GOG is afraid to lose USA's market.
They don't want to be bullied by American media.

My two cents, for what it's worth.

Short version: I also think that GOG made a mistake pulling the tweet and apologizing, but on a personal level I couldn't care less about the entire controversy.

Long version: Back in the early to mid 2000s, I was also reviewing games. For a relatively minor site, but our scores were included on review aggregator sites like Metacritic, and Gamerankings, and I guess this made us important enough for the publishers. Even then we were getting lots of different perks - passes to E3, game and equipment bundles, etc. I personally didn't have a stomach for that, as I found out when I received a large box of a dozen or so games, many of which were terrible but I felt bad giving them negative reviews. So I quit.

So conflict of interest was in game reviewing back then, just as it is now. The only difference is that I haven't heard of developers actually sleeping with game journalists for positive reviews. Not that it matters; I wouldn't be surprised if the E3 passes didn't come with something extra for the really influential people. What really made a difference this time is that the game journalists created a narrative that gamers are evil and whatnot, in order to obfuscate their own corrupt practices. There is absolutely nothing more to it.

And as I saw, the original tweet was poking fun at the game reviewers. No Gamergate or any other red herring. As such, the tweet was truthful and funny. People who either are colluding with the corrupt game journalists or were blinded by their narrative were the ones to see something dark and sinister there. And GOG proved that it, too, believes these fake news. That's the mistake part I was talking about. Personally, though, I couldn't care less. There's plenty of already existing games that I'd like to play and will last me a lifetime; I don't need anything new, sanitized with the false narrative. And there are still a few developers who see games as art and don't violate their vision for the sake of pandering to the masses, so even when I feel like playing something more modern, I'll have a choice of games.

Don't skip - triangulate. Take both claims into account, and check who provides better sources, who represents the other side more accurately, etc.

Chloe Sagal acutally, Alison Rapp is someone else entirely.

And again, they demanded the reporter not go ahead with the story because they knew what would happen if she was outed as being trans. Destructoid realized exposing this could have led to her suicide and made a call based on that, but the reporter didn't care and Chloe damn near died because of what he did. And the procedure was still life saving to her regardless which you'd realize if you took the time to understand.

But anyways, that's my last word on this since you and others apparently really don't care about someone's suffering.

I do like me some SJW... A Steak with Jelly and Wild rice...

okay not this post, though the Wild Rice is a stretch. :P

what about snowflake ?

I was unaware of pretty much everything mentioned here, but after looking it up, the reporter was in the right. It's ludicrous to think it's reasonable to let a thief get away with stealing things because reporting him would make him unhappy.

The problem wasn't the procedure itself, it was the dishonesty. People were giving him money for something else. He could still collect money for the procedure, just be honest about what he's collecting it for and there's no problem. Given the number of people who came to his defense and supporting him engaging in criminal behaviour of all things, I'm sure some of them would have been willing to donate to help him.

It has nothing to do with someone's suffering. Helping to support someone going through a difficult time is much different than helping to cover up someone trying to steal money from people.

deleted

Yes, this sums it up much more succinctly.

And you seemingly thinks it's okay for someone to defraud others by lying about it if they claim to be some sort ofminority. Lying about it was wrong. She didn't "merely" state that it was for life saving surgery despite the narrative pushed by the gaming media to defend her. She made up an intricate lie about a car accident and asked her supporters for money.

How do you know the reporter "didn't care"? Seems you have no sympathy for his plight at all. You don't care that he was black balled by the industry and left jobless for a long time. Where is YOUR sensitivity? He was stuck in a bad situation between protecting consumers from fraud, and the backlash that was inevitable if the scam was revealed. At the end of the day, the person responsible for the backlash was Chloe. It's her damn fault for lying in the first place and the fact you care nothing for the plight of the reporter says a lot about YOUR character as well.

Regardless, this once again had zero to do with Gamergate. It occurred a full year before. But fools like you want to make it sound like Gamergate was responsible for something they CLEARLY are not. It's good to know that you feel its okay for someone to lie and defraud others just to get money to pay for surgery. You sure lack a whole lot of integrity...

All this proves is that some people are gullible and believe all the lies created by the gaming media about Gamergate.

Had Alison Rapp on the head, another person the "gaming media" tried to blame Gamergate for who was instead fired for nude pictures she linked to on her Twitter account as she held a 2nd job as an "escort" which violated Nintendos internal policies.

Do you see the theme here? All the things Gamergate gets blamed for which just aren't true and the gaming journalist hacks who make these unsupported claims?

Funny thing happens when the issue of malcontent is the very people who's job is to tell the news but are really just spinning narrative... they tend to make a narrative to cover themselves. This is why Gamergate was doomed in the PR arena before it even really started, and why when a media site (regardless of what they cover) is the topic of controversy they are a LOUSY source on it.

What in blazes was GoG thinking making a mockery of themselves and their customers like this? Sad, pathetic, shameful display.

Tell me, CDProjekt, you label Gamergate an "abusive movement." Do you have outright contempt for your customers or are you just supremely ignorant?

The next several games I buy will be purchased through Steam. If I ever support Good Old Games again.

THIS! And this was something I saw argued HEAVILY believe it or not. Most attention on Zoe was between trolls and her roll in getting sites to stop all conversation of the controversy (which in itself turned into a hunt of what else the game journos were doing and didn't want their audience to know... Streisand Effect and all that)