I haven’t been saying much about GamerGate because there isn’t much for me to say. I feel I’ve already done my part to help better the Gaming Revolution (and it is a revolution!).

Due to unhappiness of gamers, Intel has dropped the marketing campaign for Gamasutra. The article in question was this one.

The rhetoric of the SJWs is very interesting. They attack ‘hardcore stereotypes’ while they say we need more of whatever they are peddling. In many ways, the rhetorical spear they are thrusting is similar to the rhetorical spear of the Wii Revolution. Yet, it is entirely off.

Nintendo was never interested in attacking gamers. Why would they do that? They are a game company after all. Nintendo never said ‘gamer doesn’t exist’ but said their mission was to ‘make everyone a gamer’. It was GAMER EXPANSION. It was to INCREASE the number of gamers throughout society. And when this occurs, the social stigma of gamers decrease because more and more society plays the games. Instead of Nintendo trying to compete for the shrinking pie of the established market gamers, Nintendo increased the pie by making ‘new’ types of gamers. This was a brilliant business move and is THE WAY how to increase the Gaming Revolution.

The Gaming Revolution began with PONG because the business model began with PONG. The Gaming Revolution increased with the Atari Era and then grew with the NES Era. Until the 16-bit generation, gaming was not about competition as it was about market expansion. This doesn’t meant that market expansion didn’t continue in some ways, but it meant that the gaming business became defined by ‘Console War’ of company A outselling company B. It got our eyes off what was really important: the gaming revolution. The gaming revolution is to make everyone a gamer. It is to create new types of games never seen before. Your favorite games are going to be the gaming revolution type games.

In the most absurd thing ever, traditional gamers swallowed marketing that ‘new market gamers’ were not gamers and were set to destroy all of gaming. Out of the three 7th Gen consoles, two did the core games and the third did some core games. Yet, the new market was going to destroy all of gaming! It was the stupidest thing ever. Hardcore gamers were going batshit insane. The success of Wii Sports didn’t harm any other game. People buying Wii Fit didn’t invalidate other types of games. It is just that Wii Sports and Wii Fit are good for different type of people. More and more people were becoming gamers.

The Social Justice Warrior thing going on is exactly what the hardcore feared. Social Justice Warriors want to remove the word of gamers and games. They don’t want games. They want ‘culture’ (defined by them). And they ARE attacking your games.

Let’s look at Leigh Alexander’s piece a little closer:

Yet in 2014, the industry has changed. We still think angry young men are the primary demographic for commercial video games — yet average software revenues from the commercial space have contracted massively year on year, with only a few sterling brands enjoying predictable success.

It’s nice that they have finally come to express that the game market is shrinking, but this shrinking is due to poor macro-economic forces and due to the lack of game expansion by everyone including Nintendo.

It’s clear that most of the people who drove those revenues in the past have grown up — either out of games, or into more fertile spaces, where small and diverse titles can flourish, where communities can quickly spring up around creativity, self-expression and mutual support, rather than consumerism. There are new audiences and new creators alike there. Traditional “gaming” is sloughing off, culturally and economically, like the carapace of a bug.

Clear… how? These are assertions with no meat.

This is hard for people who’ve drank the kool aid about how their identity depends on the aging cultural signposts of a rapidly-evolving, increasingly broad and complex medium. It’s hard for them to hear they don’t own anything, anymore, that they aren’t the world’s most special-est consumer demographic, that they have to share.

This is an excellent example of projectism. The author describes herself.

But it’s unstoppable. A new generation of fans and creators is finally aiming to instate a healthy cultural vocabulary, a language of community that was missing in the days of “gamer pride” and special interest groups led by a product-guide approach to conversation with a single presumed demographic.

Don’t you mean the OLD generation? This was the 1980s. What was the demographic of Pac-Man? Or Super Mario Brothers? Or Legend of Zelda? Or Tetris? The reason why Nintendo boldly went the path they did with Wii wasn’t due to new market data but due to OLD market data. Nintendo figured that if games could reach a broad audience like that before, they could again if they were made and marketed correctly. Hence, the Wii phenomenon.

Now part of a writer’s job in a creative, human medium is to help curate a creative community and an inclusive culture — and a lack of commitment to that just looks out-of-step, like a partial compromise with the howling trolls who’ve latched onto ‘ethics’ as the latest flag in their onslaught against evolution and inclusion.

They think they are sooooooo smart. And they think you, the lowly gamer, are soooooo stupid. Note the tone. Why, you guys are even against evolution. But it is not evolution of what she suggests but revolution. She wants to destroy the definition of games and gamers. That is not evolution but a complete destruction of what was before. This is cultural Marxism on the march.

If these people were half as bright as they think they were, why did they miss the Wii phenomenon? You know the actual gamer revolution? They speak for being ‘inclusive’ but where were they when gaming tried to be inclusive with the Wii?

Inclusive, to them, is actually the opposite. They don’t want whatever they’re peddling to co-exist with gamers. They want to destroy gamers. They want to remove the word of gamer, to remove the world of gamer.

Developers and writers alike want games about more things, and games by more people. We want — and we are getting, and will keep getting — tragicomedy, vignette, musicals, dream worlds, family tales, ethnographies, abstract art. We will get this, because we’re creating culture now. We are refusing to let anyone feel prohibited from participating.

No one is stopping them to make whatever they want. However, the market chooses to buy what it does. People make these… ‘software experiences’ … all the time. They don’t sell. This is why the games that come out fit the formulas they do.

These obtuse shitslingers, these wailing hyper-consumers, these childish internet-arguers — they are not my audience. They don’t have to be yours.

And apparently Gamasutra isn’t Intel’s audience either.