There are two conversations to be had, really. Should EA have had any say over who writes their reviews in unaffiliated magazines? No. Absolutely and unquestionably not. (They definitely do today) Was the article a good review? It was certainly a provocative display of seething hatred for a dlc and the one who delivered it. In that respect, it was good. You certainly know where they stand.
Now the bonus third conversation, is encouraging self harm acceptable when it’s aimed at indescribably wealthy people ruining an industry for their own personal enrichment? I’d say no, personally. Executives drive the cocaine trade and its collapse would mean the end of executives, and they drive the cocaine trade.
I really do get all of this (with one caveat), but if I was running that magazine, EA pressuring or not, I would have to have a talk with that writer. I also imagine this is not the first time they had done something like this. I feel like we are missing a lot of context.
I do not agree we should encourage self harm because of somebody’s social/class status or wealth.
Depends on the magazine and time period whether this would be considered particularly crass. In 07, it was far more acceptable to suggest someone faceless kill themselves. Online etiquette hadn’t become mainstream yet and game magazines were rife with extreme toxicity. Coupled with the fact that the editor let it through, I’m pretty sure EA had a lot to do with the reviewer’s removal. The writer, who continued in the industry elsewhere, has vocally asserted exactly that. Their reviews for sims content packs are scathing but others are reasonable, for perspective. Look up steve hogarty pczone articles if you care to confirm.
And I agree, anyone who isn’t actively ruining society should feel safe within it. Video games aren’t worth any level of moral outrage.
There are two conversations to be had, really. Should EA have had any say over who writes their reviews in unaffiliated magazines? No. Absolutely and unquestionably not. (They definitely do today) Was the article a good review? It was certainly a provocative display of seething hatred for a dlc and the one who delivered it. In that respect, it was good. You certainly know where they stand.
Now the bonus third conversation, is encouraging self harm acceptable when it’s aimed at indescribably wealthy people ruining an industry for their own personal enrichment? I’d say no, personally. Executives drive the cocaine trade and its collapse would mean the end of executives, and they drive the cocaine trade.
I really do get all of this (with one caveat), but if I was running that magazine, EA pressuring or not, I would have to have a talk with that writer. I also imagine this is not the first time they had done something like this. I feel like we are missing a lot of context.
I do not agree we should encourage self harm because of somebody’s social/class status or wealth.
Depends on the magazine and time period whether this would be considered particularly crass. In 07, it was far more acceptable to suggest someone faceless kill themselves. Online etiquette hadn’t become mainstream yet and game magazines were rife with extreme toxicity. Coupled with the fact that the editor let it through, I’m pretty sure EA had a lot to do with the reviewer’s removal. The writer, who continued in the industry elsewhere, has vocally asserted exactly that. Their reviews for sims content packs are scathing but others are reasonable, for perspective. Look up steve hogarty pczone articles if you care to confirm.
And I agree, anyone who isn’t actively ruining society should feel safe within it. Video games aren’t worth any level of moral outrage.