it's simply a matter of improving the quality of storytelling in games

Yes, totally agree here. Frankly, a lot of the issue may not be so much that so many people are sexist, it's just that they're used to familiar patterns and originality isn't often looked upon well in the gaming industry. The majority of game shops probably aren't threatened by women, but rather by *change*, which is why you see so much of the same crap released in slightly different format or as a "now with better graphics and bigger explosions" sequel.

So, rather than changing Mario and getting rid of helpless ol' peach, let's come up with something new. The first step for some might be to have a "heroic" Peach, but frankly that's still going down the "safe and similar" route. Let's come up with some new game ideas, new plots, and new characters, including some more female characters (lead and otherwise) that are more than window-dressing.

I should add. I don't support the behaviour of the trolls (threats, etc) in this regard. I'm not sure if these people believe the crap they spew out or are truly trolls doing it to get a rise out of people (in that case, I suppose they succeeded), but either way they're fairly vile examples of humanity.

The problem now is that there's been an association between people who simply disagree with Anita's actions/views/etc - and offer constructive criticism - and the vile filthy trolls.

I agree with some of A.S.'s points. Others I don't agree with, and some I think are widely overblown.
Do I care that somebody may be using their personal relationships to garner publicity. Well that's somewhat nasty, and I don't think it's right, but not worth a sh*tstorm. Personally I found it more scary when copyright lobbyist do so in order to sway laws. Maybe if a lot of people and/or myself bought a crap game because of industry shilling reviewers I might care a bit more, but that seems to happen anyhow without the sex.

Seriously, anyone who cares to speak out against A.S's issues are best to do so in a sane manner. But trolls are trolls, and really I'm guessing that a lot of these are just sick people who are looking for attention. They do shit specially to get a rise out of people, so the bigger the reaction the happier. These are the same idiots that do swatting, troll forums with goatse, incite people to suicide and other crap. They're the Westborough Baptist Church of the internet, except you don't know who they actually are. They may be gamers, but chances are just as likely that they're simply attention-seeking sh*tbags. Hopefully some of the more legitimate threats can be tied back to a real identity, in which case games and feminists alike (or gamer-feminists) can celebrate.

What I don't understand is why we're down on the "Save the Princess" games when yeah, there's much worse stuff out there to be dealt with. A lot of people mention GTA, but how about games like good ol "Duke Nukem." Yes, DN3D is old, and we all know that the newer game was bad from a gameplay aspect as well, but seriously the intro scene has got to be the biggest piece of sh** even.

If you've got stuff like that out there, going after "Mario" is kinda like trying to bandage up a papercut when you've got a gunshot wound to the head/chest.

p.s. I don't agree that "save the princess" is inherently bad to the point that it should be eliminated entirely. Somebody needs to be saved, after all. It's more that it's generally lopsided in favour of helpless female "props" and male protagonists. Maybe we need more Princess Fiona types that can kick ass in their own right

I can see the headline now:
Facebook decides to change policy and you wouldn't believe what happened next!

Also, see this guy's comment about Minnesota... ditto for NS, at least in the winter months.

Depends on what you mean by "growing up."
If you mean, during elementary through high-school, no many of us were probably too busy avoiding being lockered or swirlied.
But by college, and especially in that period shortly afterwards where many geeks I know - while not CEO's - were doing a lot better than the football squad who still worked at McD's and spent weekends drinking beer on the couch.

Those that were missing out were usually due to frankly being poor company in general (as in, other "geeks" didn't want to hang out with them either), having really bad hygiene, or being more interested in D&D than in girls.

Commercial gain does change this picture somewhat. My only counter is that jail-time also imposes a burden on society, whereas a fine that wipes out any profit from the infringement + imposes enough of an additional penalty would probably have worked well enough, and saved the cost of housing this idiot in a cell.

The financial advisor ruins people's lives by abusing a position of trust he's been given. He's also reaping the benefits of his crime and living high on the hog. Often enough, those that have enabled the advisor to run rampant manage to spew a bunch of B.S. excuses about how "shocked" they were and are unaffected.

Meanwhile, the guy who recorded in a theatre is an idiot, but he hasn't ruined anyone's life and hasn't really benefited financially from his act. A significant (but not ruinous) fine would accomplish plenty in terms of penalty. The corporations have also successfully lobbied to have what was once a civil offence which could be resolved between two groups (see: lawsuit) into a criminal act.

Indeed, it could be people who are using TOR but don't want to end up on an NSA watch-list because they have in-depth knowledge of a tool that's probably not well-received by the NSA...

As it stands right now, it is SOP for an admin to block all exit nodes at the incoming router, the IP stack on the machine, the web server, and the application

And there's plenty of reasons to do so. There's a reason that companies have firewalls that block outgoing connections as well as incoming. Or would you rather they allowed traffic from anonymous internet sources to route through their networks?

Home users are a different story, but I don't see why most corps would want to allow TOR. They have enough issues securing their networks as it is (see: UPS breach).

OCRemix initially made a kickstarter for an FFVI music remix. Initially they ran into legal issues with Squaresoft, but apparently sorted that out and then successfully funded the second incarnation.

If a third-party can successfully garner funds and create a prototype, I wonder how many of the big entities would be willing to license such projects for a cut of the profits at the end?

And yet... funded at $504 (of $500).
Maybe people felt it was easier than donating directly to help the guy out, but still...

If you add Battlefield 3 to the PS4, would that increase PS4 adoption? That's not likely, but bringing out Uncharted 4 probably will.

I mean adding a *new* title, possibly as an exclusive title (at least exclusive for the first while).

Something in the currently melting polar ice caps, perhaps. If it (or a chemical that breaks down into it) are in there in some form, they could be getting released as the ice melts.

This is what used to happen in the West, when companies were similarly unrestrained by legislation

Maple Leaf Meats. Deepwater Horizon. Exxon Valdez. Mount Polly Mine. Tepco.

I'd say that the East and the West do a fairly shitty job of enforcing regulation. You can have all the legislation you want but lack of enforcement or monitoring = fail. The West would like to point fingers at China but frankly we've been chasing profits at the expense of health+safety just as much.