I had no idea girls played games..

[UrbanMasque]

http://www.dailydot.com/geek/new-gamer- ... -mag-porn/

...and here, you guys wanted to get rid of Booth Babes. I wonder who this magazine is catering to.. You said it in your last podcast (where the fuck was this week's), us gamers vote with our dollars, and unfortunately I think these guys are going to make a killing.

excerpt: " One model tells the interviewer that given the choice between handheld and console games (PCs aren't an option), she prefers an iPhone"

 

[UghRochester]

http://www.dailydot.com/geek/new-gamer-girls-geek-lad-mag-porn/

...and here, you guys wanted to get rid of Booth Babes.

Here we go again. Urban, booth babes are there just to be pretty. Many of them don't know a thing about the game. They're just hired to be something to look at. If you're trying to cover news, you don't want someone that knows nothing about what you're covering to distract you. Now, I stated before, they could fix that by hiring cosplayers such as Jessica Nigri who knows what's she's cosplaying. I understand where Dan was going when he created that article

Also, if you don't know girls play games. you should feel shame. One group of females I watch streaming are called the Fragdolls. Look into their streams at twitch.tv/fragdolls.

EDIT: Not clicking the link, because there's porn in the link.

 

[De-Ting]

I almost refuse to further denote myself as a gamer because of this stuff.

 

[Lien]

Booth babes are there just to be pretty. Many of them don't know a thing about the game.

This is something that i never understood about the anti Booth Babe crowd and GR's stance on this even after listening to the podcast. That part is important to point out in the campaign mission because...?

The GR stance is starting to sound like the anti fake geek girl campaign all over again. They are too pretty/not pretty enough to know a thing about video games, watch me interview a dumb one in a bikini to prove my point. Now add the exploitative scheme and voila we have a problem. Not every booth babes can be like Jessica Nigri cosplayers sure, but not all of them only knows phone games. And even if they do, why is that part offensive? Want to tackle the big sexual exploitation issue? Just step back and look at the big picture. Don't make it harder for people making a living doing what they love.


...also that magazine is smut and should be treated that way... gotta take this to the lab for more research. *Takes the magazine to the Bathroom.*

 

[UghRochester]

Booth babes are there just to be pretty. Many of them don't know a thing about the game.

The GR stance is starting to sound like the anti fake geek girl campaign all over again. They are too pretty/not pretty enough to know a thing about video games, watch me interview a dumb one in a bikini to prove my point. Now add the exploitative scheme and voila we have a problem. Not every booth babes can be like Jessica Nigri cosplayers sure, but not all of them only knows phone games. And even if they do, why is that part offensive? Want to tackle the big sexual exploitation issue? Just step back and look at the big picture. Don't make it harder for people making a living doing what they love.

No, that's not what I'm saying. Let me try and rephrase what I meant, that way I don't provide a contradiction. People can be very attractive and play video games and know the ins and outs of the video game industry. What I'm saying is people are being hired just to stand there and be pretty. Giving absolutely nothing, but discomfort to journalists there just trying to get coverage of whatever. I'm not saying they're too attractive to be a nerd, nor will I ever say that. I'm requesting booth babes should be banned, because they're not providing anything related to what their dressed up as. If booth babes were hired and able to talk and answer questions about what their cosplaying for, now that's a different story. However, they're there and it's not needed. Do we actually care how sexy someone is? Or do care what the resolution/FPS of the next-gen game will be?

 

[Green_Lantern]

I love pandering.

 

[UrbanMasque]

They are too pretty/not pretty enough to know a thing about video games, watch me interview a dumb one in a bikini to prove my point. Now add the exploitative scheme and voila we have a problem.

This is le problem I have and that comic is also spot on.

Do we actually care how sexy someone is? Or do care what the resolution/FPS of the next-gen game will be?

As a gamer, I care about the resolution/FPS of the next gen game because I want Lara Croft's bust to flow more naturally when I fire an arrow. This pixelated stiff bullshit isn't fap worthy. [ do you think they got to the point of designing her boobs and said.. "yea, thats too much jiggle.. lets tone it down"?]

Lets not get into this. This magazine is exploitative and wrong. Its painfully obvious that these chicks are more opportunists (sexy, dirty, in need of a spanking opportunists) than they are gamers. We can all agree on that, but sadly they will probably make a significant amount of mullah because there is an innate connection between sexy chicks and video games that revolves around fantasy. You wish you were Solid snake just like you wish that this girl was a geeky gamer so you could play ESO together in-between your hot n heavy romps in the bedroom.

I see this for what it is.
You probably see this for what it is.
Now lets embrace it, buy a digital copy, and move on.

 

[madster111]

Welcome to economics, kiddies.
Makes money = gonna get made
Doesn't make money = not gonna get made

Guess which side this falls on?

"Wah, wah, exploitation, wah, sexism"
Nobody gives a shit, makes money for everyone involved. All this negative press is only going to improve sales, making more money.

 

[UrbanMasque]

^Exactly the point. We vote with our dollars, and these dudes are going to swim in cash.

 

[Lien]

Sorry madster, recent studies found out that sex doesn't sale. Just images of male empowerment, user liberties and social activities are the main pusher for video game sales these days. What does happen when marketing do enforce arousal in the audience is actually the reverse, backfire and attention numbness ("What was that? oh a naked girl! What was it advertising for again? meh don't care anymore..."). I mean just look how Urban went straight to mocking the magazine already. He can call out the bullcrap straight on the front cover and i doubt he'll remember the front cover girl's name by next week.

Didn't you find it weird that all the GTA 5 trailers didn't featured the strippers and the hooker beating? They tried very hard to show the deep storyline and the many mini games it had. Heck, most games that actively promote sex and nudity and not its content easily flunk in sales (*cough* duke nukem forever *cough*) while games that markets its features while ignoring the sexual content gets an increase support from the community and higher sales (like say... Mass effect, no one bought mass effect 3 cause they wanted to bang the alien chicks did you?). What does happen when people do point out the exploitation or the sexism (or go "wah wah" like you say) is an reinforcement of the community. Which doesn't do anything to the sale except strengthen or weaken buyer motivation, to see if they are willing to buy more future games or pay for DLC for example.

Bottom line, Sex doesn't sell when it comes to video game. If it was true...

Total domination would of been game of the year by now...

 

[Master_Craig]

I don't like the idea of "booth babes" either and I agree they shouldn't really be at conventions like E3, PAX or anything like that.

On the other hand and I'd hate to say this... it makes money. Which sucks. I hate it too but there you go. There are obviously a lot of people who dig booth babes and don't care about the knowledge they may or may not have regarding what they're cosplaying, they clearly want to see them, take photos of them etc. It sucks, but "sex sells". I believe it doesn't belong in the industry, but of course there are many people out there who will disagree with me and fair enough if they do. Regardless, it creates jobs and creates potential opportunities, regardless of how shallow it might be. Personally, I'd rather hear about the games they apparently represent, I'd rather see gameplay footage of said games they apparently represent.

I don't know much of the cosplayer Jessica Nigri or whatever her name is but I read in an interview with her in HYPER magazine (Australian gaming magazine) that she enjoys video games, enjoys cosplaying and apparently the reason she overly sexualizes herself in her costumes is because female video game characters tend to be over sexualized in general. It's a strange concept but okay, fair enough. Some may argue that she knows she's attractive and thus has different, unseen seasons (e.g. "I know I'll get attention if I dress like this") but whatever. Her call.

At PAX AUS 2013 there were booth babes, because the people running their stalls and presentations were apparently not aware of PAX's rules of booth babes. I didn't take any notice of them, hell if they said something to me (e.g. offering me a pamphlet or whatever) I would just politely decline. It's not that hard. There won't be any booth babes at PAX AUS 2014 apparently, so we'll see how that goes.

Even without booth babes, there are still convention attendees who may cosplay as a character with an outfit that could be considered "booth babe" material. I've heard some conventions have rules against this but at the end of the day, if they're allowed to do it and if they want to do it, well then they're gonna do it and there's no stopping them. It's their choice. I remember at PAX AUS 2013 seeing this gorgeous girl dressed as a bit of a revealing Catwoman. Sure, she looked awesome, but the poor girl was surrounded by heaps of swooning guys with their camera phones. If she was enjoying the attention, good on her I guess, if she wasn't well... maybe she won't do that next time. I wouldn't say it's "her fault" because realistically, it's up to those guys to have a little bit of self control of their own. To be fair, these girls are probably big fans of whatever they're cosplaying as and would have knowledge about it.

I think I've gone a little off topic and on a bit of a rant but for the "tl;dr" - I don't like the idea of "booth babes", they shouldn't be at conventions and stuff, but unfortunately it does make people money (for the wrong reasons, I believe). Regarding these online magazines of cosplay girls or whatever, this "smut" stuff that UrbanMasque posted as an example? Really there is no stopping that - that's a website, that's a business, there's not much people can do about that. It's up to you whether you buy or/and read it.

 

[Green_Lantern]

Man, you guys are all getting your panties all twisted.

 

[Lien]

I remember at PAX AUS 2013 seeing this gorgeous girl dressed as a bit of a revealing Catwoman. Sure, she looked awesome, but the poor girl was surrounded by heaps of swooning guys with their camera phones. If she was enjoying the attention, good on her I guess, if she wasn't well... maybe she won't do that next time. I wouldn't say it's "her fault" because realistically, it's up to those guys to have a little bit of self control of their own. To be fair, these girls are probably big fans of whatever they're cosplaying as and would have knowledge about it.

But that's my whole point! It shouldn't matter at all if these cosplayers or the booth babe have any knowledge of the game they suppose to represent. Be they paid professional or not, they are getting the attention they want no matter their body type. What is wrong isn't that there are girls in bikini there who are on contract to pose for viewers, the problem are the guys who ogles, judge them leer at them, take photos at them without their attention or, even worst, get groped up when they pose together. It's not THEIR fault those guys are like that. It's THE GUYS themselves! We shouldn't be banning booth babes cause it's a money scheme malpractice that encourage this behavior nor should we say they contribute nothing if we keep them around. We need to stop stupid people who think the conventions is made just for them while at the same time let the women know they can wear what they want and are protected. That's a bigger issue then taking it on booth babe for false marketing.

Heck, in fact, Emeraldcon recently actually partnered with the Seattle police department to promote a No-Harassment policy.

The policy includes a "ask before you take a photo" rule (which also extended after the con was over if someone posts it on social site), no touching without the person consent and greatly encourage con goers to report any physical or vocal harassment if they witness it, even if they are not the victim. Sounds too much? Well turns out that not only did the con had Booth babes (the suicide girls were in town!) and half naked cosplayers displaying their... hobbies but attendance was greater and more satisfied then the year before. While a survey on site (voluntary so take it as you see it) showed that women attendance GREATLY improved this year in comparison to last year. Doing strict behavior policies to con goers actually benefits the convention! I want more of that, not banning business models cause they are in a bikini top.

In comparison, after PAX did their banning of booth babes in 2010, there were STILL reports of harassment to both members and staffers and each years adds more developers and con goers who vowed never to go there again after a bad experience revolving comments and behavior. For a conventions whose founders claimed to be more in touch with the goers then other conventions, they certainly don't seem to see the big problem their own fan face on their own floors. Can we please start monitoring the con goers instead of telling women and their employer who are doing their job on how to dress up? It's showing people outside the community the wrong message while making us gamers look like dress code morality police.

And darn it, craig. How can you not have heard of Jessica Nigri? The coolest booth babe and cosplayer around!

 

[C_nate]

I guess I'm getting too old and pass on the pretense. If I want to see a girl with big fake titties who is just there for the money, I'll go watch some porn, not ogle a game magazine or some chick at a booth.

There are some pretty desperate guys out there though. When I used to ride the metra, they'd set up some beer stands to sell beer to people on the commute home and would staff them with some pretty attractive women. There would always be some creepy dudes hanging around tryin to chat them up and the girls would be polite and humor them. I'd play along and flirt with the girls but after I got my beer I had a train to catch.

Point is, sex does sell Lien, because without that cover, no one would give a shit about the magazine, nobody would be talking about it. It's what gets your product noticed in the first place. And just about everything advertised does so with an attractive person behind it. That is done for a reason.

Now, the thing is, you can't take the phrase "sex sells" as a direct literal meaning. Most people realize that boobs alone don't directly equate to sales, but it is simply the easiest way to get eyeballs on your product. If that magazine just had a small pic of the girls head next to a controller, it would not get much attention. That pic they went with? Seems to be getting a hell of a lot of attention. So if "sex sells" isn't accurate enough for you, go with "sexy people get what you are trying to sell noticed a lot quicker."

Let me give you just a quick example of how "sex sells" is not just about overt tits in your face advertising and a lot of times is much more subtle but done for the same reason.

There is a fast food chain called Wendy's. Just about every commercial they did that I can remember was done by the owner Dave Thomas. He passed away and his daughter took over and started doing the commercials. She looks like this:

Then out of nowhere, they started doing commercials with another redhead that took her place. She looks like this:

Why do you think they did that?

As for the magazine,we know why the girls are there, the girls know why they are there. It doesn't make em less of a person, they are just tryin to get paid like everyone else. You can call it sexist or empowering or whatever you want depending on what side you fall on, but bottom line is no one is forcing the girls to do it, no one is forcing guys to buy it, etc...etc...

 

[Lien]

Yes nate, Sex sells ONLY WHEN the intended product revolve around sex. That's how the porn industry work and the purpose of that magazine. Nothing wrong with using a tactic to sell the intended products. But unfortunately (fortunately?) it has more chances of giving the negative effect when put juxtaposed with non-sexual products in adds and commercials. Budweiser decided to remove the sex message in their recent superbowl adds, their product sales went up more then in previous years. Same thing happened with sports cars and even deodorant commercials. It's not something that is statically proven but also something that major marketing companies are now trying to distance themselves away... cause they are finally realizing that sex simply doesn't sale. Better to cater to both parties then just cater to straight guys. More money to be made this way.

Also... hate to break it to you but I don't think replacing the woman with a younger and more beautiful person for wendy... is an example of "sex sells". More like the older person had to retire so hey why not hire someone young!

 

[C_nate]

No, no, no... I just told you using sex to sell products isn't always about overt in your face sexiness and the commercial you linked perfectly illustrates my point. Read in between the lines and look at the subtext of that commercial.

It's not about the puppy and the horse. It's about the owner of the puppy and the owner of the horse hooking up. SEX!

The puppy is used as an excuse to introduce the ruggedly handsome, thin, white male to the slender, white blonde and they are down to earth country folk who instantly bond.

The second time he brings back her pup he is giving her a look that can only be translated as, "I've brought your puppy....and also my cock." She isn't going to send him back home in that rainstorm. She is going to invite him in to dry off and they wind up boning only like two lonely, isolated country folk can.

Finally, at the end when Johnny Cityboy Asshole comes to take the dog, the horses stop him and the dog runs back to Joe Farmer to signify that him and the owner of the puppy were meant to be together.

And what do you see as the commercial fades out? The man and woman standing next to each other at the beginning of their budding romance watching their animals play.

It's not as overt and in your face as a go daddy commercial, but it is still using sex to sell. It's all about the subtext.

P.S. If you think they chose that new Wendy's girl cause the actual Wendy wanted to retire and not because of market research and demographics, I got a bridge to sell you.

 

[Lien]

 

[C_nate]

 

[UrbanMasque]

Sex doesn't sell, but it sure as fuck drives traffic.

Boobs can make people buy a game they don't need, but boobs will make you aware of the game you don't need and the fact that it exists. That simple.

 

[LinksOcarina]

Oh look, people arguing stuff they know so little about.

No offense guys, we know gratuitous sex is terrible, and we know the culture at large is stupid. Arguing it on here doesn't change a damn thing.