Concerned about Gamasutra and Intel Advertising

Dear Intel,

I'm writing you today as a game developer and an instructor in university game development programs -- and as one of your customers, since I purchase Intel products not only for my own personal use in playing and developing games, but am also involved in hardware and software requirements, and resulting purchasing decisions for the game studios and university programs that I'm affiliated with.

Although I've been working in the industry for over 20 years, and teaching in addition to my work for the last three, this is the first time I've written a letter as a concerned consumer to one of the companies that supplies vital tools and technology for my work. The reason I'm writing today is the decision, relayed by your customer support team, to pull advertising for Intel RealSense Technology from the online publication for game industry professionals, Gamasutra.com. I've also been a reader of Gamasutra since 1997, when publication began; it's long been the primary trade publication for my industry, along with its print counterpart, Game Developer Magazine. It's not only a source of news targeted at game developers like me and budding game developers like my students; it's also an online forum where game developers gather to discuss topics of creative and community interest to my profession.

Please try to imagine my consternation when I heard that Intel had decided to cancel an advertising campaign in progress due to outcry from an angry subset of gamers over a single article on Gamasutra.com written by one of their employees -- especially given that Gamasutra is a trade publication written for professionals in my industry, not a website targeted at game consumers. I can imagine this is part of why Gamasutra was part of the RealSense advertising campaign; developers and teachers like me are the ones who will be devising new uses for finger tracking in games, not to mention applications for 3D scanning and printing, which has a growing role in academic game development courses.

It's very alarming to see Gamasutra's editorial opinions potentially pressured by a small but vocal movement of game consumers, and very alarming to see Intel giving undue credence to their misguided outrage. I respect the players of my games, and players of the games my industry puts out, very deeply -- they're the reason I continue to work and put my energy and life into games. I don't, however, always give credence to every opinion that every group of gamers has. Frankly, that would be a creative disaster.

I understand that Intel must be concerned about an outcry from consumers who sound like the target market for personal computers with high-end CPUs -- and I do respect Intel's right to freely associate, or not associate, your advertising with whatever forum you choose. I'm concerned, however, that the self-proclaimed "consumer advocates" you've listened to in your choice to cut advertising on Gamasutra have been misleading you.

First of all, although the "gamergate movement" professes to stand for all gamers, they're in fact a relatively small group that traffic patterns estimate to be at the very most one or two thousand people -- possibly substantially fewer. Personally, I suspect that only a few of them would actually change their patterns of hardware and software consumption based on transient internet outrage that has shifted from one target to the next over the last few weeks. Most importantly, these people do not represent "all gamers" -- even they admit that a lot of their friends, a lot of gamers in wider communities they're part of simply are not bothered by what they see as outrageous slander against them.

Second of all, the "gamergate movement" has been misrepresenting and misunderstanding the supposed discrimination, libel, or threats visited upon them by Gamasutra. I'm not sure if you've read the article that most of them complain about, but it's an opinion piece addressing game developers such as myself, and suggesting that we think of our audience more broadly -- that the old, outmoded stereotype of gamers as only a certain demographic, as being entirely composed of white male nerds. This marketing stereotype, and the old notion of a gamer culture dominated entirely by that stereotype's concerns, is what the article described as "dead." Perhaps due to an overly sensationalistic headline, the "gamergate movement" interpreted the entire thrust of the article as being "gamers are dead." It's also possible that some in their movement really do feel their status as a target market is threatened by talk of broadening the consumer base of games and growing the industry.

Whatever the case, there's a lot of willful misinterpretation, fueled by the fact that the author of this piece, Leigh Alexander, is an outspoken woman who's been suffering harassment for her writing about games for years now. Many, many game industry professionals -- the readers of Gamasutra and your potential customers for RealSense -- have had contact with Alexander over the years, and I am one of the many people who's been consistently impressed by her ability to cover situations and events as well as write thoroughly and passionately about them.  She definitely rubs some people the wrong way -- especially those who are leery of changes in the industry, or who are quick to find fault with women -- but I don't see that as a negative trait in a strong writer. Our industry badly needs her voice and commitment, as well as Gamasutra as an institution -- we need her much more than we need a sampling of the 2000 angriest gamers who feel attacked by talk of shifting markets and outmoded cultural enclaves that don't really exist anymore now that gaming is far more diverse than it used to be. The "gamergate movement" has taken it upon themselves to dig up whatever dirt they can find on her in order to call her a sexist, a racist, prejudiced against nerds, and so forth; having looked at these charges, and weighing them along with my professional interactions with Alexander, and what I know from her writing of her own experiences with race growing up, I find these charges spectacularly unconvincing. I hope you don't give them more credence than you would any barrage of angry, semi-anonymous yelling across the internet

Because of the outcry from gamergate, I've spent the last few weeks reading and considering nearly every argument they've put forth -- I understand their complaints very well, which I feel is responsible given my position. Some of their sundry complaints have merit -- lack of transparency in how journalistic coverage and industry awards happen, the power of social connections and cronyism in some quarters of the industry, an atmosphere of anger around what constitutes sexist portrayal of women in games that can make it difficult to educate and grow. Other activities done by some of their number under the gamergate banner are much more reprehensible -- harassing women, digging up and disseminating nude photos of women, publishing private information, picking fights wherever they can on social media, mobbing chosen targets who they deem to be "social justice warriors" for dirt-digging and angry messages. It's gotten to the point where a huge number of my colleagues in the industry are concerned about putting work out, writing articles, or talking in public on the internet in a way that might arouse the ire of the 2000 or so gamergate followers.

The game industry is currently under a very annoying shadow, and one that is sadly not likely to have any positive effect on the future growth of our industry -- the gamergate concerns that actually have merit are simply going to be delayed by this debacle. I sincerely hope that you will reconsider giving credence and support to this misguided outburst, and continue advertising on the game industry's trade publication, Gamasutra.

Thank you very much for reading,

A concerned game industry professional