GaymerX2 Convention Will Be the Last

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
0
0
GaymerX2 Convention Will Be the Last


Organizers of the LGBT-focused gaming convention GaymerX2 say that this year's event will be the last.

Despite a hugely successful Kickstarter campaign [https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/gaymercon/gaymerx2-everyonegames], organizers behind the GaymerX2 convention have announced on Twitter that this year's event will be the final one, at least in its current format.

"Based on feedback that we've gotten, the new focus towards diversity in the industry and budget, GaymerX2 will be the final year for the con," they tweeted. "That's not to say that we may not do other events again in the future, but we're asking so much out of our volunteers for the past 2 years [and] the size of our event and the amount of money we were losing to put it on became too much of a burden to keep at this pace."

The GaymerX2 Kickstarter campaign wrapped up in March with $24,298, more than double its $10,000 goal, and it was also able to attract GLaDOS and The Sniper [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/132761-GLaDOS-and-The-Sniper-Join-Up-To-Support-GaymerX2] - AKA voice actors Ellen McLain and John Patrick Lowrie - to the event. But Matt Conn told Polygon that the high cost of running a convention in downtown San Francisco plus the inability to attract corporate sponsorships made it an unsustainable enterprise.

[tweet t=https://twitter.com/GaymerX/status/455430425079324672]

Even so, he echoed the suggestion on Twitter that GaymerX could return someday. "We're certainly not against it coming back in some other, more sustainable form, but we were basically trying to produce something that was a bit too large and ambitious for the amount of corporate interest in supporting queer geek culture," he said.

It's an unfortunate outcome, but I do hope that GaymerX is able to bounce back someday, even in a scaled-down format. Meanwhile, this year's event is still full steam ahead, taking place at the Intercontinental Hotel in San Francisco from July 11 to 13.

Sources: Polygon [https://twitter.com/GaymerX]


Permalink
 

CriticalMiss

New member
Jan 18, 2013
2,024
0
0
Maybe they could partner up with an existing convention and have a set of LGBT panels with the 'Gaymer' name attached rather than trying to have an entirely seperate one of their own. It would be much cheaper and there would be a larger audience for it.
 

Falterfire

New member
Jul 9, 2012
810
0
0
Chaosritter said:
I don't see why a LGBT focused game convention is neccessary in the first place. There already are plenty of major cons, and I can't really imagine how this one is supposed to differ enough to be justified.
There is not a limited amount of convention available in the world. Gaymer isn't taking crucial Convention-tonium from PAX or Comiccon. If a group of people decide that they want to host another convention, then why shouldn't they?

It seems silly to say that just because you are satisfied with available convention offerings, they shouldn't be allowed to organize, plan, fund, and host their own additional convention.
 

putowtin

I'd like to purchase an alcohol!
Jul 7, 2010
3,452
0
0
Sseth said:
I always thought this sort of thing was counter-intuitive to the cause of LGBT equality. What brings us together is our love of gaming, and sexual orientation shouldn't be a factor at all. Segregating cons like this will only single them out further when that is not what they really should be doing.
In an ideal world all you said is true, unfortunately my only con experience was blighted by having to listen to my friend being hounded by two homophobic ar$eholes because he made the "mistake" of being heard by them when he describe Ezio as hot!
 

UNHchabo

New member
Dec 24, 2008
535
0
0
Chaosritter said:
I don't see why a LGBT focused game convention is neccessary in the first place. There already are plenty of major cons, and I can't really imagine how this one is supposed to differ enough to be justified. Guess it's pretty much the same on a smaller scale, focused on discussions about how they get "discriminated" by evil white, heterosexual men all the time.

As far as I'm concerned, nothing of value was lost. Let them open booths on cons that matter if they wanna participate that badly.
To add to what Falterfire said, there's also location. The only other big gaming convention I know of in Northern California is GDC, which is industry-focused. GaymerX is the only consumer-focused con I know of.

Yeah, there's PAX Prime, if you're willing to drive 12 hours, or San Diego ComicCon, if you're willing to drive 7 hours. But why not hold one closer, in one of the country's major cities, right in the heart of half the games industry?

Sseth said:
I always thought this sort of thing was counter-intuitive to the cause of LGBT equality. What brings us together is our love of gaming, and sexual orientation shouldn't be a factor at all. Segregating cons like this will only single them out further when that is not what they really should be doing.
You're still allowed to attend if you don't identify as LGBT; they created this as a "safe space" because some gamers don't feel comfortable going to a "standard" gaming convention.
 

Doog0AD

New member
Apr 23, 2010
52
0
0
And the first comment on the Facebook comments list is someone complaining about how the gay community is a minority trying to tell everyone else how their games should be made.

Stay classy, Escapist. Stay classy.
 

Mumorpuger

This is a...!
Apr 8, 2009
606
0
0
I feel like having completely separated/segregated conventions from the "main" cons defeats the purpose and contradicts the message of equality and inclusion. I tend of have similar views of Pride parades and such.
 

RaikuFA

New member
Jun 12, 2009
4,370
0
0
Doog0AD said:
And the first comment on the Facebook comments list is someone complaining about how the gay community is a minority trying to tell everyone else how their games should be made.

Stay classy, Escapist. Stay classy.
Hell, go look at that Mozilla CEO stepping down story for your daily dose of homophobia.
 

DrOswald

New member
Apr 22, 2011
1,443
0
0
Falterfire said:
Chaosritter said:
I don't see why a LGBT focused game convention is neccessary in the first place. There already are plenty of major cons, and I can't really imagine how this one is supposed to differ enough to be justified.
There is not a limited amount of convention available in the world. Gaymer isn't taking crucial Convention-tonium from PAX or Comiccon. If a group of people decide that they want to host another convention, then why shouldn't they?

It seems silly to say that just because you are satisfied with available convention offerings, they shouldn't be allowed to organize, plan, fund, and host their own additional convention.
Well, the problem is that there is a "limited amount of convention" available. It could be defined by how much money and time there is for the convention going types/corporate sponsors to support the existence of a convention. Many people who go to conventions are limited, for practical reasons like finance, to 1 convention a year or less. Many companies have similar limitations. The real question is if GaymerX going to be attractive enough to pull convention goers from PAX or Comicon or any other major con. It looks like the answer is no. You could say it's existence is not justified because not enough people care, which also implies it is not necessary. It is filling a market need that apparently does not exist.
 

DEAD34345

New member
Aug 18, 2010
1,929
0
0
Falterfire said:
Chaosritter said:
I don't see why a LGBT focused game convention is neccessary in the first place. There already are plenty of major cons, and I can't really imagine how this one is supposed to differ enough to be justified.
There is not a limited amount of convention available in the world. Gaymer isn't taking crucial Convention-tonium from PAX or Comiccon. If a group of people decide that they want to host another convention, then why shouldn't they?

It seems silly to say that just because you are satisfied with available convention offerings, they shouldn't be allowed to organize, plan, fund, and host their own additional convention.
That last sentence is exactly why I think the whole "Gaymer" thing was a bad idea in the first place. There is no us and them, the whole concept is flawed to begin with. Is there a word like "racist" but for sexual orientation? Because if there is, it's that, and it's wrong. Gay and straight gamers are not different species, and in the context of a video-game convention they are not different in any way at all. If you're running a dating service then treating people differently based on sexual orientation makes sense, otherwise you're probably just being extremely prejudiced.

I'm sure the whole thing was well-meaning, and I hope it gets retooled into something less bigoted, but blegh I can't believe people were so accepting of it in the first place. I just don't get it.
 

Frezzato

New member
Oct 17, 2012
2,448
0
0
GaymerX2 has my sympathies, because running a con is motherfucking hard work, never mind the expense.
 

fozzy360

I endorse Jurassic Park
Oct 20, 2009
688
0
0
I feel like the biggest problem the convention had was itself. I know that the con was meant to be inclusive, so everybody was invited, gay and straight, but most won't see that way. They'll see the title and assume it's meant only for gay gamers. Not that the view is accurate, but that's the way they'll interpret it. Imagine if a con opened for primarily Hispanic gamers (speaking as one). Well, despite the fact that this con might be open to everyone and not just Hispanics, people will assume it won't be geared toward them, and they won't care to show up. Naming the con "Gaymer" ended up being kind of a double-edged sword in that it helped made it stand out from the pack but also stopped it from being truly inclusive despite its best intentions.

That, and running a con is serious business. Anyone remember E For All?

Exactly.
 

RaikuFA

New member
Jun 12, 2009
4,370
0
0
Chaosritter said:
RaikuFA said:
Doog0AD said:
And the first comment on the Facebook comments list is someone complaining about how the gay community is a minority trying to tell everyone else how their games should be made.

Stay classy, Escapist. Stay classy.
Hell, go look at that Mozilla CEO stepping down story for your daily dose of homophobia.
I'd be careful, overusing words like "homophobia" devalues them, stripping them of their actual meaning and making them meaningless phrases. Like yelling "racism" when a kid in UK doesn't like indian food.

Also, minorities can be outright obnoxious at times too. Letting them get away with it out of political correctness would be discrimination.

Ironic, isn't it?
Tell that to Al Sharpton.

Though I garuntee you at least one person on that topic was against solely because they truly believe gays should't have rights.
 

MrMixelPixel

New member
Jul 7, 2010
771
0
0
Chaosritter said:
I don't see why a LGBT focused game convention is neccessary in the first place. There already are plenty of major cons, and I can't really imagine how this one is supposed to differ enough to be justified. Guess it's pretty much the same on a smaller scale, focused on discussions about how they get "discriminated" by evil white, heterosexual men all the time.

As far as I'm concerned, nothing of value was lost. Let them open booths on cons that matter if they wanna participate that badly.
Apparently enough people that had time and money wanted there to be one? At least for a time. Seems all the justification a con needs.


Ot: I don't really have much to say. I was never that interested, and it doesn't pain me to see it go. That's a shame for anyone who enjoyed the con's existence, but the market seems to have spoken.