I read the article and honestly, it is for the most part entirely correct.
It was just a dumb move to have it reference GamersGate. That term is so tainted, one should simply never use it - nothing can be gained from doing so. No matter the intentions.
That they chose to retract it because of the expectable outrcry from the usual suspects just goes to show why larger magazines are losing ground by the minute, while honest and independent people on YouTube, etc. are gaining ground.
This is my basic stance on the issue as well. The term is so loaded with baggage it becomes pointless to introduce it unless you want to talk specifically about it.
What's interesting though is that even if one completely disavows GG and then makes points about other things you will still have well connected people "interpreting" what you are REALLY saying. Jason Schreier from Kotaku said "it's hard not to see The Escapist's But why aren't we talking ethics in game journalism??? as a dog whistle for the worst people."
So we are in a spot where criticism of certain people is a "dog whistle" to certain other people. Basically putting the first group above criticism. WTF?
A huge question for me coming out of this is exactly how much clout does ZQ have in Games Journalism circles?
How much clout does ZQ have on the indie scene?
How much influence, if any, does she have with larger companies in the industry.
Keep in mind that this article is so tame and so non-controversial, really. It's not like he is saying something mental like "We Need To Bring Back GamerGate".
Russ Pitts shares this tame and neutral article and gets called out by ZQ for not contacting her about the piece.
Lady, you wrote an entire fucking book about GG there is literally nothing more you could add to the conversation.
Was she maybe expecting to be offered some money for a comment in the article?
Russ Pitts then basically, and correctly, told her to piss off.
Fast forward a couple of days and the article is taken down and a grovelling apology is published instead.
What the hell happened?
I mean the apology article literally contains a personal apology to ZQ.
"To Zoe Quinn and everyone who rightfully admires her resilience in the face of a terrible ordeal: I am genuinely sorry I diminished your experience of abuse. I should not have spoken to you that way. Not in public. Not in private. Not anywhere. I don’t expect your forgiveness. You and your followers deserve to know that I am aware of how horrible I was to you, and that
I genuinely regret having those thoughts, much less expressing them."
It begs the question, as I said before, how much clout does she have in these circles and who is she connected to that this is the end result of an article that HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HER,
Let's keep in mind that a very similar thing happened to Tim Soret when the trailer for The Last Night was revealed. ZQ goes on a Twitter complaining session and a day later the dude is being interviewed about his upcoming game and has to spend time apologizing for I don't know what. Then every mention of the game now comes with some comment on the developers connection to "GG".
Again, what's the story here?
As a thought experiment let's say an indie dev has made a game all by himself and is one week from release with serious buzz around the game.
Then he tweets something crazy like "Fuck, ZQ and the horse she rode in on".
How likely is it that the game would then be banned from Steam? PS Store? Etc.
Would the game be dropped from discussion on certain forums or websites?
I assume if a writer for, say, Polygon decided to say something like "ZQ is full of shit" they would be fired for sure?
How can one person have that level of control? Or is it not that she has any control at all but rather larger entities are just mindlessly keeping her protected? I just don't get how we go from a pretty middle of the road and uncontroversial article to the article is deleted and a grovelling apology is issued?
Plus, I don't care what anyone says, the situation with ZQ, Depression Quest, games journalists etc WAS a scandal.
Now, of course it wasn't a huge scandal and it was ultimately blown WAY out of proportion but they situation still wasn't great.
Lads, I enjoy indie games and I am more than happy to support them. They let me down a lot less than expensive shite like Destiny 2 or SW Battlefront.
If I see a decent AMA (ask me anything) from developers on the Nintendo Switch subreddit and I think the devs seem nice I will buy their game just to try it.
So if I see a load of buzz about an indie game and it then turns out that the people generating that buzz are close friends, partners whatever with the devs, and that relationship is not disclosed, then I won't be angry but I will be disappointed and annoyed.
For example, I really really really do not wish to find out that the new indie title with a ton of awards got those awards just because the developer is close buddies with the award giver. It's not cool. I don't want to say "this game is getting nice coverage from people I trust so I will buy it" only to discover that the person going on about how great the game is has been fucking the dev all along. That's not cool.
So, yeah, a scandal like that is worth talking about because it reveals at least the possibility of corruption and deception in the indie scene.
As a consumer and supporter of indie games I don't want to feel like I am being lied to or tricked into buying something or supporting something.
I can't have that though because any time these ethical issues are brought up there is an outcry about "dog whistles" and the like.
This article and it's subsequent apology do not reflect well on the "games journalism" clique AT ALL.
It makes it look like they are still actively covering for each other.