I think the focus with CoD is mainly that of a game which is primarily purchased to be played in a competitive, online, multiplayer setting. Since that's what LoL is like it makes sense that they'd want people who play games with a similar mentality.Hawki said:A "bro culture" is fine as long as it doesn't harm those that aren't part of that culture.Kerg3927 said:When a company is 80% male, there's probably going to be a bro culture... duh, it's because there are a bunch of bros there.
Yes, and?Every large company in existence has disgruntled ex-employees who feel like they were undervalued and treated unfairly.
In this case it appears those feelings are founded.
Taking that train of thought to the end station, any amoral behaviour within a company can be excused as long as it turns a profit.And with 100 million players and $1.6 billion in revenue... how can anyone seriously be critical of their hiring and promotion practices? Based on results, I'd say they have a pretty damn good business model, one that should probably be studied and emulated.
Also, never thought I'd see someone else being pro F2P on this site, but there you go.
I find that part absolutely asinine.Dreiko said:I fully support their idea of questioning people's gamer cred, despite the fact that they seem to like games like shooters more than Rpgs which would disqualify me from their idea of a gamer. It's fully their right to hire people who fit in with their ideal image of the gamer because that's how they'll best make the games they want to make.
The games being cited don't even make sense - apparently playing an FPS (CoD) will make someone better developing for a MOBA (LoL). I mean, if Riot wants to make an FPS with Miss Fortune, Jinx, or someone else, sure, but I'm not counting on that actually happening.
In the realm of personal experience, again, work in libraries. A common interview question is "why do you want to work here?" No-one ever quizzed me on what types of books I like to read.
Basically, it reeks of elitism - the whole "real gamer" nonsense that pops up every so often.
CoD is dominated by males.That a lot of women fail to qualify is only a side-effect of the fact that almost everyone who isn't a fan of call of duty or strategy pc games would fail to qualify.
Which isn't a bad thing in of itself, but again, what is Riot's raison de'etre that "you need to play CoD to work on an ARTS?"
I certainly don't find it elitist because despite them not considering me a gamer, I know I've won tons of money with anime fighting games and am good enough to win tournaments where money prizes are offered, so I don't need them to acknowledge me on top of that. I think the only people who mind if someone questions their being a gamer are ones insecure about not belonging, and anyone who is an actual gamer would just laugh it off due to its sheer absurdity. That's how I feel anyhow as a fan of jrpgs and someone who never plays shooters and never touched WoW and so on lol.
altnameJag said:Uhh, legal recourse is in the hands of civil law and not criminal law.Dreiko said:If such issues regarding sexual harassment did occur, legal recourse and not crying at kotaku is the way to go.
I fully support their idea of questioning people's gamer cred, despite the fact that they seem to like games like shooters more than Rpgs which would disqualify me from their idea of a gamer. It's fully their right to hire people who fit in with their ideal image of the gamer because that's how they'll best make the games they want to make.
That a lot of women fail to qualify is only a side-effect of the fact that almost everyone who isn't a fan of call of duty or strategy pc games would fail to qualify.
I.e. you have to find and pay your own lawyers. See Stardock's numerous lawsuits for an idea of how "your lone ass vs flush corporate lawyers" tends to play out. Aka, they counter sue over some "you're trying to sabotage the company" BS and hold it up in court until you run out of money, they settle for no money and you have to apologize. They've done it at least once over sexual harassment, and have an ongoing suit that will likely let them steal the Star Control rights from the creators, including, bizarrely, the thought that the creators of Star Control can't even call themselves the creators of Star Control, unless the actual creators of Star Control can find a couple millions of dollars to fight back.
That's how "legal recourse" goes in civil law. Hell, talking to Kotaku actually helps future "legal recourse" attempts, because look at everybody else corroborating. Establishes a pattern of behavior.
I don't know how you can be so sure that whoever was suing them in the past was an actual victim and not someone trying to scam money out of them. It's certainly not impossible that a disgruntled employee may use deception to get back at a company they have a beef with.
Either way, Kotaku is not the law, this is just getting public opinion to support someone who isn't willing to go through the usual procedure we already have in place for dealing with sexual harassment. If they won't do that they don't deserve the usual sympathy for people who go through it either.