dont see the need for all this redtape, when the solution is so simple -atleast for steam- form your own opinions!

[Tr3vor]

it never made sense to me this hullabaloo, why does it matter if a person recommending something is biased or has an ulterior motive. by its very nature, a recommendation is biased.

Well do you want a commercial when you are looking for a product review? When I want a review, I'm looking for someone's opinion, not someone who was paid off to say good things about a product.

Of course an opinion is biased in some way, optimally based on how they like the game, not money.

[ForsakenLive]

So who's right ?

There was stuff about this in the web for a week.

 

1- One Week doesn't make it old

2- The official update with this was today

3- The article came up today.

4- Nobody in the forums posted this before

 

What we have seen in LTT was this.

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/221338-steam-curators-system-is-already-being-abused/

Which was exactly the reason we get this update today, with special attention to the third parties making money from the curator system.

This article and update from valve is about transparency on the system implemented before.

[Si3Rra_7]

There was stuff about this in the web for a week.

 

1- One Week doesn't make it old

2- The official update with this was today

3- The article came up today.

4- Nobody in the forums posted this before

 

What we have seen in LTT was this.

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/221338-steam-curators-system-is-already-being-abused/

Which was exactly the reason we get this update today, with special attention to the third parties making money from the curator system.

This article and update from valve is about transparency on the system implemented before.

k , i thought it was about introducing steam curators

[ForsakenLive]

k , i thought it was about introducing steam curators

nope, article about transparency of what's been going on for the past weeks.

Again, read the article before commenting, the title alone won't do.

[Si3Rra_7]

nope, article about transparency of what's been going on for the past weeks.

Again, read the article before commenting, the title alone won't do.

I skimmed through the quote , it looked like the announcement . No need to go all vigilante on me

[DevanArianne]

it never made sense to me this hullabaloo, why does it matter if a person recommending something is biased or has an ulterior motive. by its very nature, a recommendation is biased.

When it's just a plane recommendation, then yes, a large bias is fine. But when you're getting into games where people are spending significant chunks of money, bias ruins things. These are the people you use  to make purchasing decisions. They drive where your money goes.

If you had someone you really trusted with investments. They then sign a deal with a company that they will get paid to advise people to pay into a business. That business then turns out to be a sham, and all the money disappears. Millions of dollars are lost. 

That is what happened with #GamerGate, just at a bit of a smaller level.

 

No one is saying that every review should be completely objective. But what we want is the subjective parts to be because of the reviewers own personal enjoyment, not because they were paid off or because they slept with someone at the company.

[XTankSlayerX]

#Ebolagate

 

Do we really need all these gates?

[Trik'Stari]

We need something similar for PC Hardware, I nominate @LinusTech and @Slick as curators.

 

[SpaghettiCarbonara]

Man, it makes me so fkin frustrated when I see people say that GamerGate isn't important and/or people should stop "whinging". None of those people understand the gravity of the situation. None of those people appear to have seen the articles saying that gamers are practically psychopathic murderers (which will affect the way society views us gamers). None of these people realise that these "journalists" almost always have an agenda to push and they push that agenda on the entire industry, including game devs.

 

If these corrupt game journalists get their way, a few things will happen:

 

1. The stigma on gamers will stick or it will get worse as revenge for exposing their shitty ethics and behavior

2. They'll have a free reign to push their shitty agenda on game devs and we'll see games get utterly ruined by shit characters getting pushed in that don't belong, good characters getting taken out and less of things like violence and sexual content. They'll bully game devs into doing what they want to do, not what the game dev wants to do. Basically imagine the whole feminist ideology set pushed into gaming, that's what they want.

3. They'll get copious amounts of money and a free reign to sleep with whoever they want, regardless of the conflict of interest it creates.

 

Don't be ignorant. Don't let this happen.

[Derangel]

Man, it makes me so fkin frustrated when I see people say that GamerGate isn't important and/or people should stop "whinging". None of those people understand the gravity of the situation. None of those people appear to have seen the articles saying that gamers are practically psychopathic murderers (which will affect the way society views us gamers). None of these people realise that these "journalists" almost always have an agenda to push and they push that agenda on the entire industry, including game devs.

 

If these corrupt game journalists get their way, a few things will happen:

 

1. The stigma on gamers will stick or it will get worse as revenge for exposing their shitty ethics and behavior

2. They'll have a free reign to push their shitty agenda on game devs and we'll see games get utterly ruined by shit characters getting pushed in that don't belong, good characters getting taken out and less of things like violence and sexual content. They'll bully game devs into doing what they want to do, not what the game dev wants to do. Basically imagine the whole feminist ideology set pushed into gaming, that's what they want.

3. They'll get copious amounts of money and a free reign to sleep with whoever they want, regardless of the conflict of interest it creates.

 

Don't be ignorant. Don't let this happen.

 

I'm all for more transparency in the games media but what the hell are you talking about?

 

1. Umm..That has nothing to do with the gaming press. The gaming press has been fighting against that since the early 90s.

2. As opposed to the people pushing agendas on the other side of the issue and trying to force developers and the media to do what they want to them to do? Gamergate is as much of an agenda as anything else. It having SOME good goals does not make it less so. As for the feminist ideology you clearly have no clue what that really is and base your entire belief on the extremists.

3. Exactly how much money do you think people in the game's media make? At no point do they make "copious amounts of money". You don't get into journalism of any kind of the money because you are will be sorely disappointed. As for sleeping with each other. People with similar interests that interact fairly often and get along well are more likely to get involved. That is human nature. As long as they follow the idea of not getting involved with someone working on a product they are covering it isn't a huge issue. Which leads to my next point. There is zero proof that anything Zoey Quinn was accused of doing (and proof of her doing anything is slightly suspect considering the source is a very angry ex) was a conflict of interest as the Kotaku writer did not review the game as he was accused of doing and did not mention the game on the site in any article he wrote after the relationship was supposed to have started.

[NICKT]

you understand what a recommendation is right? it cant be unbiased because it is literally  an opinion. I just dont see the need for all this redtape, when the solution is so simple -atleast for steam- form your own opinions!

 

See, I don't think you're getting it.

 

I can recommend you something on the basis that I myself enjoyed it, and I figure that if I did, you might too.

Then I could recommend you something else on the basis that I was paid to do so.

 

It's all on the causation of the recommendation, the reason behind it because it effects the nature of the recommendation. If you can't see that then I truly, honestly pity you. Yeah, people should form their own opinions, but that doesn't make everyone's opinions invalid and in that vein we should be striving for people to make honest opinions.

[monstercameron]

See, I don't think you're getting it.

 

I can recommend you something on the basis that I myself enjoyed it, and I figure that if I did, you might too.

Then I could recommend you something else on the basis that I was paid to do so.

 

It's all on the causation of the recommendation, the reason behind it because it effects the nature of the recommendation. If you can't see that then I truly, honestly pity you. Yeah, people should form their own opinions, but that doesn't make everyone's opinions invalid and in that vein we should be striving for people to make honest opinions.

I dont think we should be forcing people to be honest, that honesty shouldn't be a function of the system but of the person you are trusting. If you think that a person has been paid to say certain thing then it should be your duty to investigate rather than going to the gate keepers and crying about a person's bias and/or honesty.

[SpaghettiCarbonara]

I'm all for more transparency in the games media but what the hell are you talking about?

 

1. Umm..That has nothing to do with the gaming press. The gaming press has been fighting against that since the early 90s.

2. As opposed to the people pushing agendas on the other side of the issue and trying to force developers and the media to do what they want to them to do? Gamergate is as much of an agenda as anything else. It having SOME good goals does not make it less so. As for the feminist ideology you clearly have no clue what that really is and base your entire belief on the extremists.

3. Exactly how much money do you think people in the game's media make? At no point do they make "copious amounts of money". You don't get into journalism of any kind of the money because you are will be sorely disappointed. As for sleeping with each other. People with similar interests that interact fairly often and get along well are more likely to get involved. That is human nature. As long as they follow the idea of not getting involved with someone working on a product they are covering it isn't a huge issue. Which leads to my next point. There is zero proof that anything Zoey Quinn was accused of doing (and proof of her doing anything is slightly suspect considering the source is a very angry ex) was a conflict of interest as the Kotaku writer did not review the game as he was accused of doing and did not mention the game on the site in any article he wrote after the relationship was supposed to have started.

 

Sigh... Here we go.

 

1. You obviously haven't seen all the articles they posted about gamers being horrible people and/or a dead community then, have you? What you're seeing there is a handful of many articles that came out right after the whole thing with Zoe Quinn got exposed. They hate people knowing about their shitty ethics, so there's the backlash. They wanted to brand gamers as horrible people as some quick, petty revenge, really.

 

2. I don't really understand what you're trying to say here. As for me apparently not knowing what feminist ideologies are, I never really specifically mentioned any of them, so how can you say I don't know what they are?

 

3. I'm not saying they make a lot of money now, I'm saying they will if they get their way, that's what they want. Again, it's difficult to understand the points you're trying to make (I'm probably too tired to have a debate right now), but if you don't understand why journalists cannot have sex with the subjects of their articles, you really need to research the topic a bit more. It's creates a conflict of interest and in the journalism world, that's really fucking bad. As for the proof bit, yes, it is hard to prove what he was saying, but she practically admitted it and the amount of backlash we got from the game journos community sort of concretes it in my mind. Ben Kuchera was caught out saying "Who here hasn't slept with a PR person or game developer?", so there's that.