She can speculate about my character all she wants. I grew up on ever Calvin and Hobbes book made, and if that taught me anything in life, is that every moment in my life where I have had to pick myself up, dust myself off, and do something to get it done, without any external help, I've done so to /build character/.

I am a "neutral" in the Gamergate debacle, preferring to observe more than directly interact, but in one case I watched the somewhat-infamous interview between Wu and Reddit KotakuInAction mod TheHat2. In it, they discussed the points of her iOS game "Revolution 60" and game design in general. One of the questions asked there was why she decided to work with iOS first versus the popular PC platform Steam. I don't remember the exact answer, but I think it revolved around developing for a platform that more women were likely to use, being the mobile market, and maybe some development-specific answers.

My question is this: Given what you've learned about programming in iOS, would you have developed for a PC platform like Steam first and ported to mobile later? Given female trends towards mobile platforms like the Nintendo DS/3DS, would it make more sense for your studio to explore developing games there? Or was your goal all along to produce a more 3D-visual action title for mobile phones?

For context, my wife is not as big of a gamer as myself, but I find she enjoys playing a lot of mobile puzzle games. I think the mobile market has a lot of potential for bigger things, and I think having the input of the majority player base on that platform makes sense, but I often don't understand why, as a mobile developer, you would be overly concerned with "the core gamer" demographic in the console platform. It seems to me that they aren't likely to crossover into the mobile market often, so there is little reason to "attack" that demographic as we've seen a few people, including Brianna, do through the last year.

Pretty much this. Looking back at the last thirty years of Nintendo, they've weathered far worse storms than this. The crash of 83, chip shortages, Sega, the Virtual Boy, their botched alliance with Sony that created the Playstation, Microsoft, the list goes on. They're almost the perfect example of trial-and-error in video game science, they've tried everything to create a gaming universe gamers will enjoy, and I'd say their successes outweigh their failures. But Nintendo has classically always been the company that attempts to control their overhead and profit margins, from their early days of controlling what was made on their console, controlling the chips, to insisting that they stay in the hardware business to control the profits of their first-party titles. Everyone cites Sega, but Sega only ever had Sonic as a powerful first-party IP, it could not recover from shooting itself in the foot when they released the Saturn too early. The Dreamcast was a helluva system, if it had been paced properly, it might've gained more ground.

All Nintendo has to do now to survive is open its console up to more developers and make it something people want to make GAMES for. The gaming world needs more Miyamoto-like developers who look at aspects of games like gameplay, characters, and experience, not just making movies with sporadic spots of control for a few seconds. Mobile gaming is popular because there is no movie sequences, no PUSH X TO WIN, it's all gameplay, and many could argue that they're just puzzle games or whatever and they're incomparable to console games, or that they're made for "casuals", but everything you see in mobile gaming now, that's what started Nintendo off in the 80s and made them what they are today.

I second this post. I also was in Scouts from Cub Scouts to when I turned 18. I did not make Eagle, but I was Brotherhood in the Order of the Arrow, did the Northstar Leadership Training in Indiana, was either a Patrol or Senior/Asst. Senior Patrol leader for nearly most of my time in the scouts, and I was introduced to tabletop RPG's (D&D, Star Wars) while in the Scouts. The BSA gave me the mostly free oppertunity to learn a great deal about leadership and service in the community as well as have fun camping, hiking, and enjoying the outdoors as a kid. I would not trade that experience away for nearly anything and I regard it as the best years of my life.

However I am concerned with the direction the BSA has been going in recent years. I don't understand how the organization can stand for intolerance when never witnessed any intolerance of anyone or any belief when I was in the Scouts, and I lived in one of the most conservative part of the country. When different troops and different Scoutmasters can decide who they want and what their core beliefs are, why does the organization as a whole reject the notion that these people can co-exsist with everyone else? It disappoints me that the BSA has taught me to respect my fellow person and their beliefs but will not extend that to the people they do not agree with.

The icing on the cake is the fact that the organization recieves most of its funding from federal sources, such as the use of public schools and buildings for its meetings. If taxpayers are paying for this, and this country stands for equality of people regardless of race, religion, and sexual orientation, than anyone should be allowed to join so long as they meet all other criteria for normally joining. If the BSA were a private organization funded by themselves, I would not object, that is their choice.

So as far as OSS goes, I support it because this may be the step the BSA needs to take in order to understand that everyone is involved in the world we are today, wether you are gay, straight, athiest, or whatever. We need to be teaching our future generations that inequality only leads to closed doors in everything from daily life to software choice.