That is really disingenuous. I don't disagree that GamerGate has a large misogynistic component, but it wasn't about Zoe Quinn, it was about the Gaming Media's reaction to Zoe Quinn.

Gamers wanted to discuss the zoepost because it was well, drama. Journalists,developers, the people running run awards and events, going to parties together, getting drunk together and gasp! even sleeping together. It revealed how cliquey and tightly knit the "artsy" indie gaming scene is.

The response of the media, the admins/mods of various forums was not good. They shutdown any discussion of the zoepost. DMCA claims were put to videos which discussed the zoepost (wrongful use of DMCA really pisses people off). The media responded with multiple articles about how "Gamers are dead". The thesis which of, was that "gamers" are childish basement dwelling adults who refuse to grow up.

Textbook case of the Streisand Effect. The coordinated media strike and the systemic censorship (right or wrong) also furthered that idea that the people running the show were heavily intertwined. When you attack a sub-culture like that they are going to get angry and try to break free.

I think fundamentally the gamergate, and much of what we are seeing across multiple fandoms represents a clash of systemizers vs empathizers. The "Gamers" care well, about gameplay, the rules, systems how they interact, the simulation of the setting. While a gamer will always like a good story, not if it comes as a sacrifice to the gameplay.

Empathizers care more about the social aspects of the game. How it makes the players feel, and the role of a game in our culture. The writing side of the gaming media seems to be largely composed of this segment, while the youtube side of the gaming media (total biscuit and such) seems to be largely systemizers.

This explains much of the tension that exists in gaming right now. Take a game like http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/gone-home. Great critical reviews. Terrible user reviews. Why? Because the critical reviewers place value on how the game makes the feel, and gone home is all about empathizing with the protagonist, while the majority of the users place value on gameplay. Hence the derision of this games as "walking simulators". Gamers want simulations. They want rules and systems and a game that is just a "walking" simulator is (to them) a poor game.

Or take the reaction to the trans-character in the new Baldur's gate expansion. The significant anger with that was because Baldur's gate is very much a systemizer's game. THACO and such. While it is a DnD game the room for role playing is limited. The draw of the was the system of the gameplay and the simulation of the world. The transcharacter was a violation of both aspects. Gameplay is agnostic of gender or sexuality, so pushing that was seen as valuing the wrong thing, and second of all, the character was a violation of the simulation of the world, as any trans person would just use the existing magic in the world to change their gender. It was a reflection that the people making the game did not care about what the people who wanted to play the game cared about. Hence the anger.

Or take statements like:

https://twitter.com/radicalbytes/status/737394198253428736?l...
https://twitter.com/radicalbytes/status/737009100093980673?l...

Josh feels that games should be about emotion and social perspective and such, that games should be art.

So that is was gamergate is about. Gamers (mostly systemizers) thought that the gaming media (mostly empathizers) had their common interests. They don't. Hence the backlash. On the flipside, the empathetic media and developers are struggling to find an audience, hence all the condemnation of gamers. They want their audience to share their interests, but right now they don't.

Really the two cultures should disentangle and go their own ways, but instead all we have is both sides saying the other is doing it wrong.