GaymerX2 Convention Will Be the Last

GaymerX2 Convention Will Be the Last

GaymerX2 logo

Organizers of the LGBT-focused gaming convention GaymerX2 say that this year's event will be the last.

Despite a hugely successful Kickstarter campaign, organizers behind the GaymerX2 convention have announced on Twitter that this year's event will be the final one, at least in its current format.

"Based on feedback that we've gotten, the new focus towards diversity in the industry and budget, GaymerX2 will be the final year for the con," they tweeted. "That's not to say that we may not do other events again in the future, but we're asking so much out of our volunteers for the past 2 years [and] the size of our event and the amount of money we were losing to put it on became too much of a burden to keep at this pace."

The GaymerX2 Kickstarter campaign wrapped up in March with $24,298, more than double its $10,000 goal, and it was also able to attract GLaDOS and The Sniper - AKA voice actors Ellen McLain and John Patrick Lowrie - to the event. But Matt Conn told Polygon that the high cost of running a convention in downtown San Francisco plus the inability to attract corporate sponsorships made it an unsustainable enterprise.

Even so, he echoed the suggestion on Twitter that GaymerX could return someday. "We're certainly not against it coming back in some other, more sustainable form, but we were basically trying to produce something that was a bit too large and ambitious for the amount of corporate interest in supporting queer geek culture," he said.

It's an unfortunate outcome, but I do hope that GaymerX is able to bounce back someday, even in a scaled-down format. Meanwhile, this year's event is still full steam ahead, taking place at the Intercontinental Hotel in San Francisco from July 11 to 13.

Sources: Twitter, Polygon

Permalink

Maybe they could partner up with an existing convention and have a set of LGBT panels with the 'Gaymer' name attached rather than trying to have an entirely seperate one of their own. It would be much cheaper and there would be a larger audience for it.

I don't see why a LGBT focused game convention is neccessary in the first place. There already are plenty of major cons, and I can't really imagine how this one is supposed to differ enough to be justified. Guess it's pretty much the same on a smaller scale, focused on discussions about how they get "discriminated" by evil white, heterosexual men all the time.

As far as I'm concerned, nothing of value was lost. Let them open booths on cons that matter if they wanna participate that badly.

Chaosritter:
I don't see why a LGBT focused game convention is neccessary in the first place. There already are plenty of major cons, and I can't really imagine how this one is supposed to differ enough to be justified.

There is not a limited amount of convention available in the world. Gaymer isn't taking crucial Convention-tonium from PAX or Comiccon. If a group of people decide that they want to host another convention, then why shouldn't they?

It seems silly to say that just because you are satisfied with available convention offerings, they shouldn't be allowed to organize, plan, fund, and host their own additional convention.

I always thought this sort of thing was counter-intuitive to the cause of LGBT equality. What brings us together is our love of gaming, and sexual orientation shouldn't be a factor at all. Segregating cons like this will only single them out further when that is not what they really should be doing.

Sseth:
I always thought this sort of thing was counter-intuitive to the cause of LGBT equality. What brings us together is our love of gaming, and sexual orientation shouldn't be a factor at all. Segregating cons like this will only single them out further when that is not what they really should be doing.

In an ideal world all you said is true, unfortunately my only con experience was blighted by having to listen to my friend being hounded by two homophobic ar$eholes because he made the "mistake" of being heard by them when he describe Ezio as hot!

Chaosritter:
I don't see why a LGBT focused game convention is neccessary in the first place. There already are plenty of major cons, and I can't really imagine how this one is supposed to differ enough to be justified. Guess it's pretty much the same on a smaller scale, focused on discussions about how they get "discriminated" by evil white, heterosexual men all the time.

As far as I'm concerned, nothing of value was lost. Let them open booths on cons that matter if they wanna participate that badly.

To add to what Falterfire said, there's also location. The only other big gaming convention I know of in Northern California is GDC, which is industry-focused. GaymerX is the only consumer-focused con I know of.

Yeah, there's PAX Prime, if you're willing to drive 12 hours, or San Diego ComicCon, if you're willing to drive 7 hours. But why not hold one closer, in one of the country's major cities, right in the heart of half the games industry?

Sseth:
I always thought this sort of thing was counter-intuitive to the cause of LGBT equality. What brings us together is our love of gaming, and sexual orientation shouldn't be a factor at all. Segregating cons like this will only single them out further when that is not what they really should be doing.

You're still allowed to attend if you don't identify as LGBT; they created this as a "safe space" because some gamers don't feel comfortable going to a "standard" gaming convention.

And the first comment on the Facebook comments list is someone complaining about how the gay community is a minority trying to tell everyone else how their games should be made.

Stay classy, Escapist. Stay classy.

Falterfire:
It seems silly to say that just because you are satisfied with available convention offerings, they shouldn't be allowed to organize, plan, fund, and host their own additional convention.

Don't put words in my mouth, never said anything like "shouldn't be allowed to have a con". I merely don't see the need for a LGBT focused games convention.

Btw, from the Wikipedia article:

"GaymerX (formerly GaymerCon) is a fan facing, LGBTQ-oriented gaming and geek culture, or gaymer, convention, with panels primarily focused on LGBTQ issues and debates in the gaming industry, founded by Matt Conn"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GaymerX

Sounds like it's less about games than circle jerking. And before someone complains about the term:

http://de.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=circlejerk

I feel like having completely separated/segregated conventions from the "main" cons defeats the purpose and contradicts the message of equality and inclusion. I tend of have similar views of Pride parades and such.

Doog0AD:
And the first comment on the Facebook comments list is someone complaining about how the gay community is a minority trying to tell everyone else how their games should be made.

Stay classy, Escapist. Stay classy.

Hell, go look at that Mozilla CEO stepping down story for your daily dose of homophobia.

RaikuFA:

Doog0AD:
And the first comment on the Facebook comments list is someone complaining about how the gay community is a minority trying to tell everyone else how their games should be made.

Stay classy, Escapist. Stay classy.

Hell, go look at that Mozilla CEO stepping down story for your daily dose of homophobia.

I'd be careful, overusing words like "homophobia" devalues them, stripping them of their actual meaning and making them meaningless phrases. Like yelling "racism" when a kid in UK doesn't like indian food.

Also, minorities can be outright obnoxious at times too. Letting them get away with it out of political correctness would be discrimination.

Ironic, isn't it?

Mumorpuger:
I feel like having completely separated/segregated conventions from the "main" cons defeats the purpose and contradicts the message of equality and inclusion. I tend of have similar views of Pride parades and such.

There's a lot of reasons to dislike what Pride has turned into, but so called 'segregation' isn't one of them. Non-queer folk are more than welcome to attend and even participate in the proceedings.

Falterfire:

Chaosritter:
I don't see why a LGBT focused game convention is neccessary in the first place. There already are plenty of major cons, and I can't really imagine how this one is supposed to differ enough to be justified.

There is not a limited amount of convention available in the world. Gaymer isn't taking crucial Convention-tonium from PAX or Comiccon. If a group of people decide that they want to host another convention, then why shouldn't they?

It seems silly to say that just because you are satisfied with available convention offerings, they shouldn't be allowed to organize, plan, fund, and host their own additional convention.

Well, the problem is that there is a "limited amount of convention" available. It could be defined by how much money and time there is for the convention going types/corporate sponsors to support the existence of a convention. Many people who go to conventions are limited, for practical reasons like finance, to 1 convention a year or less. Many companies have similar limitations. The real question is if GaymerX going to be attractive enough to pull convention goers from PAX or Comicon or any other major con. It looks like the answer is no. You could say it's existence is not justified because not enough people care, which also implies it is not necessary. It is filling a market need that apparently does not exist.

Falterfire:

Chaosritter:
I don't see why a LGBT focused game convention is neccessary in the first place. There already are plenty of major cons, and I can't really imagine how this one is supposed to differ enough to be justified.

There is not a limited amount of convention available in the world. Gaymer isn't taking crucial Convention-tonium from PAX or Comiccon. If a group of people decide that they want to host another convention, then why shouldn't they?

It seems silly to say that just because you are satisfied with available convention offerings, they shouldn't be allowed to organize, plan, fund, and host their own additional convention.

That last sentence is exactly why I think the whole "Gaymer" thing was a bad idea in the first place. There is no us and them, the whole concept is flawed to begin with. Is there a word like "racist" but for sexual orientation? Because if there is, it's that, and it's wrong. Gay and straight gamers are not different species, and in the context of a video-game convention they are not different in any way at all. If you're running a dating service then treating people differently based on sexual orientation makes sense, otherwise you're probably just being extremely prejudiced.

I'm sure the whole thing was well-meaning, and I hope it gets retooled into something less bigoted, but blegh I can't believe people were so accepting of it in the first place. I just don't get it.

GaymerX2 has my sympathies, because running a con is motherfucking hard work, never mind the expense.

I feel like the biggest problem the convention had was itself. I know that the con was meant to be inclusive, so everybody was invited, gay and straight, but most won't see that way. They'll see the title and assume it's meant only for gay gamers. Not that the view is accurate, but that's the way they'll interpret it. Imagine if a con opened for primarily Hispanic gamers (speaking as one). Well, despite the fact that this con might be open to everyone and not just Hispanics, people will assume it won't be geared toward them, and they won't care to show up. Naming the con "Gaymer" ended up being kind of a double-edged sword in that it helped made it stand out from the pack but also stopped it from being truly inclusive despite its best intentions.

That, and running a con is serious business. Anyone remember E For All?

Exactly.

Lunncal:
That last sentence is exactly why I think the whole "Gaymer" thing was a bad idea in the first place. There is no us and them, the whole concept is flawed to begin with. Is there a word like "racist" but for sexual orientation? Because if there is, it's that, and it's wrong.

That's the problem: there are words with a similiar meaning, but they all mean "anxiety disorder". May it be homophobia, transphobia, furryphobia (I kid you not) and so on.

By putting them on the same level as mentally ill people through language, the political correctness league managed it to silence critics of all sorts. Those who dare to voice their opinion anyway without being paranoid about not saying anything anyone could take offense of are treated like hatefilled nutcases, regardless of what they have to say. The minorities however can say pretty much everything they want and get away with it because of what I wrote before.

Example: saying "die gay/tranny scum" would likely result in a lawsuit. Saying "die CIS scum" is not just protected as free speech, but also gets you sympathies amongst the SJW crowd.

Thanks to these circumstances, unbiased discussions amongst equals are out of question now. It's "us" and "them" because different rules apply for each party.

Chaosritter:

RaikuFA:

Doog0AD:
And the first comment on the Facebook comments list is someone complaining about how the gay community is a minority trying to tell everyone else how their games should be made.

Stay classy, Escapist. Stay classy.

Hell, go look at that Mozilla CEO stepping down story for your daily dose of homophobia.

I'd be careful, overusing words like "homophobia" devalues them, stripping them of their actual meaning and making them meaningless phrases. Like yelling "racism" when a kid in UK doesn't like indian food.

Also, minorities can be outright obnoxious at times too. Letting them get away with it out of political correctness would be discrimination.

Ironic, isn't it?

Tell that to Al Sharpton.

Though I garuntee you at least one person on that topic was against solely because they truly believe gays should't have rights.

Chaosritter:
I don't see why a LGBT focused game convention is neccessary in the first place. There already are plenty of major cons, and I can't really imagine how this one is supposed to differ enough to be justified. Guess it's pretty much the same on a smaller scale, focused on discussions about how they get "discriminated" by evil white, heterosexual men all the time.

As far as I'm concerned, nothing of value was lost. Let them open booths on cons that matter if they wanna participate that badly.

Apparently enough people that had time and money wanted there to be one? At least for a time. Seems all the justification a con needs.

Ot: I don't really have much to say. I was never that interested, and it doesn't pain me to see it go. That's a shame for anyone who enjoyed the con's existence, but the market seems to have spoken.

CriticalMiss:
Maybe they could partner up with an existing convention and have a set of LGBT panels with the 'Gaymer' name attached rather than trying to have an entirely seperate one of their own. It would be much cheaper and there would be a larger audience for it.

This, really. I get the idea behind Gaymer and I'm all for it, but spreading it out as panels in several cons would probably achieve the intended purpose more than the con itself.

"Based on feedback that we€™ve gotten"

Always confuses me how some people go to type and apostrophe and somehow manage to hit and umlaut-ed a, the euro sign and the trademark symbol.

OT: Shame, I guess. Though I'd imagine the fact they're having trouble staying afloat is an indication that people have either moved onto other cons, or there was never enough support for a full sized con specifically for the LGBT community. Attaching panels to other cons, as mentioned above, seems like a pretty legit call.

I would rather see the community feel they can attend any con without concern of harassment or a negative experience, than the return of Gaymer in the future.

Unfortunately cons are a place with lots of teenage boys, and they're not exactly known for their warm personality and accepting nature, as a whole.

But I can dream.

Also to the people suggesting that it become a panel, which attends various cons, this is a great idea, but the idea of Gaymer was to make a safe space. I get the impression that if you simply had a panel at a regular con, it would simply act as a beacon to the intolerant trouble makers. You already see it with any brand/show/game that people are divided on at cons. Disparaging comments and harassment, for showing an interest in something.

I wasn't even aware there was a first GaymerX. I remember the Kickstarter, I remember the "should have it up in the Spring!" and then saw nothing more of it until now.

Bummer wish I had money so that I could go to the last one. I remember wanting to go to the last one but I was broker than a joke back then. Seemed like a good all accepting con with some interesting topics. I so want to meet the voice actor for Glados

I could say some things about them that have been said already, but here's one thing I especially hope for: I hope that the organisation somehow spreads itself throughout the existing, say traditional, con-scene to help make those and the gaming community in general become more LGBT+ friendly.

Compare the odds of a queer taking shit at PAX, and a straight taking shit at GaymerX, and maybe you'll catch a glimmer of why some people feel it's a necessary thing.

Mumorpuger:
I feel like having completely separated/segregated conventions from the "main" cons defeats the purpose and contradicts the message of equality and inclusion. I tend of have similar views of Pride parades and such.

I completely agree. However, what does that have to do with GaymerX and the other "Gaymer" cons?

Every single one I know of is open to everyone.

I'm pretty sure most pride parades are similar. Is this one of those dog whistle complaints?

Zachary Amaranth:

Mumorpuger:
I feel like having completely separated/segregated conventions from the "main" cons defeats the purpose and contradicts the message of equality and inclusion. I tend of have similar views of Pride parades and such.

I completely agree. However, what does that have to do with GaymerX and the other "Gaymer" cons?

Every single one I know of is open to everyone.

I'm pretty sure most pride parades are similar. Is this one of those dog whistle complaints?

I'm not familiar with a "dog whistle complaint," could you explain that for me?

But to expand on my thoughts a little bit, despite being open to all I feel like by singling out any one particular group as the central theme of anything only highlights the differences between them. I find this particularly problematic when it comes to identifiers that have historically been the subject of prejudice. I personally don't like defining anyone by race/creed/orientation, and generally prefer to know someone to be "X, who just happens to be Y." Using PAX and GaymerX as an example- the people who would attend only one con exclusively have one thing in common: they're gamers, but rather than bring the gaming community together, separating the events segregates the people into two categories: gamers or LBGT folk, who just happen to be gamers (instead of an inclusive event where everyone is a gamer, with some that happen to be LBGT).

It's not just sexual orientation I feel this way about though... similar events like Black History Month give me the same feeling. Morgan Freeman had an interview that pretty much sums up my thoughts on that though:

image

Mumorpuger:

I'm not familiar with a "dog whistle complaint," could you explain that for me?

A complaint that is designed to aggravate certain people; one that uses particular language to sound innocuous to the average person, but which is loaded to the "right" people. Kind of like how "only dogs" can hear a dog whistle.

I'm asking if this isn't a way of complaining about gays while making excuses about how what you're really against is something that they're not doing in the first place, but sounds far more reasonable (except for the fact that it's a completely false premise because they're not).

It's not just sexual orientation I feel this way about though... similar events like Black History Month give me the same feeling. Morgan Freeman had an interview that pretty much sums up my thoughts on that though:

Yes, and let's talk about how poor an analogy that is. This is about gay people getting prominence in the community, and is more comparable to the "negro rights" movement (Which has been largely renamed "civil rights" or "black rights"). I doubt Freeman would have opposed it under any name. I should point out my very white father lent his support back when it was called the black rights movement, as did a lot of white people. Where does this myth of segregation come from? Thousands upon thousands of white folk supported Martin Luther King, even as they were actively harassed as "nigger lovers" and the like. And you can't be on the side of a "gaymer" convention because....Ponies?

Again, this seems like a dog whistle complaint, if for no other reason than its utter speciousness when taken as a "legitimate" argument.

Oh, and while I love Freeman, the idea of getting rid of racism by not talking about it is completely idiotic and he should be ashamed. And again, I doubt he would have taken that tack when blacks were routinely getting assaulted by god Christian white folk in the South.

I wonder if he would have told King to "stop talking about it."

And I really wonder how my father would feel about the notion. I mean, he was jailed, spit on, assaulted, and called the previously-mentioned slur. And all he had to do was not talk about racial issues? That would have been especially easy for a white boy from Maine.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here