I won't touch on how utterly hurt you seem to be by a group of people with a differing opinion.
I'm not but thanks for your vilification of my arguments.
Instead I'll just laugh at how hard you're working to shut down a minority's conversation.
How very privileged of you.
It's funny that you claim that the 48% number is unreliable, yet you link directly to a study that you say is more reliable that is literally one percent less than the one you claim isn't trustworthy.
The ESA has methodology issues that have been around since 1993. The private market research is not available for scrutiny and people are using it for misleading purposes. I've already read the information for a number of years and came to my own conclusions. What have you done besides try to censor someone else's opinion?
You are maddeningly inconsistent.
No, I'm just pointing out that the research for ESA is maddeningly inconsistent and look at more than the final numbers such as how they got them and what games people played. For 2014, that was not even up for discussion from the NPD, who gave the ESA their numbers. Maybe doing actual study into this stuff from Joe Karaganis and/or Mike Masnick would help, but I would rather enjoy that than constantly have to hear about the ESA's numbers which don't say much about what games people play or even notice a disparity in genres that people split up into.
When it comes time to make a decision about cutting, who gets cut?
Possibly the entire team or the game is pushed out prematurely compared to how Valve only releases a game when it's done. Stop insinuating some bizarre discrimination that only works in your head.
That's the cultural sexism (and other factors) that make White Heterosexual Male the Default Mode.
Congratulations on your Anti-white rhetoric.
No one has to actively promote it to be a problem, but the inevitable endless denial (with mostly bad arguments) every time it is mentioned is a damned good indicator of what the problem really is.
You make these inane arguments with troll logic then can't even defend them while accusing others of being sexist. How the hell does that even sound like an argument for the betterment of game development?
Sure, the Invisible Hand of the Market™ will eventually market games (hopefully in good faith) directly aimed at women--
Bullshit. The market doesn't care if a man or a woman buys a game. How about showing evidence of what women play and prefer? Something like Iunno... The Sims, Civilization series? Games like Counterstrike?
Maybe if someone did some facts about females... Oh wait...
But it is going to continue to be stupid and ugly until they figure it out.
What kind of crap are you talking about? Ubisoft has been around for decades and games have been around for over 50 years give or take. Obviously, people play games they prefer. That's some serious BS... You don't know what you're talking about and trying to blame an industry for making games you don't like. Maybe you should keep that to yourself.
Which is kind of sad, since the gaming industry has a lot going for it in terms of creativity and entertainment value.
And it continues to do so without some crazy moral guardians trying to censor games they don't like for a subjective standard akin to Jack Thompson hoping games to eliminate violence. Ridiculous...
Now there is seriously some context missing here. First, Watch Dogs was already delayed and gamers went nuts. That was not an option for this yearly game.
So the budget comes up and things get cut. The female models, which are not up to snuff, are cut. Hilarity ensues as people complain about that when it's not the major issue.
And no, Far Cry has nothing to do with this. That's way too sensational and the last I checked, people were angry at the main villain of FC4 for being evil and (allegedly) white.
Let that sink in.
Now to the numbers.
The ESA is misleading and has NO methodology to the most recent numbers. I've tried to check up on those. Do I believe that women are a part of the gaming industry? Yes. But I don't trust the 48% number. The Australian Government's numbers are far better. Focusing on families and transparency work far better than a gender divide.
Imagine what an even deeper slight to the woman gamer will cause.
There's been plenty of games for women but they are games like otome, construction, and even the occasional Counter Strike games. Obviously, 48% being utilized at all means that women already play games. The question is what they play.
I see far more sensationalism from Polygon on this issue than actual looks into what women prefer to play versus men.
This union isn't representing its smaller people. I feel that this union sentiment is a little misplaced. Who funds the unions? If we're taking "follow the money" approach, I believe the ideas are coming from the music industry and the possibly the movie industry to attack a younger entertainment medium.
I don't doubt that some of this is the union being out of touch, but I don't think the information is updated to assess the entire problem. Who find the unions should be the first question and then we can get to a solution for the composers besides no work at all.
It may be a win for them, but it's inherently undemocratic.
Such a model works as a "free market". The ones that can afford it get the premium services while those outside of the market are outside of caring about. This type of division was very much against even Plato and Aristotle who hated the division that was caused by caring for money over any other form of social contract.
The internet, for all purposes here, is a commons. Something that can't be divided up and metered out for exploitative gains by a private enterprise. This runs counter to how the internet works in allowing for options and choices instead of monopolization.
This is setting up a very dangerous game for the ISPs. They've banned local competition, while charging their customers higher prices who will be very keen to push them out of their areas as time goes by. That basically means that eventually the public will either create alternatives on the local level or they'll push for something that will force the companies to compete.
Things like WiscNet were great alternatives and may work in a number of states. Let's hope that more people recognize that local broadband does far more to damage the major monopolies while allowing for better service.
So it's obvious what's going on here. Anytime you go against those in power, expect vilification.
When in doubt, vilify your offenders.
Vilify anyone supporting them. Don't think logically, destroy your opponent through baseless rhetoric until nothing is left. The idea that someone is a traitor gives it power and the Public Relations campaign must continue even in the face of truth.
The companies that want less copyright are too convinced of the maximalist point of view, even if it hurts their bottom line.
If Pandora, Netflix, Google, etc were to rise up against Hollywood, it would be a very tenable relation of small businesses with a large number of conflicts in hoping to minimize Hollywood's influence.
I'd consider the copyright position to be a Game of Thrones. There's plenty of people jockeying for position, and everyone is hoping not to be on the low end of the totem pole.
The US won't get those broadband capabilities until the monopoly rents of copyright infringement, monopolization of infrastructure, and this push for microtransactions on cable bills is stopped and people push for more competition.
Breaking up the Comcast/TWC and other big monopolies could help, but so can breaking up other large companies that continue to poison the well of democracy for their own selfish agendas.
This is truly ridiculous...
Why should I believe that these companies need more money when they can't even give what they promised in the first place?