Women gaming problems, solution discussion 1

[runic knight]

Ok, I know a topic generally talked to death, well, except the solution part, but still, bare with me. This will probably be a long read so

Now, in order to try and keep this thread somewhat civil, keep in mind this thread is NOT for
1. Discussing politics or political ideaology.
2. Certain controversial youtube video series creators
3. Opinions on what is or is not acceptable and thus should be enforced on the rest of the world.
So don't do any of that. We good now? ok.

---
One other thing, this is more or less my grand theory regarding a lot of issues within gaming itself. I delve into underlying causes of underlying causes in an effort to better understand the why so I can try to think of better ways to address things, or even if we can or should address those. If you disagree or have other causes or ideas you think attribute to them, or solutions of your own,that is what this thread is here to discuss. Gaming and issues withing the context of gaming.
---


Women and video games have had issues. I don't think that should be a surprise to anyone. The most notable of these of late tend to be participation, portrayal, and employment. These tend to be the core issues around which countless threads like this revolve and devolve into bickering pits of blackness. And they are going to be here too! Though hopefully something good will come out of all the soon to be arguing.

I don't think anyone in the gaming community here, or for the most part in general, has a problem with seeing these issues dealt with and fixed. Even those that do not see it as something harmful in how the industry is today in relation to the topics of portrayal, participation and the like still will acknowledge that there does exist disparity, and that efforts to address the disparity, if done in an intelligent and all encompassing manner, are still good for games as a whole and help it so everyone wins in the end anyways. We as gamers love this hobby and artform, and want to see it do better then before, to grow and keep giving us entertainment. The problem is, we don't know how to, or even agree on the details beyond that there is a problem. And all that good intention just seems to end up fueling a swirling mass of wasted energy and non-stop bickering. Instead, I want to direct some of that towards finding solutions for it, be they simple steps the on-the-ground community can do to ideas we can try to pressure the industry itself to adopt, even though they will probably ignore a lot of us.

But where do we start? Well, lets just jump in and try to understand the causes for the issues in the first place. When you got a cough, it can help to know why in order to know how to fix it. as such, lets start with the first one I mentioned: Participation.

--------------------

Participation
Female gamers have existed since the start. They have always been there, though in number far less then males, and far less then now. Why though? Well, part of it seems to be related to simple interest. I don't mean that women don't have interest in games, rather, they often just have less interest in the sort of games that are, and were, made by the mainstream. There is an established pattern in games today along genre lines that show gender interests in them. Games like The Sims, for instance, have a larger playerbase of females then of males, where as games such as CoD, this disparity is flipped. This isn't done because of some sort of prevention of the other gender from playing, but rather the decisions of the individuals revealing a pattern along gender lines. Now, the underlying reason for this pattern may be related to culture and social expectations shaping what either gender would like at a younger age. This in turn, especially supported by cultural reinforcement, would snowball in a way we see. Unfortunately, that means that going after that underlying cause would be near impossible with the best we, as gamers, could hope to do is to allow more acceptance of deviation of the established cultural norms and encourage more variety in games in hopes that has some effect on the overwhelming presence of the rest of culture as a whole. As such, it is my opinion that we have to stick around the level of the individual's decision to play the games in the first place in order to help with this disparity.

How do we do this though? Well, that is hard. There is a mentality, both within the gaming culture and without, that sees the core gamers as close-minded, sexist and within a boy's club. While the perception is not true in a general sense, most seem to have no problem with women or other people joining gaming. Still, there are indeed such types within, and they are something we must address. In order to do this we have to again try to look into the why of things. Why does the core exist at all? Well, gaming has not always been as accepted as it is of now. Often maligned and frequently demonized, the core gaming audience has had to put up with a lot of flack from others outside their hobby. This makes a defensive mindset that is often tied to the hobby itself. While we are still quite familiar with the railing against violence in games, back before even mortal combat was being crusaded against, arcades were seen as hang outs for delinquents. The start of the industry itself being tied so close to the hobbyist, who tended to be the "nerd" outsider type as it was did not help either. Throughout its early years and even to today, there has always been a strong connection to being persecuted and a growing sense of defensiveness about it grew up in the community's own identity as a result.

So, what does this all tell us? Well, first and foremost if we want to address the participation of women in games, we have to do it in a way that is not seen as an attack. With the history of moral crusades against gaming, it just creates a now knee-jerk reaction that does nothing but cause fights and solves nothing. We can never address this as an issue by treating it as some people are bad while the rest are good. Hell, it should be pretty self evident by now, you never win someone over by calling them a sinner.

Therefore, we have to look at it from their perspective. As we already know, gaming culture has been accepted more and more into the mainstream. This is a mixed bag, as on one hand the hobby is getting more life and people interested in it, as well as more money and support. On the other, it gives rise to the feeling of selling out and the general pandering backlash. One has to think, as an old school gamer who put up with shit for being a gamer, the now acceptance of it can feel like a betrayal of one's roots and when tied in to the current sell-out business practices of the bigger companies("broaden the appeal"), all that anger and frustration starts needing an outlet, with the newcomers as good scapegoats, and the political ideologues as the best.

So, with all that stacked against us in the efforts to help increase female gamer participation, how do we do it? Well, first is understanding that most of the issue is unrelated to gender in this case. I know many will start to argue, and that this very thread is gender-based to begin with, but this issue is not one of caused by gender itself. You have a group who has been defensive for a long time seeing people trying to get in while at the same time moral crusaders are still rallying against them. To me, a good way to encourage acceptance of that core that is seen as the sexist, closed off bunch, is to demonstrate that women, indeed, that all the new gamers are not the enemy. Hell, simply showing support for games over the moral crusaders may be enough to win good faith and break through the shell here, if only because so few are willing to side with games, even today, once a political agenda has been leveled against it. Beyond "comrades in arms", I would love to hear what other people think on the topic and how to help increase gamer acceptance of women.

Keep in mind, what we want is true participation. That is, we want women to be a larger part of the community, not because they are women, but merely because the community is larger with them and more healthy for that. A more diverse base means greater game diversity to meet demands and makes it harder for tactics of selling out when you can't pander to a uniform group. Thus, we should aim for equality in some sense. No no, I am not talking about how women are portrayed should be exactly the same as men (not gotten to portrayal yet to begin with), but rather how the industry treats them as customers and how the community interacts with them as members.

Ah, but the closed off core gamers are only half the problem of participation. The other half is getting women to want to participate. Now I know a lot of you think this should be easy. Games are cool, hell, they are accepted by the main stream now too. Of course they would want to play! Unfortunately, not so much. There is still a cultural barrier involved between gaming and overall culture, as well as social pressures about what women "should" like. These are no light matters to just pass over. Added to that is the perception of gaming culture itself being that non-inclusive boys club. Also, there is a general disconnect in what sort of games women and men just enjoy playing. So, how do we tackle this knot?

Well, first may be in finding the overlap and expanding that. What genre of games are more evenly balanced in gender? Also, with this issue, we may have to accept that the gender disparity in some genre may not need to be addressed or "fixed". Games are a medium in which the players decide if they want to participate. Even with the best of intentions, at no point should we ever expect a perfect balance, especially when, in the end, it is up to the individual to determine what they want to play. Beyond that, there is also the aspect of who the individual wants to play with. I argue that in general, more female inclusion is a good thing and something gaming should want, but I am under no illusions about how the pressures of culture and society will both subtly shape individual tastes and reinforce divisions we already see. As such, I am merely trying to find ways to be more inclusive that allow for the effects of those pressures but doesn't rail against them solely for the sake of railing against them. The difference between a shift in the subculture rather than an attempt at counter-culture.

As such, ideas such as "no more sexualization" I want to avoid as possible solutions. Yes, an environment where things are not sexualized may help with feeling more welcoming, but it also can breed resentment for the change just because association with those of the political ilk (bad for inclusion), create a segmented game field between those that follow it and those that do not (essentially segregating gamers by gender by products they feel are more suited to their gender, defeating the purpose), or even risk alienating female players by making them feel they are being patronized or have to "drink from the other fountain". This is not to say that toning sexualization down is a bad thing, just that in doing so, make sure the reason is not sexist itself. If you are doing something because it is for the women, you sort of missed the point by treating women differently. Remember, we are after true participation in the community, that means inclusion, not a separate but related sub-community.

As for the specifics of how, well, I don't know. I would guess that trying to make games appeal more for the gender not that interested in them now would be tossed out in one form or another, but that merely tries to pit applying the cultural and social influences the genders already have displayed against making a product that sells based on the traits that those sociocultural gender traits are distinguishing against in the first place. For instance, FPS are often violent, twitchy games played for highly competitive multiplayer, representing traits shown to be less appealing to women (violence, twitchy and competitive) as seen by not just voluntary participation and individual choice, but supported by cultural and social pressure to the same direction. Thus, if we try to change the game away from that, it undermines the core of the game itself in hopes of appealing to a group that still wont be interested, unless you change it to the point that you lose the core, and defeat the purpose of the changes in the first place (the inclusion of people, rather then just including some in a way that causes other to leave). Thus, I think there are limits to what we should consider even in these hypothetical solution, and we should try to understand how the solutions we come up with affect things. Please no solution should ever have a "if they don't like it, screw then" sort of feel. If you do that, you miss the damn point.

Anyways, for workable solutions on getting more women to want to participate in games, I am unsure. This is something I definitely want to hear back from the community here on. I know that more female protagonists would certainly not piss anyone off and might help things some. Near as I can tell, no one cares that Samus is female, she still is kick ass. And people seem to have nothing but praise for the recent burst of female secondary characters from games like Last of us and even Bioshock. Beyond that, I would say make games that are fun (seems like a no brainer), and that don't do anything that is excessively off-putting to what one would expect from the average player, male or female, well, unless for parody or done for artistic purposes (say, over the top violence. Might be seen as off-putting more to females then males because how either gender views such a trait, yet it may be what is the selling point of the game, thus, would not be right to remove that).

I would add that practices that would help inclusiveness in a universal way, rather then a gender specific way, are certainly welcome as well. Obviously, addressing the negative perception of the gaming community would help loads, though with it so tied to anonymity, that may be hard outside of places that are moderated already. You will always have the assholes who abuse anonymity in order to be assholes without repercussions, and the lazy will always use the them as examples of the whole, regardless if it is a fair representation. I am not sure how to improve PR for gaming as a whole in that regard.
Trying to break at least a portion of the industry from games targeting the 18-35 male demographic would help loads too. Nintendo seems to be the only company who gives no shits about that and makes games that are just fun for all ages. As a result, they are the ones that always seemed to me as the most inclusive. Not because of the gender of the protagonist, nor even the story, but because the games themselves are enjoyable and don't draw so heavily on traits that have established gender polarization to them (excessively violent, twitchy, harsher spirit of competition (mario kart not included, fucking blue cheating shell)). They also offer jump-on points for new gamers of anyways, something that can help when trying to get new people into games, as chucking them into a more female friendly CoD can still result in a lot of frustration and greater chance of abandonment. I suppose that I mean we need a sort of spectrum of games in terms of difficulty as well as demographics.

-----------

I am starting to ramble here, first post is already too damn long, so I'll just cut it off here for now and see what people say or come up with. Chances are no one bothers to read this mess, but still...

 

[TehCookie]

One of the main factors I've noticed keeping girl gamers out is the cost. I've met plenty of girls who enjoy playing games but never wanted to or couldn't pay for them. Another part would be advertising, most of my female friends aren't gamers and would have no clue where to start if they did want to get into gaming. When I give them a game to try, they're more than willing. I'm the same way with movies where I will never go look for movies to watch, but if a friend tells me I should try one I'll watch it. That is part of "if they don't like it screw it," there is nothing wrong with people who don't like games. Going back to cost, shelling out hundreds of dollars for a console or upgrading your PC to play one game isn't cost efficient.

One of the other major things would be a change to the gamer community. I don't know if it would be helpful to be disbanded altogether like movies and music or be more accepting of casual fans like the sports community. I enjoy gaming and I hate the multiplayer community and keep away from it, no idea how to fix it though.

 

[runic knight]

I hadn't thought about the cost aspect, but that is a really good point. Games are pretty expensive, be it the games themselves, the consoles or even just a pc that can handle the high end ones.

Maybe we can address this and give the indie scene a bit of a boost in the same go? Maybe make a list of good, cheap and fun games that the average pc could handle without issue and sort of make it a gamer-intro pack or something? Even just through something like steam to help with the social aspects (and because good sales), have a list of good, inexpensive games.
I go pc, as that seems more likely then someone going to buy a console itself. Then again with the rise of smart phones and the blurring of that tech, we might start having more overlap between them then before. Would probably help to take advantage of that sort of thing.

I think because of the nature of gaming in general, there will always be a community. Movies and music have communities as well, even if only though their sub-genre (since the overall community is indistinguishable from the entirety of society itself). So I think the sports community root would be the best way to follow for example, if only in terms of acceptance.

Multiplayer community is a mixed bag. on one side, it is some of the best fun you can get in games just playign with other people. On the other, any sort of lack of moderation leads to the worst sort taking over. Maybe take that steam list idea from above and make a group for people to find other newbies to play with as well as players who want to welcome new gamers?

 

[runic knight]

Something else we may want to look over is how a lot of the issues we have with women's participation and portrayal in games may just be a symptom of a larger issue within gaming itself. Issues such as the way customers are viewed by the industry itself are universal, even if the problems that cause manifest differently based on gender. The advertisement campaigns in particular show how bad this can be, with the industry furthering the stereotype of gamers being only stupid horny teen males, something that can only harm the gaming community's PR in general, and seems to turn away Heterosexual female players. That is not to say cheesecake, and even openly marketed cheesecake, shouldn't be allowed, merely that blatantly pandering advertisements to the lowest common denominator should be, lets say frowned upon.

Evony "save me, milord" bullshit stands bright in my mind as something to protest, not because of it being sexist (that is another argument), but because it is bad advertisement. It is false and misleading for one, and it just shows an open contempt towards gamers as a whole, regardless of gender.

 

[Lilani]

-snip-

I like the idea of taking down the barriers that turn away women who are interested, but I really get annoyed when people talk about trying to bring "more" women in. Games are a hobby. Some people are interested in some hobbies, some people are not. It's all well and good to introduce your hobby to other people, but I don't see why we should specifically target women. If we take down the barriers that turn women away, then that should solve a lot of problems. Most people are aware of games these days, including women. So if we just do what we continue to do and share games with everybody and not just women, then not only is our net wider but it's more successful now that there aren't any gender-exclusive barriers anymore.

I realize you mention this yourself in this post, but if you want gender-inclusiveness then that's what we should be encouraging from the start. If you think about it, trying to get women into gaming because they're women is essentially a reverse version of that other harassment. Except instead of trying to push them out of something they do want to do, we're pulling them into something they don't want to do.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

The way I see it, the answer is pretty gorram simple.

Don't buy games that offend you. No, I don't particularly care why or how the game offends you. If it offends you, don't buy it. If someone you know might buy a game they might find offensive, stop them and tell them why you think they might find it offensive, and tell them if that's a problem for them to not buy it. If you're concerned that you just might accidentally buy a game that offends you, the easiest solution is do your research before you buy it and don't pre-order games.

I didn't buy Other M, because I found it offensively sexist, I didn't buy Modern Warfare 3 because I found it offensively stupid, and I didn't buy Colonial Marine because I found it offensively bad. Without lengthy and needless at this juncture exposition on why I found those titles respectively offensive, I think I covered the major bases, there.

 

[broca]

Ok, i red your post (all of it ;-) ) and while it could use some more focus, i like it. I especially like that you're looking for practical solutions, something i feel like is missing from most discussions. I also really appreciate that you take into account stuff like the history of gaming and gamers as a group, which i find mostly missing from the debate.

While i think that games and the gaming community should not put off females who want to play, i don't think that it should be the goal to get more females into gaming in general. What i mean by that is that a female who want's to play but is put off e.g. by harassment is a problem, while a female that doesn't want to play because she is just not interested is not. So, taking that into account, the question is: why are females that want to game put off? The main reasons that come to mind are harassment, lack of female protagonists in games and female representation in games.

Harassment (meaning insults, threats...): well, that's one hell of a problem and solving it could probably land us a nobel peace price. Harassment happens both in online gaming and gaming communities. While it is not restricted to females there is evidence that it happens more for females than for males and that it has an stronger effect on females than on males. Reasons for harassment are plenty: anonymity seems to be an important part, also gamer demographics, the competitive nature of many online games and something i would call "a lack of perspective". Of course misogyny plays a role, but probably not as much as people think, as the difference between a troll, someone who uses a gendered insult or threat and a real misogynist are impossible to tell. So, what to do about harassment?

Misogyny and trolls first, as it is kind of the easiest to answer: there is just not much we can do about people who are trolling or genuinely misogynist. All you can do is kick them from your forums or comment sections and ban them from your servers or services. Of course the problem is both the costs of monitoring (less for forums, where it's more a problem of men power, more for mmorpgs or services like xbox live) and defining what is unacceptable. This kind of censorship of course won't solve the problem, as not everyone would participate and the definitions of what is unacceptable would vary widely. There is also the risk of taking it to far, which would lead to a backlash against female gamers.
One possible solution for combating extreme stuff like rape and death threats would be a website where people show their support for victims of such attacks. It could be just a website that says "Aside from what i think of a person, threats of violence, rape and death are never okay. People who make them do not represent the gaming community" where people can sign with their name, tag or whatever. Or the site could have like a petition system where you can show support for individual incidents. For this to make a difference it would of course need a lot of advertising and attention to reach a high enough number of people who participate.

Anonymity, the competitive nature of many online games and "lack of perspective" are interconnected "problems" that can (imo) explain harassment in online games. The competitive nature of many online games can lead to strong emotional reactions and often a certain amount of harassment is accepted, while anonymity (or perceived anonymity) makes people say stuff that they wouldn't say in person, both because of perceived anonymity and because they don't see the effects it can have on other people. This is where "lack of perspective" comes in: i believe that often the problem is that people don't realize the effect their harassment has on other people. Often gamers insult everyone and get insulted back evenly, so that it can be kind of hard to understand that even it doesn't effect them or their friends, it can effect other people (e.g. because the insult is aimed at something that the person is harassed for in real life). That includes using gendered insults without understanding that this can seriously affect people. A solution to this problem would be a campaign that certain terms and behaviors aren't accaptable. For this it would be important to make such a campaign positive not negative (e.g. "Smack talk is cool, but calling some one a ... is not" instead of "Don't say .. because it is sexist") and use people from the gaming community (e.g. famous esport gamers or youtube celebrities). Of course this wouldn't reach anyone, especially not teenagers (who probably would use this insults more just because it is "forbidden"), so in the end banning them would be the only way to stop their behavior. Of course the big question is where to draw the line so that you're both more welcoming to females but also don't overreact, as this would lead to a backlash against female gamers.

So, enough text for one day, more perhaps tomorrow.

Edit: One important problem i forgot is negative behavior and attitudes of some male gamers.

 

[runic knight]

-snip-

I like the idea of taking down the barriers that turn away women who are interested, but I really get annoyed when people talk about trying to bring "more" women in. Games are a hobby. Some people are interested in some hobbies, some people are not. It's all well and good to introduce your hobby to other people, but I don't see why we should specifically target women. If we take down the barriers that turn women away, then that should solve a lot of problems. Most people are aware of games these days, including women. So if we just do what we continue to do and share games with everybody and not just women, then not only is our net wider but it's more successful now that there aren't any gender-exclusive barriers anymore.

I realize you mention this yourself in this post, but if you want gender-inclusiveness then that's what we should be encouraging from the start. If you think about it, trying to get women into gaming because they're women is essentially a reverse version of that other harassment. Except instead of trying to push them out of something they do want to do, we're pulling them into something they don't want to do.

I get what you are saying, and I do try to stress that point, albeit later on in the post that anything to be done to increase inclusiveness is good regardless of gender. But there is a gender stigma attached to gaming and that seems to be the real thing I am trying to attack in this. I know that does force me to look at the situation from a gender perspective of inclusion, and that in turn seems like sexism. I can't really help how that is presented, though I do hope that my solutions reveal my intent more towards general inclusiveness and removing any sort of stigma against women in particular in gaming or that of the general assumption that gaming excluding women.

I do want to stress that I am not trying to pull anyone into anything they don't want to participate in, rather knock down as many hurdles that might turn them away from the start. It sucks, but there does seem more in the way of gender related hurdles though, and while I try to differentiate between legitimate one (such as gaming's anti-girl stigma) and coincidental ones (such as gender preferences based on types of games), I suppose I could work it better.

 

[Bruno Aste]

i agree, if a game is offensive to you don't buy it.

there should be freedom of speech by developers, i personally wouldn't mind if there was an attempted rape scene in tomb raider, i don't see anything wrong with it

maybe it wasn't developed for your delicate sensibilities.



if silent hill 2 was made in 2013 USA would pyramid head rape those nurses? probably not.
would have missed out on some iconic gaming moments for sure.

i suggest you play my little pony instead, they must be coming up with a game version by now.

 

[runic knight]

i agree, if a game is offensive to you don't buy it.

there should be freedom of speech by developers, i personally wouldn't mind if there was an attempted rape scene in tomb raider, i don't see anything wrong with it

maybe it wasn't developed for your delicate sensibilities.



if silent hill 2 was made in 2013 USA would pyramid head rape those nurses? probably not.
would have missed out on some iconic gaming moments for sure.

i suggest you play my little pony instead, they must be coming up with a game version by now.

Good to know you didn't bother to read any of the thread at all and instead decided to post on your assumptions of the thread name alone.
I mean, talking about the general reasons for observable trend in gaming and how, and even if we should address those trend... pssh, who needs that right? Lets just assume it is some morally outraged crusader because that is far easier then putting in the effort to read. But can't let that stop us from smearing our ill-informed opinions all over the wall, now can we?

No, I should stop. You represent the very core exclusionary gamer sort I mentioned, I suppose I should treat you like a resource and apply that as best I can to the topic at hand.
Solid point about not forcing game markers to give into to public and you readily reveal the sort of hurdle gaming would have to overcome, someone so jaded by the countless forced attempts and unmitigated complaining about the problem itself. So, how do we address this sort of response?

 

[TehCookie]

I hadn't thought about the cost aspect, but that is a really good point. Games are pretty expensive, be it the games themselves, the consoles or even just a pc that can handle the high end ones.

Maybe we can address this and give the indie scene a bit of a boost in the same go? Maybe make a list of good, cheap and fun games that the average pc could handle without issue and sort of make it a gamer-intro pack or something? Even just through something like steam to help with the social aspects (and because good sales), have a list of good, inexpensive games.
I go pc, as that seems more likely then someone going to buy a console itself. Then again with the rise of smart phones and the blurring of that tech, we might start having more overlap between them then before. Would probably help to take advantage of that sort of thing.

I think because of the nature of gaming in general, there will always be a community. Movies and music have communities as well, even if only though their sub-genre (since the overall community is indistinguishable from the entirety of society itself). So I think the sports community root would be the best way to follow for example, if only in terms of acceptance.

Multiplayer community is a mixed bag. on one side, it is some of the best fun you can get in games just playign with other people. On the other, any sort of lack of moderation leads to the worst sort taking over. Maybe take that steam list idea from above and make a group for people to find other newbies to play with as well as players who want to welcome new gamers?

That's one of the reason women love facebook games they're cheap and run on any machine, and that gets them branded casuals with spite. Don't expect everyone to start off hardcore and don't get mad if they don't want to pursue games further. I got my mom to play 999 and Phoenix Wright by starting with sudoku.

But I guess that goes back to a more accepting community.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Good to know you didn't bother to read any of the thread at all and instead decided to post on your assumptions of the thread name alone....
I mean, talking about the general reasons for observable trend in gaming and how, and even if we should address those trend... pssh, who needs hat right? Lets just assume it is some morally outraged crusader because that is far easier then putting in the effort to read. But can't let that stop us from smearing our ill-informed opinions all over the wall, now can we?

No, I should stop. You represent the very core exclusionary gamer sort I mentioned, I suppose I should treat you like a resource and apply that as best I can to the topic at hand.
Solid point about not forcing game markers to give into to public and you readily reveal the sort of hurdle gaming would have to overcome, someone so jaded by the countless forced attempts and unmitigated complaining about the problem itself. So, how do we address this sort of response?

I posted commentary along the same line, and I'll respond to this since your commentary here is relevant to my own points.

The "general reason" for this "observable trend" is that there is a market for it. I feel comfortable in assuming the overwhelming majority of us who are reading and posting, live in the former "first world" and under a capitalist socioeconomic paradigm, which means media is for-profit, and pursuant to that dictated by market forces as it is intended for consumption. Video games are by no stretch of the imagination an exception.

Simply put, game companies make "problematic" games because people buy them, and have no ostensible problem with their "problematic" nature that impedes their willingness to consume it or otherwise reduces those games' value. That's Supply & Demand 101. That's by no means limited to by misogyny and poor representation of women in gaming -- rushed or buggy titles, DRM, racism, poor writing, whatever else might be problematic for a given consumer counts, here.

The solution is rather simple -- be a critical, attentive, thoughtful, and socially-conscious consumer. Think about what games one buys, simply don't buy offensive games (and again, whatever in particular is offensive doesn't matter, only that it is offensive) and urge others to do the same and explain to them why doing so is important. Simply put, speak with your wallet -- in a capitalist paradigm, it's the most expedient and effective way to elicit change in a given industry. At the very least, you're no longer enabling the continued creation of offensive titles by patronizing the companies who make them, and at the best you can influence others to make the same choice, who ideally will influence others, and so on until game companies start losing money for making offensive games.

And, if someone mocks or throws invective at you for being a conscientious consumer, fuck 'em, they're the idiots throwing money at companies for making shitty games doing nothing to pursue their own interests as gamers or consumers.

 

[runic knight]

I hadn't thought about the cost aspect, but that is a really good point. Games are pretty expensive, be it the games themselves, the consoles or even just a pc that can handle the high end ones.

Maybe we can address this and give the indie scene a bit of a boost in the same go? Maybe make a list of good, cheap and fun games that the average pc could handle without issue and sort of make it a gamer-intro pack or something? Even just through something like steam to help with the social aspects (and because good sales), have a list of good, inexpensive games.
I go pc, as that seems more likely then someone going to buy a console itself. Then again with the rise of smart phones and the blurring of that tech, we might start having more overlap between them then before. Would probably help to take advantage of that sort of thing.

I think because of the nature of gaming in general, there will always be a community. Movies and music have communities as well, even if only though their sub-genre (since the overall community is indistinguishable from the entirety of society itself). So I think the sports community root would be the best way to follow for example, if only in terms of acceptance.

Multiplayer community is a mixed bag. on one side, it is some of the best fun you can get in games just playign with other people. On the other, any sort of lack of moderation leads to the worst sort taking over. Maybe take that steam list idea from above and make a group for people to find other newbies to play with as well as players who want to welcome new gamers?

That's one of the reason women love facebook games they're cheap and run on any machine, and that gets them branded casuals with spite. Don't expect everyone to start off hardcore and don't get mad if they don't want to pursue games further. I got my mom to play 999 and Phoenix Wright by starting with sudoku.

But I guess that goes back to a more accepting community.

Does make sense there. But it is hard to make a community change, especially one with an ingrained chip on its shoulder about anything resembling morality crusades. This, in order to help the community clean up, it would have to be done in a way that doesn't demonize them, else it just causes feelings of persecution and digging in of heels, an understandable response given gaming's scapegoated history.
So, how do we encourage acceptance of the newer or casual gamers? Hmm...I know part of the backlash is misplaced blame. Company policies that are greedy as hell tend to be blamed on the "stupid casuals who fall for that crap". And with the likes of EA or Zynga out there milking games for profit, there is going to be a lot of hate to be had.
I still sort of like the idea of using smaller indie titles to encourage new gamers to hop into the waters (and I think there would be much delicious irony about the "filthy casuals" also being the hard core hipster indie sort as well). I would guess that the aspect of inviting someone to play one of the more intro type games would also require some of the community to accept others in a way they can't protest about (the word of mouth invite) and give them a chance to share something they are passionate about, something I think gamers of all sort enjoy to one degree or another.

 

[runic knight]

Good to know you didn't bother to read any of the thread at all and instead decided to post on your assumptions of the thread name alone....
I mean, talking about the general reasons for observable trend in gaming and how, and even if we should address those trend... pssh, who needs hat right? Lets just assume it is some morally outraged crusader because that is far easier then putting in the effort to read. But can't let that stop us from smearing our ill-informed opinions all over the wall, now can we?

No, I should stop. You represent the very core exclusionary gamer sort I mentioned, I suppose I should treat you like a resource and apply that as best I can to the topic at hand.
Solid point about not forcing game markers to give into to public and you readily reveal the sort of hurdle gaming would have to overcome, someone so jaded by the countless forced attempts and unmitigated complaining about the problem itself. So, how do we address this sort of response?

I posted commentary along the same line, and I'll respond to this since your commentary here is relevant to my own points.

The "general reason" for this "observable trend" is that there is a market for it. I feel comfortable in assuming the overwhelming majority of us who are reading and posting, live in the former "first world" and under a capitalist socioeconomic paradigm, which means media is for-profit, and pursuant to that dictated by market forces as it is intended for consumption. Video games are by no stretch of the imagination an exception.

Simply put, game companies make "problematic" games because people buy them, and have no ostensible problem with their "problematic" nature that impedes their willingness to consume it or otherwise reduces those games' value. That's Supply & Demand 101. That's by no means limited to by misogyny and poor representation of women in gaming -- rushed or buggy titles, DRM, racism, poor writing, whatever else might be problematic for a given consumer counts, here.

The solution is rather simple -- be a critical, attentive, thoughtful, and socially-conscious consumer. Think about what games one buys, simply don't buy offensive games (and again, whatever in particular is offensive doesn't matter, only that it is offensive) and urge others to do the same and explain to them why doing so is important. Simply put, speak with your wallet -- in a capitalist paradigm, it's the most expedient and effective way to elicit change in a given industry. At the very least, you're no longer enabling the continued creation of offensive titles by patronizing the companies who make them, and at the best you can influence others to make the same choice, who ideally will influence others, and so on until game companies start losing money for making offensive games.

And, if someone mocks or throws invective at you for being a conscientious consumer, fuck 'em, they're the idiots throwing money at companies for making shitty games doing nothing to pursue their own interests as gamers or consumers.

I am aware of the driving force of the market when it comes to games, but there is more to it then simple supply and demand. Yes, the market fills the demand for a product, and by extension products that have highly different customer response along gender lines would, by that way, just be the market itself fulfilling its duty. The games don't sell well to females because it is their choice to not buy it and the overall trend is just that, a trend, nothing more. I often use this very logic when protesting claims of sexism in games as it is ultimately the individual making the choice, not some outside force determining it for them based on their gender.
I do not think it is so simple as that though when it comes to participation, portrayal or the like. Keep in mind, I am not against any sort of game, and would protest most any attempt to censor them on principle alone. If games have nude women shooting each other become popular, then by all means, have at it. But when it comes to trends within the community itself for female participation, I find that there is indeed room to grow there and in doing so it will help games as a whole. Thus I start to ask why do the trends occur and what can we, or even should we, do to change that and how will that affect the hobby and art of gaming?

So, rather then any sort of negative aim at the pragmatic game makers, I want to instead increase acceptance and participation of people and gaming. In fact, I touch on how I want to avoid any sort of moral opinion at the start of the OP, as well as later near the end in how I suggested it would not be the best course to try to stop sexualization as an example of something that is often brought up as a contention.

Back to women in games, I believe there is more then just supply and demand that creates the trend of gender participation in games. I touched on before how there are social and cultural pressures (yes, I refer to the general Western civilization here)that may look down on the hobby along gender lines, the overall stigma of the anti-social male gamer nerd and other aspects that could be affecting why the trend exists outside of market forces. I guess, to put it another way, I want the market forces to be as close to the sole drive in game type and quality as possible.

That said, you make a good point about how simply being more aware would help the industry and I can easily see how it relates to my point as well, as a more informed public would be more likely to avoid something that would result in a bad first impression, or would cause a bad first impression in others. Furthermore, I can only see a larger variety of game types in order to meet a larger variety of demands as a good thing compared to the steady condensing we have seen in gaming of late, with symptoms of uninspired and lazy design choices and a "follow the leader" sort of mentality. This is sad as usually those symptoms are often called "broadening the appeal", even when it is only meant to appeal to the current golden chalice demographic.
No, I am not saying a company should take a risk just for the sake of appealing to the other demographics, rather, I think by increasing participation of those demographics, including the general female one, it will create more of a demand for variety that in turn can be good for the industry at large as the demand reaches the point to be viable and profitable to be supplied.

Also, I will mention the idea from the Perfect Pasta Sauce video Jim did not long ago. The idea was that the market only meets a demand it knows of, and that sometimes people don't realize they want something until they find it, as was the case with chunky sauces that no one knew they wanted. Increasing the range of the audience has a great chance of finding newer demands, some of which may even be the new big thing.

 

[TehCookie]

Does make sense there. But it is hard to make a community change, especially one with an ingrained chip on its shoulder about anything resembling morality crusades. This, in order to help the community clean up, it would have to be done in a way that doesn't demonize them, else it just causes feelings of persecution and digging in of heels, an understandable response given gaming's scapegoated history.
So, how do we encourage acceptance of the newer or casual gamers? Hmm...I know part of the backlash is misplaced blame. Company policies that are greedy as hell tend to be blamed on the "stupid casuals who fall for that crap". And with the likes of EA or Zynga out there milking games for profit, there is going to be a lot of hate to be had.
I still sort of like the idea of using smaller indie titles to encourage new gamers to hop into the waters (and I think there would be much delicious irony about the "filthy casuals" also being the hard core hipster indie sort as well). I would guess that the aspect of inviting someone to play one of the more intro type games would also require some of the community to accept others in a way they can't protest about (the word of mouth invite) and give them a chance to share something they are passionate about, something I think gamers of all sort enjoy to one degree or another.

If I knew a way to make people stop being dicks we would of had world peace long ago.

Gamers do need to stop throwing fits about things and recognize the market is what they created, not some invisible boogey man casual gamers. Or perhaps because my favorite genres have already gone from mainstream to niche audience I have no interest in what happens to modern mainstream gaming/I'm not threatened by change. I liked it when multiplayer was a buddy on your couch and you inviting people into the community to have it grow rather than trying to keep them out.

 

[mecegirl]

I sometimes wonder if we still had the diversity of game types on consoles now that we did on during and before the PS2 days what the demographics would look like. A lot of game types that are deemed "casual" now used to be playable on consoles. It's nice that say puzzle games are portable now, it fits the game play style perfectly. When I was a kid being good at Puzzle Fighter and games like it didn't make you less of a gamer. But it wasn't until they were widely available on "casual" devices that they were considered "casual" games. Does not playing on a console or designated hand held device really hold that much power over who is or isn't a "real" gamer? What is Farmville but a streamlined Harvest Moon?

When I was growing up JRPG's were considered the "girly" games. Mostly because a lot of female gamers played them. Now for a JRPG that isn't Final Fantasy, if it isn't on a hand held then it doesn't exist....BTW. Does anyone know the statistics for hand held owners by sex? It actually wouldn't surprise me if the percentage of female gamers for hand held systems was higher than the percentage for consoles.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

The only solution I see is to just make more female protagonists in a better variety than boobsticks, and ass shots.
Women want power trips, too! And NPCs aren't going to deliver that!

Allow me to elaborate!

The industry needs to give developers better autonomy. Nothing screams "NO GIRLS ALLOWED!" more than the industry itself saying exactly that to developers and making them change the game.
Some of the most recent incidents, like Bioshock Infinite's bumping Elisabeth to the back of the box, attempts to put Ellie on the back of the box of The Last of us, producers demanding Nilin be changed into a guy, and, well:
http://www.giantbomb.com/sleeping-dogs/3030-29441/
http://www.gamecritics.com/brad-gallaway/brink-no-girls-allowed
http://www.penny-arcade.com/report/article/games-with-female-heroes-dont-sell-because-publishers-dont-support-them
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/123139-Devs-Had-to-Demand-Female-Focus-Testers-for-The-Last-of-Us
http://www.penny-arcade.com/report/article/remember-mes-surprising-connection-to-facebook-and-why-its-protagonist-had
http://kotaku.com/investigation-a-video-game-studio-from-hell-511872642
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/123139-Devs-Had-to-Demand-Female-Focus-Testers-for-The-Last-of-Us
http://www.penny-arcade.com/report/article/remember-mes-surprising-connection-to-facebook-and-why-its-protagonist-had
http://popwatch.ew.com/2012/05/01/god-of-war-ascension-multiplayer/ or http://www.gameinformer.com/games/god_of_war_ascension/b/ps3/archive/2012/04/30/sony-unveils-god-of-war-ascensions-multiplayer.aspx
http://uk.gamespot.com/features/fear-of-a-woman-warrior-6404142/
http://www.gamespot.com/news/naughty-dog-insisted-on-female-testers-for-the-last-of-us-6406619
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evI5pF5h8Ck
http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=252 a point made in the form of a joke
http://indigitainment.com/2013/05/08/indigenous-determination-in-game-space/
http://www.vg247.com/2013/03/22/beyond-two-souls-dev-asked-to-show-star-holding-a-gun-on-cover-we-catigorically-refused/
http://www.toybox-games.jp/english0107.html
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-03-20-bastion-developer-teases-transistor-for-pax-east
http://lesbiangamers.com/2008/05/farcry-2-female-character-fiasco/
are just examples of why there's a large gender gap in playable characters, and how the agency of women get screwed over.

It's real simple. If we had more female protagonists, and a variety of them, odds are good this whole issue wouldn't have surfaced because producers, developers, market testers, and the community wouldn't have barred their entry into the gaming world so much, right?

And lets be realistic here. Guys, some of you like playing as a guy, right? Well, the same holds true for women.
Yeah, thre's guys that can play as women, and women that can play as guys, but guys playing as women seems to be easier because they know they don't have to often vs women who generally have to play as a guy, or not really game.
Sure that's not a universal truth among all gamers, but I still feel it valid.

Why do we ignore a lot of the absurd character designs guys get, more or less? Sure we poke fun at the generic white guy look we get so often, and the odd JRPG buckle collector, but at least there's -some- variation. Oh, look, Death in Darksiders 2! He looks somewhat unique! He's not a typical white guy in his late 20s, early 30s!

Women don't get that sort of representation. They might be well written, here and there, but for the large part they're boob sticks, or gratuitous ass shots.
BEFORE PEOPLE RAIL ON ME HERE, I'm not saying that these depictions can't exist. They should, but they shouldn't be the near all encompassing standard. I'm pretty pro-sexuality here. Thing is, I really don't see it balanced with Agency, and playability, which is grinding my gears.
If we had a variety of female depictions in at least known games, I don't think we'd be here. Why? We'd have so many differnt opinions because we'd have so many women to have opinions on that we'd be able to use one to argue against others, and so forth.

Okay, then there's discussion about guys who can't write for women. Well, there's several solutions:
1: Call bullshit! Lara Croft, Samus, Nilin, Aya Brea, Jill Valentine, Sheva Alomar, Bayonetta, Ruby, etc. were all likely written by guys. And they run the gamut of sensibilities from seductive to professional. Lets not forget one of the most egalitarian game genres, Fighting games! Lots of women there getting -some- writing, and a variety of personalities.
2: You know all those wonderful female NPCs out there? The ones that stand out as memorable? Find those, and exapand on their character. There's so many women out there, especially in Rockstar games (esp. red dead redemption), and Metal Gear, and so forth that could be easily be made into a standalone DLC at the least, or be used as a basis for a new character.
3: Maybe work with someone who can write for them?
4: Write them not as women, but as people?
5: Make them silent protagonists. Yeah, it's kinda cheap to do that (in more ways than one) but why the hell not? It worked for Link, and Gordon Freeman to say the least.

Here's a bit of a mental task. Think of games with female protagonists ou saw on TV via actual commercials. Now see how many of those get sequels.
I think that if a game gets a commercial, there's a safe bet it'll get a sequel. If there's no commercial, then well, I'm not so sure.
So, yeah, let people know the game exists!

I'm not accusing 100% of developers, producers, market testers, or the community here, mind you. I know there's good people among them, but there's not enough good people.


"Conventional wisdoms" are killing the industry. Not just the "conventional wisdom" that women ruin a game's chances, but that proper survivor horrors shouldn't be made because they won't sell, shooters have to be like CoD, games that weren't shooters have to be shooters now, tactical games won't sell, and other issues like that.
Oh, and one of the most dangerous conventional wisdoms of them all: "If I use this formula, I'll sell tons!" Yeah, like the God of War ripoffs sold well? Or the CoD ripoffs?
Those "conventional wisdoms" need to be discarded, priod. Developers need the autonomy to experiment again. I mean they're game developers. Isn't it safe to say that they're gamers, and that they have some idea of what it is they're doing in regards of making a fun game?
Yes, yes, I know a few games burned us like Duke Nukem Forever, and Aliens Colonial Marines, and the new Star trek game nevermind every movie tie in game, but look at all of the IPs that grew into games we love? Like most every successful game ever, as almsot every game series was an IP at some time.

Why do I bring up Conventional Wisdoms barring the existance of game genres? Well, lemme ask, why does America seemingly have no Otome games, even imported/treanslated? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otome_game
With all it's popularity, why not a Twilight game?
Why do we never have chick flick movie tie in games?

The point is, we really gotta start treating games aimed at women as better than pastel/pink games aimed at pre-teens, and giving women, and guys some mature games. Mentally mature. If we want games to be treated seriously, we need some mature games that deal in grown up stuff. Mature is more than the lable we plop on GTA, here.

Don't worry, guys! If we can get in these sorts of games for women, then it aughta be a heck of a lot easier to get them for guys! Wouldn't it be nice to have more than Bioware for in game romances?
Japan makes these sorts of games for guys, too!

This is more than just romance, though. There's a lot of genres being suppressed when we most need that variety!


I gotta say, cost is a factor barring entry. Not one I dwell on much, but this thread does remind me of it. I know I have a long backlist of games I want, and it keeps getting longer every time I can't buy a game in favor of something newer coming out.
Honestly, would games really be destroyed off the face of the planet if they had a $40 MSRP? A cool 1/3 off the cost? Man, I remember when games used to cost 40 dollars new, even on consoles. Don't you?
What ever happened to quantity of sales over quality of sales? If things cost less, more people can afford them, and thus more people will buy it, right? Surely the more people buying will overcome the discount, right?
Imagine the mania if games always cost 20 dollars? New games 20 dollars! People might start buying -2- of each game!
But that's probably a crazy idea.

Sure, indie games are out there on the cheap, but there's a flaw in relying on them. They're mostly on PC, and mobile OS. That -really- limits the audience. That -really- demands that people put up with unrelaible systems (My android tablet's pretty unreliable, or is that just me?), and my laptop has about half the power to run a game that runs fine on the Wii. I can't really PC game. I doubt I'm alone in this.
Yeah, I can buy a PC, but when was the last time a console game had problems going into windowed mode, or had a missing file error, or got a virus, lack of controller support, or, well, dealt with a lot of the problems that PCs generally run into?
Yes, PC gaming is nice. I do recognize the benefits, and I don't think ill of anyone that likes PC gaming more than console gaming, but I just prefer the simplicity of the console. A lot of women, do too.

While we're talking indie, the limited audience factor is what's also blowing the indie scene out of the water as far as being a saviours to female representation goes. Yeah, you're more likely to find women as protagonists, and tasteful representations to boot, but the audience is limited, and the gender gap remains on consoles due to that so it's not helping as much as people would like.
The PS4, and Xbone might adjust this some, but all in all, the limited audience is preventing indie games from saving us all from the sea of dude protagonists.

Further, indie games are seeds that require a lot of care, and cultivation to bring up. And a lot of those seeds are bad seeds. Those bad seeds never make it.
Even the good ones hardly compare to non-indie games at times, and I gotta ask, if you had to relegate yourself to purely playing indie games in the face of CoD, GTA, battlefield, Saints Row, Sports games, driving sims, and all the genres generally done best on a major console, would you be happy? I kinda doubt it.

I'm not saying don't support indie games, but expecting one to demolish predetermined notions in the modern main gaming industry is a bit absurd. If one does, they'll earn some respect. Eternal respect if they're responsible for slaying the conventional wisdom that playing as a woman in her own game, and causes the rest of the industry to catch on. >.>


Going back to money talk, voting with our wallets won't necessarily work.
1: If you find it offensive, don't buy it! Well, what if we find shallow, half naked sex object women offensive, and/or want to play as a woman? Ah hell, there goes 99% of games that year, right? Maybe even 100% some game years.
2: "eff you! Got mine!" is a reply we'll likely hear from the well catered to people that enjoy playing as dudes. They'll be that majority that people love throwing in our faces.
3: As the well catered to are in the majority, I gotta wonder if the rest can make a financial difference?
4: Getting large amounts of people to work together for long periods of time is effing hard!
5: Ever notice 2 things happening right around the same time? A decrease in variety of female representation, and the perils the game industry faces starting, and snowballing? I put forth that maybe people have been voting with their wallets for a very long time. That said, what has it really done? Yeah, that's prolly far fetched.


It seems like every year, I end up kicking myself for not having a Vita, and a 3ds. Why? Assassin's Creed Liberation, Gravity Rush, Style Savvy, Pokemon, etc. Do these games EVER come out on consoles? Do games like them EVER come out on consoles? Seriously! It's like there's a few too many good ideas locked away on handhelds. Small wonder women gravitate towards them?
And, no, I'm not saying buying a handheld is the solution. I'm saying that I think handhelds are more inclusive and these games should get ported to consoles, or at least have the more egalitarian feel go to the console market.
Again, would you be happy if all you could play were handheld games? Probably not.
With handhelds, and PC, and in general, we should try not to segregate our gamers, and force them into certain game playing mediums. It flies in the face of integration.

In short, I guess, If we want women to participate, then we have to start treating them as if they exist, and as gamers, and not segregate women off to play their own games. Some respect, and variety couldn't hurt.

I guess I rambled a lot. Sorry if I went away from the goal of this thread.

 

[MrHide-Patten]

My sisters don't play games because they can't figure out that the left stick controls the character, and the right on controls the camera. It's why if they ever play a game it's either the Sims, side scrolling platforms or mobile games. They're not a glowing example of feminine multitasking.

 

[mecegirl]

I do think that the biggest problems are a lack of diversity in game types/protagonists within AAA games and the price. A lot of AAA games are action heavy and its not that I think that women dislike action, but that they would want more than just action. From an outsiders perceptive it looks like that's all the current gaming industry has going for it because AAA games get the most advertizing. The samey looking protagonists probably make things blend together even more. Why plunk down hundreds of dollars to get into a hobby that looks so stagnate? We know the differences between one AAA title to the next, it probably looks like just a bunch of dudes shooting each other again to an outsider. We also know that more diverse games than the AAA one's exist...but we are always hooked to gaming culture, most will only go off of what they see in advertisements, and the face of the medium isn't the most intriguing. Meanwhile, with movies if someone feels like action they can get that, or suspense, or horror, or romance. There are options. Whatever mood you are in that day movies allow you to scratch that itch.

 

[CloudAtlas]

So, how do we encourage acceptance of the newer or casual gamers? Hmm...I know part of the backlash is misplaced blame.

The obvious thing that everyone can do: Be friendly and helpful towards these players yourself, don't blame them if they make mistakes, and try to be a positive influence on your friends and peers who aren't. Don't be elitist, don't look down upon casual-friendly games and their players, don't complain about easy modes in games, don't proclaim that "true" gamers should only play like this or that, and so on. This will make games a better place for everyone, not just women or new players. Game companies also need to adopt a zero tolerance policy against harassment and abuse - and enforce it. But of course we all know that only gets you this far.

You can also foster a more welcoming environment through game design itself, game design that fosters good behavior and rewards it. I'm wondering why we only see so little of that. Why don't we see mentorship systems in MMOs and similar games, for example? Systems that match experienced with inexperienced players. Being a mentor can be a personally very rewarding and meaningful experience in itself, as many parents or teachers can attest, but you can do more with game design. Create game content that you can only experience if you are a mentor-mentee-pair (or group), such as special quests or missions with special rewards, story content (cheesy as hell: old player knighting the new one). You can also offer the experienced player "material" rewards for engaging in such a relationship, be it game currency, items, titles, or optical rewards, so everyone can see that this player is a really nice guy or girl. It also helps, of course, if the game world itself allows for meaningful cooperation between players of different levels of experience, instead of dividing them, as all too many MMOs do.
Sometimes, all it takes is a little nudge.

~~~

On a more technical note, and after consulting my crystal ball, technological progress could well lead to a more inclusive environment as well. A few people already cited the cost of gaming as a barrier. But if your game is running on servers and streamed to your display of choice, you won't need to buy expensive consoles or gaming PCs anymore. With streaming, plenty of business models are imaginable that suit every taste, from flat rates or something on the one extreme for core gamers to pay-per-hour or similar schemes for casuals.
That's what the future's going to look like, I think, and it would make gaming so much better.

~~~

People should be more careful when blaming or justifying the current state of gaming on economic necessities. It's a bit more complicated than "that's just what (male) consumers want" or "there's just no market for that". The truth is, many businesses don't really know what their existing customers want, let alone what potential customers might want, and many consumers don't even know themselves what they want. It's really really hard to predict what might sell well, and if you always sell the same old, you mitigate your risks, but you also mitigate your chances.
Really smart - or lucky - businesses are able to identify these opportunities, and sell consumers stuff they didn't even know they wanted. Just look at Apple for a premier example.