No Man's Sky Delayed, Death Threats Ensue

[EHKOS]

Everybody who made a threat should not be allowed to play the game. I'd love to see THAT implemented.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I'm sure, with enough time, I could find another hobby where a fairly predictable and constant steam of death threats is met with a "that's just how things are" attitude, but nothing's coming to mind.

Hmm. Sports, perhaps? Here's an article about threats received by management and players decades before the Internet was even a thing.

I suspect many branches of journalism experience the same thing as well. And the Internet has made it far easier to send a death threat quickly and more or less anonymously; that certainly applies well beyond electronic gaming.

Now to be very clear: I'm not saying that death threats are okay, that death threats are anything people should "just get used to" or anything one should have to accept as "just a part of life" because they dare to live part of that life in the public arena. Something awful becoming "the norm" doesn't mean it stops being awful, as companies like EA and Activision are at pains to remind us every day.

...But the presence of enough creepy people to ruin your day is definitely not limited to video games.

"That tweet went viral on Twitter, with scores of fans retweeting it along with incredulous comments; many directed their vitriol back at the users." From the first article.

"During the 1972 Oakland A's-Cincinnati Reds World Series, a woman waiting in line prior to Game 6 at Cincinnati's Riverfront Stadium overheard a man talking to a companion. He warned if the A's Gene Tenace hit a home run that day?and Tenace had already hit four during the Series?the A's catcher wouldn't walk out of this ballpark alive.

Alarmed, the woman informed stadium security, who according to FBI files located the man, a 32-year old fan with a bottle of whiskey and a loaded pistol in his possession."

This thread, and most other threads about this sort of thing: "Death threats happen all the time. Tell me when it actually happens."

And that's why sports fans have a significantly better reputation than gamers. Reputation is almost entirely optics.

 

[Callate]

That tweet went viral on Twitter, with scores of fans retweeting it along with incredulous comments; many directed their vitriol back at the users." From the first article.

"During the 1972 Oakland A's-Cincinnati Reds World Series, a woman waiting in line prior to Game 6 at Cincinnati's Riverfront Stadium overheard a man talking to a companion. He warned if the A's Gene Tenace hit a home run that day?and Tenace had already hit four during the Series?the A's catcher wouldn't walk out of this ballpark alive.

Alarmed, the woman informed stadium security, who according to FBI files located the man, a 32-year old fan with a bottle of whiskey and a loaded pistol in his possession."

This thread, and most other threads about this sort of thing: "Death threats happen all the time. Tell me when it actually happens."

And that's why sports fans have a significantly better reputation than gamers. Reputation is almost entirely optics.

And yet the mashable article also ends with the author asking: "Do you think pro sports stars should take death threats sent via Twitter seriously, or are they just part of the modern game?" It's also taken almost for granted that big wins or losses in major sporting events may lead to property damage or rioting.

If sports have a better reputation than video games, I suspect it has more to do with the number of people who feel the activity that the regrettably obsessive people orbit is more inherently worthwhile than that its followers are less prone to taking things too far. And I do get the impression that those associated with sports are no less likely to be expected to shake abuse or threats off, to see it as all but inevitable.

And yes, regrettably, the first time someone brings a gun into E3 or a Starcraft match, people will start to take things more seriously... And yes, it's a shame that such a things should be required before that happens.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

And yet the mashable article also ends with the author asking: "Do you think pro sports stars should take death threats sent via Twitter seriously, or are they just part of the modern game?" It's also taken almost for granted that big wins or losses in major sporting events may lead to property damage or rioting.

Sure, but gamers have already answered that question, and the answer was "yeah, death threats happen all the time and are normal. Hell, it's uncommon for people to not get them." That's not a good look.

And while it's certainly a known risk for riots or vandalism to be an after affect of big wins and losses, it's not met with a "well, that's normal, can't do anything about it" attitude. Law enforcement tries ways to stop them, as do other fans, sports teams, sports leagues, and local, state, and federal governments. Hell, until FIFA pulled some trademark shittyness around the last men's World Cup, Brazil had banned alcohol from it's football stadiums, and for the most part, that worked.

 

[Madmatty]

Seriously No mans sky? If anything they should be threatening valve when it comes to Half life 3. I'm surprised no one did that

 

[RJ 17]

My favorite is still the story of all the death threats being sent to CoD developers when they added a couple fractions of a second to some gun's reload time.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

*snip*

"That tweet went viral on Twitter, with scores of fans retweeting it along with incredulous comments; many directed their vitriol back at the users." From the first article.

"During the 1972 Oakland A's-Cincinnati Reds World Series, a woman waiting in line prior to Game 6 at Cincinnati's Riverfront Stadium overheard a man talking to a companion. He warned if the A's Gene Tenace hit a home run that day?and Tenace had already hit four during the Series?the A's catcher wouldn't walk out of this ballpark alive.

Alarmed, the woman informed stadium security, who according to FBI files located the man, a 32-year old fan with a bottle of whiskey and a loaded pistol in his possession."

This thread, and most other threads about this sort of thing: "Death threats happen all the time. Tell me when it actually happens."

And that's why sports fans have a significantly better reputation than gamers. Reputation is almost entirely optics.

And yet the mashable article also ends with the author asking: "Do you think pro sports stars should take death threats sent via Twitter seriously, or are they just part of the modern game?" It's also taken almost for granted that big wins or losses in major sporting events may lead to property damage or rioting.

Sure, but gamers have already answered that question, and the answer was "yeah, death threats happen all the time and are normal. Hell, it's uncommon for people to not get them." That's not a good look.

And while it's certainly a known risk for riots or vandalism to be an after affect of big wins and losses, it's not met with a "well, that's normal, can't do anything about it" attitude.

 

[VoidWanderer]

If it wasn't for the fact that this game would put them on the map, in a big way, I would say just pull the title. If there are going to be people that act like children, then they should be punished like them. Yes, it would suck at losing such an amazing game, but surely this would make those childish morons, who probably hate the new ghostbusters because it is an all-female cast, think twice.

Just pull the game, and ignore your twitter feed. If anyone asks, respond with "If people think they can get away with making death threats, why should we let them poison the gaming community or our products?"

 

[Dirkie]

When the game is delayed to flatten some bugs and improving little bits here and there, I'm ok, with that, just try not to delay too much (valve time for reference), but it's not too bad, it's done when it's done, right?
Killing a developer that works on a game because it's going to be released later is a bit counter productive, because that game will release even later when there are less people working on it, with a much lower level of motivation.

No Man's Sky looks interesting, so, if some bugs are going to be fixed and things are polished a bit more before relase and no day 1, 2 and 3 emergency patches, it will be fine.

It's not the end of the world, right?

 

[Wrex Brogan]

...and of course there's the pissing match of 'which hobby is worst'. C'mon guys, can we not do the 'sports is worse' 'no gaming is worse' shit that detracts from the whole 'Problems in Gaming' discussion anyway? Honestly, if you're playing the 'X hobby is worse than Y hobby' thing it comes off as more of a deflection than a solid argument.

Anyway, dick move on behalf of those doing the threatening but it's... honestly unsurprising at this point. There's such a volatile underbelly to gaming where any decision by a developer is going to be met with death-threats or over aggressive claims of 'worst game ever', and the scale of the change is just going to increase the volume of the shitheads. It's the shitty standard of behaviour devs have to prepare themselves for from gamers, which... well, sucks, but that's the internet for you. 'Hey we tweaked this guns damage by 2, warn the guy running twitter that he's about to have a fun time.' is a conversation I imagine has happened far more often than it should've.

Oh well.

 

[Something Amyss]

...and of course there's the pissing match of 'which hobby is worst'. C'mon guys, can we not do the 'sports is worse' 'no gaming is worse' shit that detracts from the whole 'Problems in Gaming' discussion anyway? Honestly, if you're playing the 'X hobby is worse than Y hobby' thing it comes off as more of a deflection than a solid argument.

Maybe it's just an American thing, but I'm so used to this it barely shows up on my radar. Especially in our politics. "Hey, you hear that Steve eats babies?" "Yeah, but what are you gonna do? Vote for the OTHER guy?"

It's not about being good. It's about making sure the other guy is worse.

 

[Wrex Brogan]

...and of course there's the pissing match of 'which hobby is worst'. C'mon guys, can we not do the 'sports is worse' 'no gaming is worse' shit that detracts from the whole 'Problems in Gaming' discussion anyway? Honestly, if you're playing the 'X hobby is worse than Y hobby' thing it comes off as more of a deflection than a solid argument.

Anyway, dick move on behalf of those doing the threatening but it's... honestly unsurprising at this point. There's such a volatile underbelly to gaming where any decision by a developer is going to be met with death-threats or over aggressive claims of 'worst game ever', and the scale of the change is just going to increase the volume of the shitheads. It's the shitty standard of behaviour devs have to prepare themselves for from gamers, which... well, sucks, but that's the internet for you. 'Hey we tweaked this guns damage by 2, warn the guy running twitter that he's about to have a fun time.' is a conversation I imagine has happened far more often than it should've.

Oh well.

Can dick move be considered a gendered insult?

...really?

And now you just deflected it back to gaming. "There is such a volatile underbelly to gaming... "

...That's not a deflection. That's called 'bringing it back to the topic', since the thread is about... you know, gamers doing shitty things.

thats the issue and biased language we have to deal with.

No it isn't.

The other issue is that other hobbies are just as bad yet don't get nearly the same degree of hatred and vilification. Gamers have to pay for their bad apples but other groups seem to get a free pass. The issue is the "problems in gaming" discussion being held portrays gaming as a unique hotbed of iniquity when there are other hobbies with equal or more egregious problems.

...when the thread is about 'game delayed so devs get death threats', the issue isn't about other hobbies, it's about gamers. Other hobbies can be worse or better, I don't give a fuck, we're talking about Gamers here.

Also the fuck 'portrays gaming as a unique hotbed of iniquity'? We're on a gaming forum, in the Gaming Subsection, talking about Gamers doing shitty things. How the fuck does discussing gamers doing shitty things in the place to talk about gamers make it a 'unique hotbed of iniquity'? It's an internal discussion about gamers acting like fuckheads on some rando gaming forum, not a fucking post to the New Yorker from people not involved with the community. C'mon.

I'm not asking to deflect the problems some gamers cause. I'm asking for all groups to be treated the same due to their malcontents or perhaps cut gamers a bit more slack like other groups seem to enjoy. Arguments about "the problems of gaming" seem to portray these malcontents as being unique to the gaming community. A lot of these discussions falsely portray gamers in all sorts of horrible ways then accuse those who defend gamers of deflecting or ignoring the issue. We should be no more responsible for our assholes than any other group.

...Again, we're talking about Gamers in the Gaming Forum in a thread about Gamers reacting negatively to a developers decision. We can bang on about treating all groups equally, but when we're specifically talking about Gamers in a thread regarding shitty behaviour gamers have done, Trying to go 'well other groups are just as bad' is a deflection. It's drawing it away from the main issue.

The issue being 'Gamers acted like fuckheads'. Talk about the problems that these 'malcontents' do cause, don't just go 'What about Sports guys?'. That's not being responsible for our assholes, that's pawning them off as someone elses problem because 'well, X is worse'.

People making threats are jerks. Doesn't need to apply to gamers any more than any other group. Sports fans who make threats are jerks, feminists who make threats are jerks, activists who make threats are jerks, gamers who make threats are jerks. no group making threats is any better or worse for making those threats. Their communities shouldn't be held accountable for a group of malcontents any more than any other group should. Enough of us have dismissed or condemned those making threats that to ascribe the blame to the gaming community is utter bs.

...Except I'm not saying we need to apply it more to gamers than any other group, I'm saying 'bringing up other groups doing similar shitty behaviours when people are trying to talk about the problems in one group doesn't solve anything and makes it into a pissing match of Who Has It Worst'. There's a time and a place for these things - if people want to talk about how bad the sports fans can get, they can make a thread about it elsewhere. Bringing it up here, when the topic is on 'Gamers sending death threats' just deflects from the issue rather than furthering the discussion.

Shit, if this was that thread about 'Sports fans being assholes', I'd be ripping a new asshole into whomever goes 'Well Gamers are far worse', because again, It's not fucking relevant to the topic at hand. If a community is trying to discuss internal problems related to shitty behaviour, bringing up another community does nothing but detract from the actual discussion at hand.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Your glib repost of the stuff you said before that does not in any way address my main points shows that you didn't read everything I said.
your response seems to ignore the last couple paragraphs I put. most gamers don't tolerate the threats and some saying otherwise doesn't change that anymore than some sports fans being mad at what the violent fans did means all sports fans are against the riots. It is met with a "that's normal" attitude. The woman telling the cops doesn't give sports fans any better of a rep than gamers doing the same thing.

Bizarre idea about sports fans being actually for rioting aside, it absolutly does. Reputation is based entirely on this sort of thing. If you think death threats are a bad thing that should stop, but you're out-numbered by the "it's just the Internet, no reason to get worked up, it probably won't happen anyway" crowd, the perception of the gaming community is going to be, well, not that great.

Gamers did not answer that question. you're putting words in our mouths. some may have, but most of us are against the threats. We are no more accountable for those that tolerate the threats than every sports fan is accountable for every hooligan. You saying we answered the question because of the statements of some of us is wrong. Many of us condemn threats. Why don't you conclude gamers are against death threats unless you're trying to paint gamers negatively?

Perception and reputation are based on what things look like, not how they are deep down.

 

[Wrex Brogan]

...and of course there's the pissing match of 'which hobby is worst'. C'mon guys, can we not do the 'sports is worse' 'no gaming is worse' shit that detracts from the whole 'Problems in Gaming' discussion anyway? Honestly, if you're playing the 'X hobby is worse than Y hobby' thing it comes off as more of a deflection than a solid argument.

Maybe it's just an American thing, but I'm so used to this it barely shows up on my radar. Especially in our politics. "Hey, you hear that Steve eats babies?" "Yeah, but what are you gonna do? Vote for the OTHER guy?"

It's not about being good. It's about making sure the other guy is worse.

It's an Australian thing as well - our election is coming up so all the ads for it are going 'Don't vote for this asshole, he's going to do terrible things!' while ignoring all the terrible things they themselves have done.

Which... probably still worked in their favour, since I now see all Australian politicians as interchangeable dicks. I figure if you're trying to convince someone that everyone else is the asshole, you don't really care if you're one either.

 

[infohippie]

It's a shame that some gamers are once again being terrible human beings. Still, it does bring into perspective the death threats that well known feminists are complaining about. No, as this demonstrates, it's not because you are a woman and gaming is somehow this crazy hotbed of misogyny. It's simply because this is the internet and across such a large number of people a certain proportion of them are going to be assholes.