Essay and Statement
By J-dawg Throughout the course of Gamergate 1 and into Gamergate 2, it becomes clear there are those who have just been in it to make a name for themselves—grifters pursuing self-aggrandizing goals at the expense of gamers' interests as well as those of the gaming industry. In the wake of industry reeling in its own losses from failures in major commercial releases, we face the difficult task of determining what comes next. Ultimately, it comes down to what one seeks from a protest movement like Gamergate: is it about principles, or personal agendas? One thing most gamers agree on is that we just want good video games! Many have different ideas about how, but some are overwhelmingly in common: We don't want is bad actors in our space, whether coming from the industry side (including, famously, the gaming press) or on the community side. What we find is that activists of various stripes, some hailing from academia and the left, or others affecting a religious background and coming from the the political right are causing havoc in our playspaces and marketplaces. Worst of all though was the onset of info-jamming and hucksterism that came attendant to the vertical integration, financialization, then over-capitalization, and finally austeritization of the video gaming industry. You know, what led us to where we are today! That's also a whole longer story!
"I don't know what they want from me - It's like the more
money we come across - The more problems we see"
- The Notorious B.I.G
That last point deserves its own deep-dive investigation. To their giant credit, luminaries like Madam Savvy or our friends over at Gothic Therapy are hard at work determining what about went wrong in terms of incentives to bring us to where we are today. That is not the focus of our group – we dedicate ourselves to focusing on, fostering, and in some instances funding games that thrill us to play and that we want to share with others! That involves degrees of criticism of games that fall short of our hopes, desires, and expectations too, of course!
Some people in this space just aren't all that interested in video games however. Or the companies that make them, not really. Or the people involved. Right down to gamers ourselves. They come with ideas in mind about how others should live their lives. How they should play their games. How they should enjoy them or not (got to be for the right reasons according to these types!) As gamers, it's plain to see who these types of people are.
While the media for its own reasons does not permit us to call out the poseurs and grifters in our midst, fair-play demands as much on our part! Accountability is implicit in play; those who don't abide by the play-rules break games and rob others of the opportunity for shared enjoyment. It's really all very elementary, isn't it? (Psychopaths, for instance, cannot understand the value of this dynamic. They make poor playmates! That's one example!)
So it falls to us to call out some of the worst offenders with the interest of the community and gamers' long-term enjoyment in mind. There are some more-or-less obvious examples of ignoramuses and opportunists grifting off of gamers. One of those we are loath to describe but nonetheless find that we must is X's Yorch Torch Games. We will allow him to introduce himself with one of his recent polls:
A typical Yorch Torch X post-
There are plenty more of examples of this kind of thing, each seemingly dumber and more divisive than the last. It should be noted that his account experienced its greatest growth spurt and attention-increase over the period of time last year, directly following when a Sweet Baby Inc. employ deemed it necessary to attack Kabrutus Rambo's Steam account, instigating a mass-flagging in an attempt to get it disabled. That effort backfired spectacularly! Kabrutus, for those unfamiliar, is a young Brazilian man and avid gamer, who at one time noticed a curious trend: Many games in the triple-A space were coming out with increasing visible minority and LGBT etc themes. While a number of games from the golden era of gaming 90's-on had these kinds of characters present, few focused on them to the extent or seeming carelessness many modern games do!
Much worse than the simple fact of these characters' inclusion to many gamers was that those same games tended to just plain suck! With quality issues already being noted, queer and other visible-minority thematicization served more to increase their AAA-identifiability rather than queer or minority visibility. In other words, got to where you could tell a game was likely to be bad based on the inclusion of LGBT characters, and Kabrutus's list helped people avoid some of the worst games.
So much for representation!
In the wake of this incident, beginning in March 2024, spicy-tongued self-seekers like Yorch rose, stirring the pot against "wokies," and "DEI" and the like. X, freshly brought out from under the decrepitude-inducing weight of a government-adjacent bloated bureaucracy and now headed by Elon Musk was opened to formerly prohibited kinds of Free Speech. This on its own presents, in theory, a platform with an even playing-field for ideas to roam. Were it so then that in addition to this, Musk began incentivizing engagement with payouts to high-interaction accounts.
This has come at the expense of some quality of engagement as some have noted with rage-bait and "slide-itized" (websites that maximize ad revenue by inducing users to click sequentially through frames of slides for the next bit of content) sequences, using chain-posts as 'threads' now predominating over more conversational, literate content. The most controversial and ignorant stances are rewarded with disproportionate amounts of attention -- a pattern gamers are all-too-well familiar with for those of us knowledgeable in/experienced of the Gamergate-past.
Following that pattern up to today, this type of posting has become increasingly inflammatory and dismal. We've reached the point where this moronic activity, so much the irritant of gamers who ultimately want a quality product without ideological interference, has reached the attention of an industry heavyweight, the influential Amir Satvat:
Amir, for what it is worth, the Brotherhood shares your indignation over this post! This is content made with the sole purpose of diminishing all who engage with it. And no doubt Yorch is profiting off of it. A scenario too familiar to consumers of gaming media! Who does this really benefit after all? As you are about to see, many of you aren't going to like it:
Yorch's grotesque engagement-bait is playing directly into the hands of the institutional opponents of reform in the games industry. One of whom, Shannon, name redacted (leave well alone if it was not already clear) is on the board of the IGDA Foundation. Whatever its stated aims, it often serves to reinforce the very same policies that Yorch pretends he opposes. This is who he is helping! It is very clear that some–like Yorch–who are newcomers to the gaming commentary space, wherever guys like him are coming from–they aren't sending their best!! He has also took it upon himself to attack competent, if imperfect members of the YouTube gaming commentariat like Smash JT–
The irony is too rich here, and the hypocrisy
cut too deep. We had to respond.
There are others who promote Yorch's work, several with a much higher profiles. Mark Kern, formerly of Blizzard, also known as Grummz on X, has been supportive of Yorch's work. Ostensibly because of its political-aligned nature, in spite of the fact that Kern himself is widely regarded as being delinquent in delivery of his crowd-funded game to the tune of almost a decade (as of the time of this publication!)
Posting, sharing and replying to partisan and ideological material on X seems to preoccupy Mr.Kern on a day-to-day basis. With so little as a solitary 3D rendering being revealed over the 2024 Christmas holiday to placate backers and to show cursory evidence of progress being made on the game. This is shabby and little consolation to those reasonably expecting a product after so long.
In view of his apparent recent declared shift of focus, which has at-length been strained for years now in the delivery of his promised product, the Brotherhood is moved to address the issue - and has joined a petition calling for transparency in the matter:
We look forward to seeing Mark's progress on his game
As if that wasn't bad enough, especially coming from one of those who has repeatedly expressed misgivings about the "politicization" of gaming, we now highlight a few more of Yorch's disturbing, politically-charged posts showcasing little more than simple bigotry. Not criticism of games or development! Engagement-bait targeting gamers:
It goes on,
and on,...
According to his own set criteria of "Any gay, zero play," that would leave the only possible outcome being one of removing references of any kind to LGBT etc individuals in games. Within the gaming arena, that amounts to an agenda of Gay Erasure, all in the name of eliminating "LGBTQ propaganda" from games. While many in the gay gaming community may not be especially demanding of our [J-dawg, the author of this article is a gay man] specific representation in games (due to concerns about tokenism and poor design work among others,) we may very well and do object to the notion that we should be excluded from game content altogether! In a response to another X user insinuating the Brotherhood wanted "silence" from those who objecting to LGB etc representation in games, we addressed the point. The poster began by acknowledging that their reaction to "Inclusion" initiatives at this point in time may amount to an overreaction. Understandable as we may find that to be, we then clarified our position with respect to these issues in and around gaming:
As advocates for gamers and quality developers, we support our brothers from all walks of life and respect their private lives as their business. People like to play all kinds of games for entertainment. That is their choice, not anybody else's. Even a majority of others', whatever their opinions on the subject. What non-gamers think is healthy and appropriate for gamers and what gamers think are, are often two very different things!
It is obvious, accordingly, that some of the loudest voices on these topics are also some of the least-informed, and less representative of the gaming community as a whole (extending far beyond just those on the X platform.) We're just not into being dictated to about, or about how we should engage with and enjoy our art! We don't accept it from industry insiders, why would we ever tolerate it from random assholes the social gaming space?
Summary statement: The newly-realized monetization potential of X-posting combined with an explosive moment touching off a brewing popular backlash against long-running dismal trends in the gaming industry has resulted in nurturing a type of perverse-incentive structure in gaming social media with effects far beyond X itself. On X it has put a virtuous feedback loop in service of deprived content creators who appeal to the lowest common denominator. One of those is Yorch.
As a gamer, I sincerely give very few fucks about any of this and can't imagine spending my time writing an essay about it but for the fact that one worthless fad after another seizes the attention of a preponderant amount of gamers due to the schizo-anarchical character of the games industry at the moment. Boards and investors, consultancies and runaway ideo-bubble dwellers keep fucking it up and expecting gamers to just suck it up and buy their crap anyway. That's obviously not going to happen. I would greatly enjoy if 'wokies' and 'anti-wokies,' would kindly and gently g'tha fuck outta here and play this STUPID game someplace else. In lieu of that, or until that happens, I would like to see the following observed:
Summary Conclusion:
Divisive rhetoric given the addition of petty profiteering on the part of Yorch Torch's accountholder has been determined after a period of careful study to pose a harmful skew to the discourse in the gaming space on X.com This has culminated in his content being used for fundraising and outreach by figures with known hostility to Gamergate's aims.
Resolved as of this day 2-21-2025 the owner of X account 'Yorch Torch Games' is deemed to be actively and regularly rendering material aid and support to industry and community forces known to be hostile to consumer-oriented reform, journalistic ethics, the popularly-held objectives of the Gamergate movement. In addition to operating counter to best practices put forward by in our GBAMFS Style Guide and the tenets observed by our Coalition members. Therefore, our directive is to block the account at this time in order to reduce its reach. The Brotherhood will reevaluate the determination upon sturdy evidence the above no longer holds true. Citations linking to the original thread(s) are available upon request. Enforcement is at the discretion of Jdawg. A grace period is afford for members and Coalition partners to evaluate this information and decide where they stand. ;
Position Statements:
1.) The free market has been an excellent barometer of what speaks to gamers' interests, often eclipsing the wisdom of self-appointed experts, consultants, and academics. We support a free market in gaming products free from undue influence of public OR private capital. 2.) Culture War-mongers need to go. Everyone knows about the industry biases at this point, it's bare to see. That doesn't mean the median gamer wants to run into the arms of theocrats and wannabe politicians. We're sick of both of you. You should go to each other somewhere outside of gaming and leave us be. 3.) We are in favor of co-op, ad-hoc, micropayment-framework (fund torrents, obviously in crypto+Web3/sorry if you don't like it. Your physical and traditional EFT systems are creepy and too slow in general) and other consumer-led funding strategies that do not cause studios to rely on state subsidies or institutional investors. 4.) We propose a BGFG federated nationwide gaming arts-promotional charitable network reinforced by trusts with local and common ownership. Recurring dues and disbursement schedules directed by dedicated Society members with input from Federation members. Pluralism in patronage preference will be the rule. Not every type of game/art has to appeal to every type of person. Some common funds can be discretionarily applied for underappreciated kinds. The major projects proposed/selected will require either plurality abstentions or outright majority support. 5.) There needs to be enforceability and accountability for deliverables on the part of grantees and for Society directors overseeing projects. Penalties for failure to develop/deliver, directorial elections, potential bonding or insurance obligations for directors, etc. Obviously non-competes and a degree of personal budgetary openness will be required. 6.) This is treated as RFC (Request for Comment,) that means you, that means feedback. If it is buried on the website no one will see it and therefore no one will respond. That is why it is here. This is not an official RFC document. Email us gbamfs@gmail.com if you like what you see here, have ideas about how this could be done/done differently or if you have experience in Not for Profit setup or operation.
This article is part of a series, next being 'Our statement on abusers in the gaming space...'
J-Dawg is a die-hard gamer, devoted fan of traditional 2D animation, GBAMFS' founder, CEO and spokesman.
You may follow the GBAMFS X account from this link: https://x.com/gbamfs
Copyright GBAMFS 2025. All Rights Reserved.
Comentarios