Fortnite Mobile Is Becoming A Battle Of The Sexes

"Girls have officially ruined Fortnite mobile," a Twitter user named Michael recently declared. "Girls in my school killed Fortnite mobile for me smh," wrote Twitter user Julian. Maybe these statements sound dramatic, but the culture around Fortnite goes beyond kills and wins.

Fortnite has become a constant presence in relationships, inspiring conversations about the dynamics between couples, including how men and women interact. With the release of Fortnite on mobile, conversations about gender still abound, but this time with a tinge of hostility.

The conversations often involve aggravation by male gamers about the presence of female gamers, something that's become more prevalent in the last two weeks as Fortnite has exploding from PC and console onto mobile. Tons of people are playing it. More specifically, people are playing Fornite mobile who wouldn't normally play an intense competitive multiplayer game.

Why not? It's free, and now that it's on a phone you don't need specialised hardware to play it besides a device you likely have. You don't have to pay an online gaming subscription like Xbox Live, either.

The result is that a surprisingly wide demographic is picking up Fortnite. For instance, educators who teach teens are seeing this phenomenon happen in their classrooms.

Nick Gutierrez, a high school teacher, told Kotaku that the mobile version of Fortnite "seems to be the one played by the 'non-gamer' types. Our school has a lot of low income students who can't afford a good gaming PC and maybe they have the wrong console. The mobile version has been a boon for the students that only have a phone. Now they can hop on the trend."

Nick Fisher, a teacher who had to make a special confiscation bin just for battle royale games, said that he sees " a lot more girls playing" at his school now that the game is out on phones, too.

Players on Twitter are seeing this first-hand as well. The identity of Fortnite on mobile is linked to women and girls.

Part of the reason why women and girls playing become such a big topic of conversation is that just a few weeks ago, the culture around Fortnite was the opposite. As some male gamers told it, Fortnite had overtaken their life enough that women they knew kept pestering them about it.

Why aren't they texting back, their girlfriends would ask. Is the game really that important? Memes about disgruntled girlfriends flourished online, and men comisserated over their shared relationship woes. Women just didn't get why Fortnite was so good. It was enough of a thing that at one point, it became a sign of devotion if your boyfriend was willing to text you back in the middle of a Fortnite game.

Most boys wouldn't, so if your beau does, then he must love you.

Now that more women are playing the game, though, some men say they're starting to suffer through some of what women were complaining about not too long ago. "Plot twist: my girl is more into Fortnite mobile then I am and am now begging for attention????.....," wrote Twitter user Jovany.

Some men are riffing on the supposed hypocrisy of it all. "All you girls hated on Fortnite for so long but once it comes out on mobile your sucking dick for codes smh," said Twitter user Max.

"These girls playing Fortnite Mobile the same girls that were complaining 2 weeks ago about not getting a text back????????‍♂️," said Twitter user Logan. At least one person on Twitter claimed that some girls were so desperate to gain entry to the closed mobile Fortnite event that they were offering nudes in exchange for access.

While Fortnite mobile's popularity with women is extremely visible and discussed among players, there's a tiresome undercurrent that comes along with it. Fortnite mobile has touch controls and a cramped play area that make playing it clumsy. It also has some mechanics that compensate for these shortcomings by offering a bit more information about where your enemies are coming.

Yet, Fortnite is still still a brutal action game that is the epitome of triple-A gaming right now. Somehow the narrative around Fortnite has warped. The mobile version isn't as intense as the real thing, the thinking goes. Fortnite mobile players are trash, some players claim.

As one Twitter user put it: "Females play Fortnite on mobile like they blindfolded or som."

The result is that even as women play the most popular hardcore game in the world, once again we're having conversations about fake gamer girls who are supposedly only playing because it's easier, or because it's a good way to get attention and popularity.

"Fortnite mobile is not real Fortnite girls," wrote Twitter user Aaron. "All the girls who downloaded Fortnite Mobile did it to fit in ????????‍♂️," Twitter user Andrew claimed.

"All you girls playing Fortnite on mobile just tryna chasing the clout but it's not working," warned Twitter user Dan. "Just because you got Fortnite mobile or played PUBG once you're not a gamer girl," said Twitter user M.

"The bums i see standing still on Fortnite mobile must be the girls tryna play huh? ????" wrote Twitter user Eli. "Females, you not allowed to say you play Fortnite unless you play it consistently on console, not mobile," another Twitter user stated.

"Fortnite mobile is ran by women don't feel too cool if u take a dub," said Twitter user Gage.

With this blemish, some players claim they are starting to dislike the mobile version of the game. "Girls started playing Fortnite mobile and for some reason now i feel like i should never play that game again," said one Twitter user.

I tried to ask many teens about why they feel girls playing Fortnite is a bad thing, only to be blocked or ignored. One of the only responses I got was, helpfully, "Lmaooo kys." Tanner Bachnick, a Catholic teacher who works with teens, polled his students as to why they disliked the mobile version of Fortnite and was generally told by a dozen pupils that it was a "horrible port."

This isn't actually true - the game runs shockingly smoothly, as we've reported - but in my opinion, generally the stigma is less about the game itself than who is playing it.

"None of them said they liked it and one even said 'it's for little kids who can't afford consoles,'" Bachnick said. Likewise, there are a number of conversations out there from players about how they're on mobile because it's affordable.

"If you play Fortnite mobile you're instantaneously deemed broke," wrote Twitter user Joey. There's both a class and gender element to why Fortnite on mobile gets hate, though sometimes they intersect.

Women aren't stupid. They know the console versions are considered 'better.' Many don't have a choice.

"Fortnite on mobile isn't the best, but when your computer sucks and your brother moves out with his consoles what else can a desperate girl do ????????‍♀️????????‍♀️????????‍♀️," wrote Twitter user Emma.

Anecdotally, many girls I know don't buy consoles because they don't identify as 'gamers,' and so having a dedicated system just to play stuff seems like overkill. In some cases, women are discouraged from purchasing consoles because it seems more like a boy's hobby.

When I was growing up, I was encouraged to spend any free time doing chores or studying. With this in mind, it makes total sense to me that many women end up picking up mobile games rather than console games or PC games. It's a welcoming and less expensive venue to have some fun, and that remains true even if gaming culture tends to deride and devalue the importance of mobile gaming.

"Boys are actually scared of girls with Fortnite mobile because if we play as much as them, we'll get good," joked Twitter user Chloe. "Watch out."


Comments

    EDIT: I don't want to delete all of the sub-comments, so I've had to edit this instead. Not my preferred method of moderation, but trying to keep as much of the decent conversation as possible. -Alex

      Isn't that basically ignoring the context of decades of gender imbalance in video gaming? This stuff isn't in isolation, "not real gamers" is the same nonsense we've had to deal with in both gaming and streaming hobbies. The hobby really hasn't been welcoming to women, regardless of the platform.

      Unrelated to that, I had my doubts about the value of a mobile port of a game like this, but comments like this from Nick Gutierrez are very persuasive:

      Our school has a lot of low income students who can't afford a good gaming PC and maybe they have the wrong console. The mobile version has been a boon for the students that only have a phone. Now they can hop on the trend.

        What exactly is the value of getting more people hooked on this particular game? Especially students. It’s devoid of any form of education or real value.

          All games are beneficial. In varying degrees they improve perception, pattern recognition, problem solving, teamwork and coordination skills. Games that allow you to play alongside friends improve social skills and interaction in general. The value should be evident.

            The value of getting kids hooked on playing the same game over and over again (which is the nature of games like these) isn’t evident to me, no.

            Replace this game with the likes of Call of Duty or Diablo and I quickly fail to see any benefits of inciting mass adoption for kids.

              You quickly fail to see the benefits despite the fact I listed them?

                I’m talking about this game specifically, not games in general.

                Getting kids hooked on this arguably outweighs any benefits it has. Especially given the countless better options out there to develop those skills.

                  I guess I don't have as dim a view of this kind of game as you do. I don't play it, but I don't think it's worthless either.

                  @zombiejesus I wouldn’t call it worthless. But it’s definitely not the kind of game I’d be encouraging kids to get hooked on. Certainly not as a teacher or parent.

                  Like I said, how is it different to encouraging kids to play CoD? If I said more kids should play CoD and more girls should get into it, you’d probably call me crazy.

            Maybe Minecraft or Civilization or something similar. But I don't think a shooter should be pushed in schools, especially with the current gun climate in the US. While there's no real causation between violent games and shootings it still seems pretty hypocritical.

            On a different note, how similar is gameplay between mobile/console/pc on Fortnite and is there cross play? The only real complaint I'd have about mobile is if they play with console/pc players but have an advantage because of easier controls or something. But that applies to males and females equally.

          Fortnite is basically a free source of entertainment, but now you don't need hundreds or potentially thousands of dollars invested in a gaming machine. If more girls are playing Fortnite and like it, they may very well choose to invest in something to play similar games or decide they'd like to play it on console.

          What people, including students, choose to do with their leisure time is up to them. Playing Fortnite, watching reality tv or sport, reading pulp, these are all pastimes that people enjoy. Bringing more female players to games like Fortnite and more "serious" games is cool and good.

      I said the same thing and had my comment deemed as inappropriate. Compiling a few random tweets after doing a search for a couple of keywords is really lazy writing.

        Patricia has been attacked in the past due to her... writing style. I think Kotaku mods are more than a little sensitive if they feel comments are ad hominem (even when they aren't).

        Wow. Had a few comments deleted. One wonders how any criticism of articles is possible in this forum. I suppose the fact that comments are deleted says more about the quality of the writing than the comments ever could, and more eloquently too :-)

          Yikes. I didn’t think any of your comments were offensive or mean spirited either.

          I guess mods can do whatever they want, it’s their site, but censoring comments because they don’t conform to a particular agenda or because they present a different point of view doesn’t seem the way to go.

          Granted I could have been more eloquent in my comment about the article.

            I've been getting downvoted and moderated for as long as I can remember due to not conforming to the group think.

            Too much censorship in the comments actually has a detrimental effect on readership too. Take the Gizmodo site, comments are completely disabled now and I find it quite uninteresting. You can't ask for more information or clarification on an article, or debate the accuracy of points in it. If I'm not spending time on Gizmodo then they're losing out on advertising dollars. And I'm sure I'm not alone thinking that way.

          OK. Just had another comment deleted where I simply stated that we shouldn’t be giving these sexist people airtime and that they don’t represent the majority of the gaming community.

          No swearing. Not having a go at the author.

          I’m out.

      What do you mean by “decent conversation” Alex?

      I know my first comment was arguably not cool, but you deleted comments where I simply stated that this doesn’t represent the majority of the community. And that the article doesn’t represent both sides of the story, namely that of supportive players, which is generally journalism 101.

        I think where we are going wrong is that we assume this site aspires to journalistic standards. There are some authors here who do so aspire. Take Jason Schreier for one. I don't always agree with what he says, but he is pretty scrupulous about the way he says it. Other authors, on the other hand (naming no names, but you know who I mean) would rather construct a narrative, and only use sources which support and reinforce that narrative. True, this is not what a journalist should do, but again, this isn't a site that aspires to journalistic standards. Very frustrating (and sometimes confusing) for us readers though!

      I honestly think the moderation can be over the top here. Ive seen other peoples constructive or funny critique of an article be moderated, i've also seen my own critique moderated but i can see how my style is more harsh.

    There are already plenty of stats and studies on this.

    Women play more computer games then men.

    But gamer mentality and what they get from their games is vastly different.

    Conditions to this are the availability of casual and mobile phone games online nnaking women the largest casual gaming market.

    While the presence of hardcore competive games like FPS, Mobas and battlegrounds is skewed to male mentality of competition and completionists.

    Across console and pc the distribution of roleplaying or story titles is pretty evenly split.

    The fact that the game is now mobile means it became the attention of a majority female market... do they play with the same competiveness us to be seen. But you will tend to see a more casualol play style at the beginning which will lead to a demographic split of hardcore female players and frustrated casualol players in the end... especially if the boys dont stop being dicks about it.

      "Women play more computer games then men."

      Is there an actual source for that? Everything, and i mean everything, I have seen, heard, read, experienced, in my life kinda says the opposite to an extreme degree. I don't care either way, it's just one of those statements that seems so unbelievable - like if you said "It snows more in Egypt than it does in Germany". - i have no reason not to believe you, it just.....doesn't seem right.

        You would be surprised how many women play mobile games - there are a LOT! Every time I travel to work on the train, it's mostly the women who have mobile phones and tablets out playing mobile games.

      Statistics state that as of last year, the split is 20/80 in favour of men in console AND PC gaming.

      Mobile gaming is huge and pushes in favour of women, causing the overall to swing towards women except as of this year, where men slightly edged out.

      And it's only 20/80 if you factor in Facebook as computer games due to the difficulty of negating them statistically. Without it, the female percent drops to a third.

      Assuming that outside Candy crush on their phone that women do not play videogames, is true in the vast amount of circumstances.

        To which statistics are you referring? Everything I've ever read on the subject suggests somewhere in the region of 40/60 to 50/50, not 20/80

        Also why wouldn't you want to include games on fb or mobile in the statistics, they're games right?

          Because they are a colossally different demographic. They do not require remotely the amount of investment and because of this the games are designed differently.

          If you want to make a statistics about how many people are regulary exposed to videogames, cool, statistics good. If you want to judge the percentage of people who play serious games, then the statistics can't include mobile and Facebook.

          It's like saying that console gamers have dropped off massively since the Wii, because the current gen consoles don't scratch it's numbers. Of course they don't, the wii's sales are mostly casuals who mostly only play mobile games now or bought it for a fitness program.

          All statistics state mobile gaming is much more a chick thing then a guy thing. Mobile gaming is also much bigger then consoles, at least in terms of individual gamers. Of course if you mesh them it ends up uneveningly making most gamers out to be female.

          Most statistics without mobile or casual social Facebook games end with widely male one sided numbers. I generally refer to some internet study with 70-80K or something people with my 20% female number (the actual statistics was like 22%, but me) that included Facebook social games purely played on PC, and it found that most female entrants primary game was some form of bejeweled or social game.

          I'd link, but frankly I can't be arsed.

    These are the type of male gamers that make me dread the future. Though in some ways the only reason some choose to act like this, in the 'safety' of online anonymity, is that they wouldnt have the courage to talk to women in their real lives like this and know in a real setting it would make them sound pathetic and sad. So they enjoy these minuscule moments of (what they see as) empowerment.

      I think they would talk to women like this in real life, but only if surrounded by their homies. Put them on their own, and they'd change tune real quick.

      There'll always be cockroaches like this, whether in gaming or elsewhere. Best not to give them the time of day.

      It's the John Gabriel Internet Fuckwad Theory:

      Audience + Anonymity = Fuckwad

      Just the classic boy pulls girl he likes piggy tails.

      Yeah. It's really weird to see men so much younger than me coming out with this sexist trash. I always thought social evolution would be a lot faster than this. They seem to be going backwards. Social media makes their voices a lot louder though.

    The way that some people are going on about it on Twitter reminds me of when Metallica's "Black Album" was released.

    Women have always been gamers. People are just seeing it more often because it's mobile now, and decades of sexism makes it more advantageous for a woman NOT to disclose her gender. When I was playing Maple Story at age 11, I had a guy in my guild trying to groom me for some kind of creepy moe little sister relationship. Now at age 26, I absolutely feel compelled to behave more aggressively in-game than I do out-of-game. It's a self-fulfilling circumstance: create an environment that's dangerous/repulsive for women participating in it, they then take steps to obscure or change their identities while participating, therefore it seems like less women, or only "certain types of women" (i.e. aggressive/butch) play games when in reality it's just... all of them, lol. All types. Everyone plays games. It'll be a happy day when people can just UNCLENCH about gender.

      Statistics say otherwise, unless you factor mobile gaming as the same as console or PC, which is just plain dishonesty.

        It's not dishonesty, it's just an uncomfortable truth for someone who stakes way too much of their identity on the idea that being a gatekeeper makes them cooler and more valid.

          Claiming mobile gaming is the same as PC or console (outside some indie games and flash games) outside a very small group of titles (like I guess fortnite mobile now) IS dishonest.

          The difference is shrinking, but it's still far and away a different thing. It's got different design mentalities, different expectations, different communities and different dominant genres.

          Stop acting like everyone who disagrees with this is some kind of hyper mascliline beta male who relys on gaming for his self identity. It's imature.

          Last edited 29/03/18 4:53 pm

            WHERE DID YOU HIDE THE KEY TO THIS GATE?!

              Its not gating. The gaming community is not that toxic. Every community has expectations of knowledge and experience that rejects newcomers. Its in the nature of the concept.

              Trying to act like someone who plays bejeweled is the same as someone who anticipates a well advertised RPG or plays Multiplayer competitive shooters is a absurd as it sounds.

              Im not even super elitist about it. Even a dude who plays nothing but Cod and Fifa is still way more of a gamer then 99% of pure mobile gamers.

              Its not gating. The gaming community is not that toxic. Every community has expectations of knowledge and experience that rejects newcomers. Its in the nature of the concept.

              Trying to act like someone who plays bejeweled is the same as someone who anticipates a well advertised RPG or plays Multiplayer competitive shooters is a absurd as it sounds.

              Im not even super elitist about it. Even a dude who plays nothing but Cod and Fifa is still way more of a gamer then 99% of pure mobile gamers.

      EXACTLY, I'm a console gamer the PS4 has always been my jam. It's not about what gender plays the most games its about the invisibility of the female gender in the gaming community to begin with.
      I'm female so what? I love games.
      Especially shooters.

    I understand and agree that tweets like these shouldn't have a place in the public forum, but that's the problem I have with twitter as the sole source of any kind of journalism. You can fish for any sort of opinion on there, it's a soapbox where anyone can rant on about their hurt feelings.

    If you're going to present an article like this then surely you should present some different sources, otherwise it looks lile you're really going for the cherry pick.

    And yes, I understand that what the writer is trying to point out is that these people exist, they're not the majority, and from the manner these tweets are written, they're even likely to be the same kids at school that are still upset that they haven't got a date to their graduation dance.

      That's Patricia's style, and it's exactly why I usually skip anything she writes - because it's all Twitter outrage nonsense.

      But that said the concept of the fake gamer girl and the extreme hostility towards them is a very real thing. IMO it's a remnant of the 90s and early 2000s when gaming was seen as a nerdy and socially mainstream unacceptable activity, an attitude which has entirely flipped in the younger generation. The fact that it persists and erupts over Fortnite having a mobile port is pretty sad.

        I wonder whether some of the backlash is guys who have been laughed at (or think they've been laughed at) by the popular girls because "ew they're gamers". It isn't hard to imagine them being enraged that their little world is being invaded by people who laughed at them (whether they really did or not) and then seeking some payback.

      Twitter journalism really irks me, it's not a slice of the public consciousness if you can specifically select comments to make your own narrative.

      I think it was back in 2010 I did a journalism unit at Uni. We were all required to make Twitter accounts and submit five tweets with each of your articles showing you engaging in Twitter. The reasoning was Twitter is the new source of news. I found it retarded.

        Good grief.. what course and which uni would waste your hecs on that?! I mean i understand media subjects and analysing twitter as a phenomen/vehicle for discourse like say online forums and facebook... but to say twitter as a news source?! You might as well call wikipedia as the Encyclopedia Britannica!

    Male gamers being hostile to female gamers?

    Surely that never happens.................

      No it happens. Just like harassment happens to everyone and anyone.

      Its just rather rich that the article is selectively cherry picking stuff again from twitter

    Why would you play Fortnite on mobile?

    and yes, I am aware that the article had an answer for it, but I still don't see the benefit of playing Fortnite on mobile compared to any other platform.

      I don't see the benefit in not having money to buy a console or pc either.

        Any of those girlfriends could easily ask their boyfriends for a try. They didn't need to wait until mobile.

          What about the ones that aren't girlfriends? What about playing on a controller you don't have 10 year experience with? What about a billion other things that aren't ask your boyfriend for a try? What a stupid response, as though they bided their time waiting for mobile.

          Just like how Borderlands 2 had a girlfriend mode for all the girlfriends! It wasn't at all a stupid gatekeeping narrative invented by cynical people.

        You could argue that if the people are playing on $200 android phones not brand new iPhones. Buy a console and a cheaper but perfectly serviceable phone then you get the best of both worlds.

          Why would I do that if I don't normally glance at AAA games?

            You brought up the "not having money to buy a console", why buy a $1000 phone if money's that tight? Not aimed at you specifically, just the people who buy super expensive phones then complain they don't have money for something else.

            After all if you're not playing serious games on the phone anyway you don't really need the latest high end hardware anyway.

              You can get an expensive phone by paying an extra $10-20 a month on too of a service you basically must have, which is more manageable than spending hundreds of dollars at once on a trifle.

              People already own phones for other purposes.

              Phones aren't phones anymore. They are Star Trek pocket devices. They're computers, offices, leisure tools, and communication devices. If you can only afford one really good piece of tech, you'd be nuts to go for anything other than a phone. It functions to do most things a modern person needs in life and you can pay it off over time, eliminating the huge financial outlay. Buying a console or a desktop PC just doesn't even begin to be an attractive option until you've got a certain level of income.

                None of that invalidates the fact that a $200 phone would do for most people. There isn't really a need for a $1000 phone if all you're doing is taking selfies and surfing the net. While I don't have a problem with high end devices existing, I do have a problem with the "oh I can't afford x but I'll throw a shitload of money at a phone" mentality.

                Hell, considering consoles are under $400 for a decent one you could buy a $600 phone that kicks ass and a console for the same price as a high end phone.

                  It's still a purchase on a single item that serves no utility. And it still means a several hundred dollar outlay that just isn't there for a phone, no matter how expensive.

                  If a person has to choose between:
                  a) a mediocre all-in-one life device and an entertainment-only device for which they have to outlay a large some of money or
                  b) A high-end all-in-one life device that doubles as an entertainment device and has zero large financial outlay
                  they are going to choose option B almost every time. Only someone who already has a serious emotional investment in the entertainment-only device would even think about it.

                  @pokedad: Can't reply to your message directly for some reason.

                  For starters buying a phone because it's "free" upfront isn't usually the best way to buy it. Largely, because in the long run you'll wind up paying a lot more overall. Same goes for pretty much all rent-buy/hire-purchase type deals. Not saying you absolutely shouldn't get a phone on a plan but you should do the math and work out whether it's really good value or not. It may actually be a better idea getting a credit card, buying the phone outright then cutting up the credit card and not using it. Pay the purchase off as quick as you can. Also means you can switch to a better deal for your phone calls/data whenever you like.

                  I'm not sure that a console counts as an expensive, large outlay. You can currently get an Xbox One S with four games for $299. That's not large and expensive. Sure if you want to buy the top of the line XBox One X it's $600+ but it's certainly not necessary.

                  As for no utility? Are you referring to the console? Because they have a bunch of utility. Besides the games you can use them for streaming movies, playing music, playing movies from DVD/Blu/UHD discs. Browsing the internet and there are a bunch of other little apps on them. While that's primarily entertainment, well hell so is what most people use the phone for.

                  As for mediocre all-in-one, I assume you're referring to a phone? If you're getting a $600 phone it's not going to be mediocre. You can get a Pixel (one not two) for just under $600 and a Galaxy S7 for just over $600 outright. If you go to a telco you can get them on plans quite cheap. And you can get phones like the Sony XA Ultra or XZ Premium even cheaper, same with HTC or Oppo.

                  The thread ended up with too many embedded replies to it won't let you do it.

                  By the time phones were a must-have device, I was no longer poor, so it's hard for me to actually explain it well. sorry if it comes across as blunt, but basically those calculations about the best option only happen when you aren't poor. Being poor is expensive as fuck, so you can bet your bottom dollar that practically every person who is poor does not outright buy a phone. Hell, given the predatory turn the phone industry has taken, they're probably leasing their phones because it saves them $10 a month. A $300 outlay is entirely out of the question for many people, no matter how much value they'll get out of it over time. They just don't have it.

                  @pokedad: I completely understand that. In the past I was caught in the same situation. That's why I realise that buying outright is actually better because in the long run it costs so much more being stuck on a plan. I'm just trying to get some information out to the younger people who maybe haven't thought it through (like I did back in the day).

                  As I mentioned the best way is to get a credit card with a low maximum and exercise discipline (ie: don't use it after your initial phone purchase). I know it's hard but it actually works out cheaper and has more flexibility. Work it out like this; if you are getting a phone and plan where you pay, say $60 a month compare that to just getting the plan without the handset payments. The difference per month is what you could pay on a credit card. Work out how long that would take to pay off the credit card (counting interest) and then compare that to your total plan cost. If it's lower then the credit card route is definitely the way to go.

                  Oh, and people need to be careful about the plans. Vodafone is listing a plan for a Samsung s8 with the $30 red plan at $63/month for 36 months. So handset payments of $33/month. They're saying in the fine print, "total min cost $1218". There's no math I can come up with where that's actually right.

                  $63x36 = $2,268 (phone and plan over 36 months)
                  $33x36 = $1,188 (just phone over 36 months)
                  $30x36 = $1,080 (just plan over 36 months)

                  I don't know how they're calculating that but it highlights the need for care for a person signing up. Work out the overall cost yourself. One thing to note, that figure also changes when you go to the "shop" page and becomes $1,188 (ie: the phone cost).

                  Anyway, looking at shopbot the cheapest outright S9 is $914 (though I'm not sure I'd trust the seller) or $999 from one I'd trust. So you could save $274 or $189 buying outright. Then you'd just need to work out how long it'd take to pay off $914/999 on the credit card at $30/month and the amount of interest that'd accrue.

                  Part of the issue of continuing poverty is that poor people just aren't educated on how to best use their money. Or even if they are, doing those things is easy in theory, but hard in practice. When your life is an endless drag of shit food and shit sleep on a shit bed so you can do a boring job that you hate wearing shit clothes so you can have just enough money to keep doing it all a bit longer, using that little bit of spare cash to do something fun can be the difference between crippling depression or just regular ennui.
                  Putting that $50 a month away for a year so you can have a phone that costs a bit less over 2 years really doesn't feel like an achievable goal. I mean, it is physically achievable, but life grinds you down and splitting a bottle of cheap vodka with a mate starts looking more and more tempting every weekend.

                  Thanks. I'll have a read. I've read a lot about that kind of thing. Essentially, free stuff is for the rich, too. Companies give shit away if you have money because they want you to become a customer. If you don't have money, you get less, despite needing it more.

    Man wtf is wrong with these boys, I would've given anything to play games with girls

      Typical juvenile male alpha thinking?

      Its not so much that the gender but moreso the perception of claiming dominance by denigrating the other party. If you cant out shine them by skill then you take the other route by elevating yourself by denigrating the other party. These kids will use any excuse to make the other party look bad, oh your the fatty, oh your the skinny nerd, oh your the emo looser, oh your a girl!

      Having an anonymous outlet just excacerbates it

        Pretty much little shit kids online in a nutshell. They usually aren't racist, sexist alpha male, they just scream shit at people because their anonymous and it gets anger out.

        Which is still bs btw and I'm totally supportive of service wide bans for this shit on PSN and steam. Fuck the little cunts.

    Some of those tweets are cringe worthy. I can see a lot of those dudes being single for a fairly long time.

    Blah blah blah random twitter nonsense. Teenage me would be stoked to play some Fortnite at school with girls and I imagine most normal people would be too.

    Cherry-picked tweets of a select few toxic individuals should not be the basis of a such a sweeping generalization that Fortnite on mobile is causing a widespread division between the sexes.
    The closest thing to interesting in this article is this part:
    Tanner Bachnick, a Catholic teacher who works with teens, polled his students as to why they disliked the mobile version of Fortnite and was generally told by a dozen pupils that it was a "horrible port."
    Which Patricia then goes and basically says "This is wrong because my opinion".
    It would've been nice to see some results from that poll. It's the only thing that comes close to having any sort of indication of what's actually going on. Which she then goes on to ignore because her narrative is more important (I don't even know why she mentioned it in the first place if she was just going to just disregard it). Maybe trying to accuse people of hiding their sexism behind technical superiority? I dunno, the whole article is sort of weirdly normalizing the stereotype that girls don't buy gaming hardware.

    TFW your 8 year old half-sister's father's name is Nick Fischer who is also teaches inside schools :p

    Also, STOP FUCKING DISCRIMINATING AGAINST GENDER IN GAMES. LOOKIN AT YOU MOBAS.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now