Sexism in the industry

[carnex]

Maybe after the sexism/feminism stuff dies down, racism will be the next big thing. Better representation for Russians!

The Russians are not a race, bro. They are Caucasians, like you and I. They are represented adequately.
Other than that, I agree with you. It's a fad, and it will go away soon enough.

Yep they are represented equally, as source of all the bad things in the world. Real equality right there.

But, from what I talked do Russian gamers, for the most part anger over that is just temporary since it's only games.

I will not repeat myself too much, search my previous posts? if you want elaboration on this, but I will say this. There is no sexism, sexism as term lost all credible meaning on internet, there are just as many female oriented games just not in 60USD model, different demographics play different games and pay in different ways, risk your own money and see how easy is to dump 2 years and 10+Mil USD on project with lower chance of positive return.

No, the vile f*ckwits who sent her rape/death threats for daring to come up with 'tropes vs women' kicked it off a good deal more.

Me and my best friend are on the board of NGO for educating children without parents. My fiance is one of teachers and psychologist for them. And we got various threats based on that. When will you people realize that this is internet, anonymity draws out the worst in people. Not the mention she went to 4chan, the source of /b/tards, the cesspool of western internet to draw them out.

 

[runic knight]

Simple answer? Because it is a topic that is easy to latch onto and have an opinion of and because it is often treated the exact same by outside views as the violence debate, namely that it fits the general consensus of what gamers are and has attracted attention of people who don't like that preconceived idea and wish to rally against it. For violence, it is morality groups looking for something to blame real world violence on. For sexism it is some morally outraged looking for something to blame real world problems on. Thus, it gets media attention and sparks more debate then aspects they overlook (such as, gaming policies, second hand sales or whathave you). no that is not to say the debate is limited to those sorts, merely they are the sorts who fuel the debates by keeping it in the public light and often in a very bias view.

Add onto that the simply overlooked detail that gamers themselves have been having the discussion on this topic for a long time among themselves. Fans demand things such as more female characters, yet games with them do not do as well sales wise as others, which in turn means less money risked when making such games and the cycle effect that leads to.


Oh, did I say simple answer? Yeah, my bad, this isn't really simple so much as a big ass mess of factors. Sorry.

 

[runic knight]

Because Anita Sarkeesian kicked it off with her Tropes vs Women thing.

But yeah, the real problem is that devs have a hard time making money off of things that aren't straight/white/cis/male. Hopefully that will go away as more people enter the industry.

No, the vile f*ckwits who sent her rape/death threats for daring to come up with 'tropes vs women' kicked it off a good deal more.

I would say this is true. I liked her videos before the internet blew up with rage over her. Even so, I think I would have forgotten all about her if not for the fact that she's treated like Satan incarnate for having inoffensive opinions about things people like. The reactions to Anita made me realize that the problems with the industry stem very much from the fanbase that they are trying to please. A fanbase that will harass/stalk/threaten a woman on the internet for daring to have opinions counter to their own.

The problem with feminist is their base. A base willing to threaten and harass their opposition over the internet.
The problems with conservatives is their political base. A base willing to threaten and harass their opposition over the web.
The problem with Liberals is their political base. A base willing to...
The problem with Christians....
The problem with Atheist...

There is a pattern to what you are saying here. The pattern is that Anita is not special in how she is treated. That does not mean it is good, far from it, merely it is disingenuous to claim that gamers are somehow unique in this or that those that do such crap somehow represent the whole.

 

[runic knight]

-quick snip-

The aspect they seem to call privilege is the idea that the audience is targeted in the first place. More protagonists are male and white then not, thus is it a privilege. The obvious issue here is that the reason the protagonists are male and white is not because games want to appeal to that demographic so much as games that had those trait are more likely to sell better then without. It is not to give one demographic an advantage, but rather the traits people claim to that just have a better chance to sell well.
A comparison would be to talk about heroines of teenage romance novels. Majority are young female white girls who are generically normal. Not because that is who they wish to only buy the product, but because that had the biggest response from people willing to buy a product like it. Whoever buys the product the most tend to have the highest chance of getting traits they respond well to repeated.
But I guess for some "continue making the product with traits that sell best" is privilege. I wonder, is it privilege that dresses are hard to find in my size even if it is pretty obvious my size doesn't sell well?

 

[Psychobabble]

Because Anita Sarkeesian kicked it off with her Tropes vs Women thing.

But yeah, the real problem is that devs have a hard time making money off of things that aren't straight/white/cis/male. Hopefully that will go away as more people enter the industry.

Yeah they totally need to enforce some kind of "Affirmative Action" for video game creators whereby they are forced to create a given quota of non-straight/non-white/non-cis/non-male targeted games. That will fix things.

 

[carnex]

I find it funny that that the group that is suppose to champion the cause of "girl gamers" doesn't seem to know what type of games they play or what their interest in games are. They know very little, even though there is data on the web about their preferences. This is nothing more than ego trip to make them look righteous.

http://www.gamepolitics.com/2010/07/07/study-looks-what-girls-want-out-games
http://usabilitynews.org/video-games-males-prefer-violence-while-females-prefer-social/

Both of this "researches" present nothing or real interest and are as laughable as Albanian airforce. There are valid researches out there which are partially available to public. Sniff arround more and you might find those. Theese are as bad as certain videos that caused quite an uproar lately. Seriously, I get your point, but there are sources of valid data out there, it's an interesting read.

Also, let me correct myself. There is no epidemic of, or systemic, or even significant number of games that are sexist. I'm sure there are some that are built upon that notion. Just like there are white power games (ZOG Nighmare for example). But those are not the subject of discussion.

 

[EXos]

-quick snip-

The aspect they seem to call privilege is the idea that the audience is targeted in the first place. More protagonists are male and white then not, thus is it a privilege. The obvious issue here is that the reason the protagonists are male and white is not because games want to appeal to that demographic so much as games that had those trait are more likely to sell better then without. It is not to give one demographic an advantage, but rather the traits people claim to that just have a better chance to sell well.
A comparison would be to talk about heroines of teenage romance novels. Majority are young female white girls who are generically normal. Not because that is who they wish to only buy the product, but because that had the biggest response from people willing to buy a product like it. Whoever buys the product the most tend to have the highest chance of getting traits they respond well to repeated.
But I guess for some "continue making the product with traits that sell best" is privilege. I wonder, is it privilege that dresses are hard to find in my size even if it is pretty obvious my size doesn't sell well?

The reason the main protagonist is often depicted as a white male is because in the beginning the people who gamed the most were white males.
And even though the AAA titles still feature white males. On the indie circuit how ever the variety is increasing extremely fast.
Let the industry evolve naturally; sure it's going to take a while but with more and more people that start to game (Of all genders, ages, ethnicities etc.) it will change. Sure we shouldn't bury the issue but if you think someone like Seerkasian will actually help, you are mistaking.
For that matter most western movies also portrait a White male protagonist. So where is your complaint about that.

As for your dresses analogy; Let's talk about statistics:

Sizes in clothing are often determined by taking the average measurements of the average woman or man and going a fixed distance to either side of the Gauss curve.
That's just the way the world works. It's not fair sometimes and changing it takes time!

 

[Zhukov]

Maybe after the sexism/feminism stuff dies down, racism will be the next big thing. Better representation for Russians!

The Russians are not a race, bro. They are Caucasians, like you and I. They are represented adequately.
Other than that, I agree with you. It's a fad, and it will go away soon enough.

Well, "Better representation for Slavs!" if you want to get technical.

They're white, but they're still a distinct ethnic group.

 

[carnex]

Maybe after the sexism/feminism stuff dies down, racism will be the next big thing. Better representation for Russians!

The Russians are not a race, bro. They are Caucasians, like you and I. They are represented adequately.
Other than that, I agree with you. It's a fad, and it will go away soon enough.

Well, "Better representation for Slavs!" if you want to get technical.

They're white, but they're still a distinct ethnic group.

Well, Slavs are rather large group of nations that are separated into two groups, eastern and southern Slavs. So it's much wider group of which EX U.S.S.R. countries and Serbia get the role of antagonists. And even then, Serbia is there only in few games, while Russia gets majority of mud.

But even then, Zoran Lazarević from Uncharted 2 felt really, really painful to me (I'm Serbian btw) given the whole history of being only side getting the blame for everything all sides did in that bloody war. And while I had my right to feel offended, I know that I don't have right NOT to feel offended, nor should I ever get one!

 

[red_bedbug]

I don't now, nor ever have thought that this problem is really about the objectified and oversexualized women in games, but rather the lack of women in games that aren't this way. Meaning for the overwhelming amount of women who have hyper-sexualized traits in games, such as large breasts, curvaceous features, pain animations and voice work that make it seem they are having sex, there are relatively few specifically designed women in games that are, well... real people. This is the real problem. I think if women were more well represented in games, this conversation would would delegated to the outer fringes of the conversation, to rear it's ugly head every time a game like Bayonetta, or Dead or Alive comes up, but quickly forgotten about as soon as the next big thing comes.

This. Take the example of Dragon's Crown ? if I'm not mistaken, the producers said it was to be a parody of body types in video games... but nobody saw it, and Dragon's Crown got shit smashed down on it. That says a lot if you have reached a point where female bodies drawn to look normal.

Because Anita Sarkeesian kicked it off with her Tropes vs Women thing.

But yeah, the real problem is that devs have a hard time making money off of things that aren't straight/white/cis/male. Hopefully that will go away as more people enter the industry.

No, the vile f*ckwits who sent her rape/death threats for daring to come up with 'tropes vs women' kicked it off a good deal more.

Moreso this... what really brought the topic to my attention were never the ridiculous-sized breasts and skimpy outfits, but the way people reacted whenever the possibility was brought up that there maybe perhaps some sexist elements in video games. Which very honestly... I never thought was anything new. Even my boyfriend had a negative reaction and took it personally when he realised people were discussing it seriously, and he is normally a resonable man.

Now, I am not a stranger to internet "trolling" and the effect that anonimity has on people, but the reactions towards Anita seemed very, very overblown to me. Moreso, I noticed that violent reactions happened EVERY TIME somebody dared to mention that there might be sexist elements in a game, moreso than any other topic that was brought up, which confused me and led me to think that actually, yeah. There just might be a problem.

So yeah, blame it on that portion of gamers, trolls and other citizens of the internet that send death and rape threats or comments such as "I'll just f*ck her until she learns her place again" (that is still the one that infuriates me the most).

Also, the fact that it's controversial is also a factor... journalists and the media latch onto it because the know it will attract attention. Which DOES attract attention and creates MORE violent reactions, which attract the attention to the media and...

You get my point.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

I'm gonna go with the "it's the biggest fad" argument as well. I'm sure we can all agree gaming has its problems-- a good mess of them-- but it seems that not having well-represented females is the biggest one people argue for. I find that people are saying they are tired of 30 something, brown haired, white men, but usually to argue that they want more women in there place. That argument is rarely used for arguing for a diversity in race or age or a for more games that can entertain without the use of violence. With all the problems gaming has, I find it odd to only work on one as an end all be all.

This could be because certain groups with their certain agendas are using gaming as their example to argue against certain social biases, and other groups aren't doing that as much, but hey, that's just me speculating.

To be honest, female representation isn't my end all and be all. I recognize the lack of racial diversity on both ends as well. I'm just fighting on one border at a time, here.
Once female representation goes up, and diversifies, I'll happily push for PoC in games, more LGBTQI themes, etc.

I can't debunk your speculations, but I wanna say I'm just here representing me, and my ideas. Any relation to the views of other groups is purely coincidental.

I mean, I'm asian in appearance, female, and lesbian. I've got a lot of stuff to rally for, but not enough energy to fight on multiple fronts.

I am kinda dissapoointed there's so few threads about race, though. I would've thought someone would've tried championing it on these forums sooner or later.


-----
OT, why is it considered important to gamers? I can't speak for anyone but myself.


Well, for one, it's that sexism is invasive of the industry on many many levels. It's that it's interfering with developer creativity. Sex sells, prevention of female protagonists, put women not on the front cover of a game, etc. It's not really that it's in a game that's the issue it's that in the big picture, it's pretty much a dominant force that you'd be hard pressed to not be exposed to sexism as far as women are concerned, playable, or not. It's like violence in that regard, but the thing is that Sexism needn't be as rampant as violence.
It's making gaming less inviting to female gamers IMO, and likely less profitable due to that.

Frankly the fact it's put fear into developers such as the people behind Bastion, and the upcoming Transistor leading them to seek different income for game development, and production. It's likely there's more than just them, too. the rampant sexism is basically screwing the game industry via killing off our game diversity, and gamer diversity. I think that's bad for near everyone that enjoys gaming.

Honestly, after decades of gaming, I'm rather tired of playing the typical 20s-30s white guy with short hair, and arguable personality/charisma that dominates gaming.
Playing Dudebro games all the time got old a while ago.
My S.O. is in the same boat.
I doubt we're the only 2 people on the planet that feel this way, or similar to it.


This is no bandwagon issue for me, I really want to see more female characters, and diversity with them, and the games they're in.

This topic comes and goes, but it remains. The only real way to prevent it form arising again is to remedy the problem.
It can't be covered up, it can't be explained away, it can't be excused. I've seen most every excuse in the book, and yet some years later, here the topic is, raised again, time and time again. So long as the issue exists, people will talk about it.

 

[Fox12]

This isn't a post calling for more/better representation of women, nor is it a defense of said sexism. It is just asking why is this the issue that is most often seen as a genuine concern by actual gamers?

Why is it that sexism in gaming is inherently wrong, while things like violence, glorification of crime and racism (certain nations always being villains, even in games not based on real world conflicts) are not?

Is it that the sexism is subtextual while the other issues are not making them easier to dismiss as 'fantasy'? Is it that there's actually a huge amount of women out there wanting to get into video games but just can't because of the sexism? Is it because the type of gamers who defend the sexism are just so completely stupid that they must be smacked down? Is it that, unlike other issues the sexism is reflective of a real world problem with a lot of gamers?

I myself would love more female protagonists without the giant boobs and so on but I'd also like more protagonists that are asian without necessarily being a king fu master and more games with violence that bother to back it up with a strong story and actual motivation than violence for violence's sake.

Captcha: too bad

Because of the way it portrays people. First of all, violence can be justifiable. If you're defending yourself, if you're defending someone else, or if you're a soldier, for instance. That's not true for sexism. You can also make a statement about violence by telling a violent story. Violence can also be inappropriate, however. If you were to have violence only aimed at a certain group, like a white protagonist killing all black enemies, then that would certainly raise a few eye brows. It's the same with sex. I have no problem with the act of sex in a game, but if a specific gender is portrayed in a sexist fashion, or if a character exists solely for fanservice, then I think that's a problem. Essentially the problem is that a certain group is being portrayed in a way that undermines their value and worth. If a female character exists in order to pander to male gamers then a lot of people would find that insulting. There is no justification for that. You can have sex without sexism just like you can have violence without the story devolving into brainless nonsense.

 

[runic knight]

-quick snip-

The aspect they seem to call privilege is the idea that the audience is targeted in the first place. More protagonists are male and white then not, thus is it a privilege. The obvious issue here is that the reason the protagonists are male and white is not because games want to appeal to that demographic so much as games that had those trait are more likely to sell better then without. It is not to give one demographic an advantage, but rather the traits people claim to that just have a better chance to sell well.
A comparison would be to talk about heroines of teenage romance novels. Majority are young female white girls who are generically normal. Not because that is who they wish to only buy the product, but because that had the biggest response from people willing to buy a product like it. Whoever buys the product the most tend to have the highest chance of getting traits they respond well to repeated.
But I guess for some "continue making the product with traits that sell best" is privilege. I wonder, is it privilege that dresses are hard to find in my size even if it is pretty obvious my size doesn't sell well?

The reason the main protagonist is often depicted as a white male is because in the beginning the people who gamed the most were white males.
And even though the AAA titles still feature white males. On the indie circuit how ever the variety is increasing extremely fast.
Let the industry evolve naturally; sure it's going to take a while but with more and more people that start to game (Of all genders, ages, ethnicities etc.) it will change. Sure we shouldn't bury the issue but if you think someone like Seerkasian will actually help, you are mistaking.
For that matter most western movies also portrait a White male protagonist. So where is your complaint about that.

As for your dresses analogy; Let's talk about statistics:

Sizes in clothing are often determined by taking the average measurements of the average woman or man and going a fixed distance to either side of the Gauss curve.
That's just the way the world works. It's not fair sometimes and changing it takes time!

I agree. The industry itself is growing and the indie scene is probably the best place to find games that aren't pandering to the largest audience that has supported the hobby for the last 25 years.

My post was more my understanding of the logic that viewpoint usually uses, and the flaws inherent within it then anything else. It was not a defense of it, but actually an explanation of how it is justified but also how that justification falls flat, hence why my example supported your stance in the end. I certainly don't think of Sarkesian as anything but a cancer mind you. I recommend reading the post again from that light if you have the time, it is quite solidly a support.

 

[runic knight]

No one has said that heterosexuals should feel bad for being catered to, a cynic might point out that you're being so defensive because you feel guilty, but I'm not that sort of douchebag. The issue isn't that heterosexuals are over-represented in gaming, but that when they are portrayed its extremely poorly. Bioware is best known for being the "gay-friendly" company but I question that, their homosexual characters generally follow along a handful of obvious stereotypes and are extremely poorly represented. The homosexual characters in Mass Effect 3 exist more to facilitate the slashfic of the game's young female fans than to allow homosexual people to identify with anyone better.

Question. Why do they have to? The way you present it is disheartening, sure. It would be nice for games that include homosexuals in them did them more justice then stereotypes, but the vast majority of games do not touch upon the character's sexuality or any sort of larger social issue at all, and are far better for it. Furthermore, given the way overall western culture still behaves about the subject, it makes business sense to be timid around the subject as well, all the more so when games are still thought of as children's toys, that only make it worse.
So, the point remains, should companies feel awful for making a product that wont cause shit storms and still is targeted towards the largest demographic? I honestly can't see that justified, not ethically (because that would be me pushing my ideas onto the company making the product) and not practically.

They make gold-plated staples, so yes, to appeal to a wealthy demographic you find a way it more expensive. There's a class of people out there who absolutely will buy gaudy, tasteless status symbols that wouldn't even fall under a generous definition of luxury item.

People through history have been persuaded to buy crap. Hell, the ideas of value itself stems in the idea that gold and jewels, things that have had little practical daily value til recently (electronics and tools use them), were used to barter for service and even people as property. What is your point here about people with wealth today having products mad designed to take some of their wealth? I feel this entire point is really removed from the discussion of sexism and video games. Men and women pay the same, so why mention it at all here?

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything he said. "Wealthy" is a relative term, it's an expression of feeling rather than objective reality. Relatively speaking, you and I aren't wealthy when compared to even the upper 99% of the US but certainly so compared to the bottom 1%.

Again... have to ask what does any of this have to do with gaming or sexism?

You don't believe wealth confers privilege? This may be an example of someone simply saying what will win them the argument, because I don't think people who believe wealth is burdensome or neutral exists outside of the 1%. The wealthy part of "wealthy white heterosexual males" usually refers to the American middle class, but it's more diplomatic to say wealthy because people don't like to have their privilege pointed out because it tends to make them feel guilty.

Umm... I don't get your point here when that middle class is populated a roughly equivalent amount of females as well. So again, if they have equal opportunity to decide if they want to buy or not, but one gender decides yes more often, what is the problem with designing the product towards what sold best in the previous iteration?

One of the pitfalls of discussing privilege with people is that, as members of an in-group, they fail to see how the way they've been treated their entire lives is special or different. Often when you try to point this out, even to minorities and privilege within their own in-group, their response is to get defensive and start pointing out their hardships, as if no privileged person has ever faced a hardship. Or maybe that because they face hardships it's not real privilege. In that case, there's no such thing as privilege.

You are arguing online about sexism in video games. Video games are an entertainment and by default a luxury item. Furthermore, a far as luxury items go, they are pretty accessible in many respects, such as indie games or steam sales or just buying older systems. How does any of this relate to "white man's guilt" stuff you keep spitting out here?

In your case because white people don't receive tangible benefits from their games, like kinect registering that you have an improper amount of melanin and docking you XP, you assume there is no privilege. Well, tangible and monetary rewards for being part of the in-group is one form of privilege, but you've committed a fallacy of composition by assuming that demonstrating games don't suffer from one form of privilege means they suffer from no forms of privilege. To demonstrate this: consider how many games are made to appeal to women, minorities, trans persons, homosexuals, etc.

Appeal is not the same sort of privileged. The way you present it here, any product that caters to the people who buy it gives them privileged. While arguable there, you jump to the conclusion that is based along gender or race lines. That is where you fail though. It is based on what sold well enough before. White people do not have some special advantage for being white in games. No one is denied access on gender or skin color. What you are doing here is trying to say long term fans should feel guilty if the products they buy favor what they want more then people who don't buy the product as much, which is simply absurd.
Let me try to explain. Lets say I sell dresses. Now, dresses will predominantly sell well to women because of culture presumes influencing people who want to buy them (culture says mostly women). Now, according to you, women have a privilege here because as a result of them buying dresses more, the dresses will start to cater to what sold well the last time, and pick up traits that appeal more to that gender then the other. The issue is that the "privileged" is not related to gender because of the dress makers, but rather because of the choices of the individual people who refused to buy the dresses in the first place, thereby allowing the desires of others to shape the product. Coming back later on and claiming sexism because it is suddenly hard to find a dress large enough and in the color you want after you as part of a collective whole largely ignored the industry for decades is ridiculous. And expecting it to change just because you want it to is the very definition of "privileged" (defined by my Webster's here as "A special advantage or consideration".)
Please, show me some rewards for being white in games. Show me some examples of tangible or monetary advantage I get with games for the race I belong to or the gender I am. Explain to me why the lack of female protagonists is somehow advantageous to me or the millions of other gamers who are a bit sick of that shit themselves.

 

[MammothBlade]

Hey the whole industry is entertainment, so basically everything is a first world problem.

Heck all the problems you listed about every atari game had at least one of them lol.

But if you can't enjoy little big planet because it's sack boy instead of sack girl well then... You have an almost meaningless problem with your luxury item you don't have to purchase.

I think you're missing the point; the first world problems meme exists to poke fun of trivial complaints not worthy of any real consideration. By classifying the depiction of women in gaming as a "first world problem" you're essentially saying their depiction is a trivial complaint not worth of any real consideration. Zhukov seemed to be point out how ridiculous this complaint is and how easily it can be expanded into other areas of gaming. In other words, there's no such thing as a valid complaint when it comes to gaming.

It's not so much a "first world problem", as an issue of less relevance. Less sexism in the gaming industry would be great, but let's not kid ourselves that it has the same weight as cutting down on wage slavery, war crimes, or political corruption. Every issue has a weight of importance. Putting all your energy into X detracts from more pressing concerns.

Cutting down on sexism is, in gaming terms, an optional side-quest. Would help the overall situation of society to cut down on it.

Sure I'd boycott a developer if they put out a blatantly sexist advert as a show of solidarity. But I wouldn't boycott them just for not having any playable female characters, unless there was some sort of malicious intent behind excluding XX chromosomes from the character roster. Otherwise, there might be legit reasons.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

No one has said that heterosexuals should feel bad for being catered to,

When someone calls it a "privilege" and I constantly hear people saying "white, straight, male's" like it's some kind of dirty combination of words, yes, I see it as people trying to make them feel bad for their "privilege".

a cynic might point out that you're being so defensive because you feel guilty, but I'm not that sort of douchebag.

I fail to see how I'm being defensive, especially when you're assuming I'm white and heterosexual just because I'm sick of seeing people talking like that all the time.

And it really doesn't come off like you not being a, as you put it, "douchebag" when you still say it. It just comes off as you being passive aggressive.

The issue isn't that heterosexuals are over-represented in gaming, but that when they are portrayed its extremely poorly.

??? Did you mean to say, "But that homosexuals are portrayed poorly"?

Bioware is best known for being the "gay-friendly" company but I question that, their homosexual characters generally follow along a handful of obvious stereotypes and are extremely poorly represented. The homosexual characters in Mass Effect 3 exist more to facilitate the slashfic of the game's young female fans than to allow homosexual people to identify with anyone better.

I just see that as what people have been saying about pandering to minorities leads to. It leads to a certain character just being put in to fulfill a quota or look good instead of it being done with true care. Of course it's not about giving homosexuals someone to identify with, because the rhetoric for having homosexual characters is usually really bad. More often than not, it's not some impassioned argument about how someone wants to have a character that they identify with in terms of sexuality with nuanced arguments that come from the heart. Usually it just comes out as, "We want homosexual characters!" This is what it means when someone talks about Social Justice Warriors, people that are arguing for something without actually doing any research or having any actual experience or aren't actually effected by it.

Or if you want a simpler explanation. Pandering is like fast food. It gets you what you want quickly, but it's not very good.

They make gold-plated staples, so yes, to appeal to a wealthy demographic you find a way it more expensive.
There's a class of people out there who absolutely will buy gaudy, tasteless status symbols that wouldn't even fall under a generous definition of luxury item.

Yes, it can be to just show off but it can also be to experience or have something that gives a bigger sense of fulfillment due to how rare it is, to get a better quality product, or just because they have enough money and so "why not", ect. But my point is, how does that relate to games right now?

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything he said. "Wealthy" is a relative term, it's an expression of feeling rather than objective reality. Relatively speaking, you and I aren't wealthy when compared to even the upper 99% of the US but certainly so compared to the bottom 1%.

That's my point. It doesn't make sense to talk about games as if they're targeting the wealthy. Game companies are trying to wring out as much money as they can, but it's not about targeting the wealthy, it's just the wealthy that are less effected by it. Targeting the wealthy is like your example of the gold staples.

And continue with this to everything else you say about wealth. He said, "the wider privilege of generally wealthy straight white males to which the hobby is dominated by." We're talking about wealthy as it relates to games. Not in general.

In your case because white people don't receive tangible benefits from their games, like kinect registering that you have an improper amount of melanin and docking you XP, you assume there is no privilege. Well, tangible and monetary rewards for being part of the in-group is one form of privilege, but you've committed a fallacy of composition by assuming that demonstrating games don't suffer from one form of privilege means they suffer from no forms of privilege. To demonstrate this: consider how many games are made to appeal to women, minorities, trans persons, homosexuals, etc.

I actually didn't make an error. I deliberately ignored this argument because it doesn't work. How does playing as a white person give anyone any kind of privilege? Whoop de do. I'm playing a white person, it's not like I've played as dogs, dragons, pink balls, wolves, asians, demons, fish, monsters, slimes, worms, quadrilaterals and whatever before and not given a crap. I've played as women before and not felt like my "privilege" as a man was somehow harmed by the experience. I've actually wanted more women in games, I love it when a game comes out and you play as a different kind of character than what you usually see.

I'm an aspie and have only been able to play 2 games in my entire life that represented an aspie in any way. I have more right to whine and moan than anyone here if we're going to talk about minorities in the gaming sphere because last I checked, there's still more representations of women, other ethnicities, homosexuals, and even transgendered people in games than there have been those with aspergers. It's not about all of you "neurotypicals" somehow having a privilege that I don't get. It's about you guys making up more of the population than us!

 

[wulf3n]

... and two first world problems.

Really?

We're using that as an argument now? Because that could be applied to every single complaint relating to any video game ever made.

"I dislike the depiction of women in this game."
"Eh, first world problems."

"This game is riddled with bugs.
"First. World. Problems."

"It deletes my save file before the final level every time!"
"Hmm... your complaints would seem to indicate that you reside in a wealthy nation."

"This game is a soulless cash-in that mindlessly apes other, better games and is utterly devoid of any identity of its own."
"Say it with me now! First world problems!"

"The controls are terrible!"
"First world problems. Eat shit."

It would certainly save the denizens of the internet a lot of time.