Originally posted by The nameless Gamer:

Originally posted by D. Flame:

False.

Really? How many genres and types disappeared VS how many genres and types appeared?

Look at the variety of AAA games on PS2 vs PS5.

Checkmate.

Originally posted by Chronocide:

Originally posted by The nameless Gamer:

They were being sarcastic. "DEI" is not a problem. Games are more diverse in genre and type than ever and include all kinds of assets and characters. But there was never equity in them. Not in the industry at least, it's still a very ruthless competition for players, even if there's no publisher breathing down your neck and telling you what to do.

Can you explain this point again?
I've read it several times.
First time, seemed like you were arguing for DEI.
Later times, seemed like your point was that DEI never existed in the first place.

Not all parts of the acronym are equally present. So... let's try point by point.

Diversity in game development has always existed. People from all over the world make games.
Diversity in video games has increased, as gaming has become a more accessible and more accepted hobby. There is a larger variety of characters, stories...
Diversity in game types and genres has also increased over time

Equity in the industry itself never existed. Developers are competing for an audience in any way they can imagine and pull off.
Equity in video games is mostly presented as something worth striving towards.
Equity between video game types and genres is not achievable as they are ultimately products.

Inclusion in the industry has increased, as now game makers come from all kinds of backgrounds.
Inclusion in video game content has also increased, as games have grown in kinds of characters, themes and styles they now include.
Genres and types of games have never been excluded except by the principle of supply and demand.

Originally posted by The nameless Gamer:

Originally posted by PocketYoda:

So you do agree DEI is one of the problems

They were being sarcastic. "DEI" is not a problem. Games are more diverse in genre and type than ever and include all kinds of assets and characters. But there was never equity in them. Not in the industry at least, it's still a very ruthless competition for players, even if there's no publisher breathing down your neck and telling you what to do.

They said "Ah yes, the only problem in the video game industry is "DEI". That's the only problem" So no not being sarcastic, they legitimately quoted it as a part of the problem, not all, a part. So they do consider it to be a fraction of the issue.

Originally posted by D. Flame:

Originally posted by The nameless Gamer:

Really? How many genres and types disappeared VS how many genres and types appeared?

Look at the variety of AAA games on PS2 vs PS5.

Checkmate.

AAA games are not the only part of the landscape. In fact, presently, the AA and indie spaces are far more important and relevant. So... not checkmate.

Originally posted by PocketYoda:

Originally posted by The nameless Gamer:

They were being sarcastic. "DEI" is not a problem. Games are more diverse in genre and type than ever and include all kinds of assets and characters. But there was never equity in them. Not in the industry at least, it's still a very ruthless competition for players, even if there's no publisher breathing down your neck and telling you what to do.

They said "Ah yes, the only problem in the video game industry is "DEI". That's the only problem" So no not being sarcastic, they legitimately quoted it as a part of the problem, not all, a part. So they do consider it to be a fraction of the issue.

The quotation marks around "DEI" are an indication of sarcasm. Not everyone uses the "/s" marking.

Originally posted by The nameless Gamer:

Originally posted by PocketYoda:

They said "Ah yes, the only problem in the video game industry is "DEI". That's the only problem" So no not being sarcastic, they legitimately quoted it as a part of the problem, not all, a part. So they do consider it to be a fraction of the issue.

The quotation marks around "DEI" are an indication of sarcasm. Not everyone uses the "/s" marking.

DEI is a legit industry Acronym.

Originally posted by The nameless Gamer:

Originally posted by D. Flame:

Look at the variety of AAA games on PS2 vs PS5.

Checkmate.

AAA games are not the only part of the landscape. In fact, presently, the AA and indie spaces are far more important and relevant.

I mean you basically just admitted that I was right by trying to move the goal posts, so we'll leave at that.

Have a nice day.

Originally posted by D. Flame:

Originally posted by The nameless Gamer:

AAA games are not the only part of the landscape. In fact, presently, the AA and indie spaces are far more important and relevant.

I mean you basically just admitted that I was right by trying to move the goal posts, so we'll leave at that.

Have a nice day.

I am not moving the goalpost. When I say "gaming industry", I mean the ENTIRE game industry ALWAYS. YOU ignored the AA and indie parts.

Originally posted by PocketYoda:

Originally posted by The nameless Gamer:

The quotation marks around "DEI" are an indication of sarcasm. Not everyone uses the "/s" marking.

DEI is a legit industry Acronym.

I know. And the only part of it which is problematic for the industry is the inclusion of shareholders, investors and useless executives .

Originally posted by PocketYoda:

Originally posted by The nameless Gamer:

The quotation marks around "DEI" are an indication of sarcasm. Not everyone uses the "/s" marking.

DEI is a legit industry Acronym.

It's more than that. It's a Latin term the Cult Embodies: Divide and Conquer.

Originally posted by Chronocide:

Originally posted by They Live, We Sleep!:

Most strange phenomena can be pinned down to a single date or title, such as the first game to feature a turrent section, or the first game to feature quick-time events (I'm glad those two features are gone). So, what was the first game where the developers had a "activist" mindset, where they didn't care about their customers at all and actively fought against them brazenly. When did this terrible, narcissistic mindset start, and what's the first game to be plagued by it?

I can pinpoint such a mindset with movies, with Ghostbusters 2016. That was the first movie I saw where the director, the actors, and even the studio funding it actively went against the customers and fought against them so openly. It was pretty weird, which made it satisfying when the movie flopped and it sequel was cancelled.

But what about games? What was the first game to be plagued with the "activist" mindset that ruined it?

Thinking about it more. I keep looking at it from an ideology standpoint, and it finally hit me. That's false.

The issue is the dual role.

It's both a TV problem and a game dev, but it's not directly related to left or right wing politics.

What changed is that, somewhere along the way, the workers' out-of-work lives started to matter to consumers in a way that affected the value of the finished product. This meant that the out-of-work life now had become part of their job.

When that happens, the quality goes down because the worker now needs a split focus, between being the thing they are hired to do, and also being something out-of-work which their consumers also want.

Basically, we changed all the devs in dev+actor multiclass characters. They're now half as good at being devs, but now they're a mediocre actor too....

The solution is simple. Devs need to stop being things other than devs. And they need to hire a real PR person that does PR (and isn't a dev).

And we the consumers need to stop associating the dev's choices outside of work with the work itself.

It's a priorities thing: do we want good games, or games by good people...?

No its the workers lives and Jobs intermixed when it shouldn't have, the saying goes do not bring your home life to work with you.. The modern generations and companies some how forgot that.

Now everything is effecting bottom lines because people only have singular visions on greed, ideologies and sexuality..

Originally posted by PocketYoda:

Originally posted by Chronocide:

Thinking about it more. I keep looking at it from an ideology standpoint, and it finally hit me. That's false.

The issue is the dual role.

It's both a TV problem and a game dev, but it's not directly related to left or right wing politics.

What changed is that, somewhere along the way, the workers' out-of-work lives started to matter to consumers in a way that affected the value of the finished product. This meant that the out-of-work life now had become part of their job.

When that happens, the quality goes down because the worker now needs a split focus, between being the thing they are hired to do, and also being something out-of-work which their consumers also want.

Basically, we changed all the devs in dev+actor multiclass characters. They're now half as good at being devs, but now they're a mediocre actor too....

The solution is simple. Devs need to stop being things other than devs. And they need to hire a real PR person that does PR (and isn't a dev).

And we the consumers need to stop associating the dev's choices outside of work with the work itself.

It's a priorities thing: do we want good games, or games by good people...?

No its the workers lives and Jobs intermixed when it shouldn't have, the saying goes do not bring your home life to work with you.. The modern generations and companies some how forgot that.

Now everything is effecting bottom lines because people only have singular visions on greed, ideologies and sexuality..

Bingo. The Trifecta that destroys society from within.

And we're the "Schizos" for pointing this out...*facepalm*

Originally posted by The nameless Gamer:

Depends on what you consider a "failure". As someone who has played mostly obscure and unheard of games, many of them are simply... good and they've reached their target audience. There's a very wide area between roaring success and crushing failure.

For the sake of the conversation, Let's consider failure as the bar set up whenever a 'woke' game 'goes broke'

Originally posted by The nameless Gamer:

"DEI" is not a problem.

"DEI" is a boogeyman, a strawman from outrage grifters to monetize fabricated controversies.

Originally posted by Chronocide:

The solution is simple. Devs need to stop being things other than devs. And they need to hire a real PR person that does PR (and isn't a dev).

Not every dev has money for that.

Originally posted by The nameless Gamer:

Originally posted by D. Flame:

I mean you basically just admitted that I was right by trying to move the goal posts, so we'll leave at that.

Have a nice day.

I am not moving the goalpost. When I say "gaming industry", I mean the ENTIRE game industry ALWAYS. YOU ignored the AA and indie parts.

Sure, you did.

Have a nice day.

When did the "activist" game developer mindset start?

IT is a tough question, but it really starts when governments forced a diversity quota on companies. First it was fairly simple, if your company is over a certain size you need a certain ratio of minorities vs the majority population. Then when the LBGQ++++++++++++++ movement got enough power, they could add additional categories for diversity. A company no longer needed to hire so many women, minorities and the like, you could add a gay/transgender/nonbinary person and if they were a minority, you get an extra political point and meet the quota.

The first thing they do it put them into lower management such as HR to not interrupt the business workflow. Suddenly your HR is full of people who will actively recruit more people like them. Before you know it, the ratio of workers changes, and your marketing, sales are filled with people that are more focused on XYZ identity than day to day business. IF your CEO or other high ranking and your not part of that group, you now walk on egg shells, because you could be the next one to be let go, so there is little internal resistance to unusual no productive practices that add nothing to the bottom line of the company.

End result, you start making products that are not catered to the mass audience, but to a small minority. Game studios, Hollywood, software developers, it is more noticeable in these industries, but really it effects most companies that have more than a couple thousand employees.