Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
No, you keep assuming that senior management are beholden to their emotions when assigning a budget

On the contrary, I never said that they were somehow emotional wrecks unable to control their emotions.

I stated that long-running societal biases have colored their decision making. Tell me this, when a white businessman in the 50s turns aside black people, does that mean he hates black people? No. He was making a decision to turn them aside because he believed, based off of common cultural perceptions, that they would not be good for business-- that they wouldn't have the money, that they would attract undesirables such as criminals and drug-users, and that they would scare away more desirable customers (who just so happened to be white). Or if they did serve non-whites, the businesses offered inferior services to the black people instead of equal services-- again, perceiving them as less valuable customers, even when they both paid the same prices for the same products.

Many, if not most, did not necessarily think "I hate black people so I'm not serving them". They wanted higher profits so they did things which they perceived would result in higher profits. But that does not make their decisions the correct ones, either financially or morally.

Companies are not perfectly intelligent things that make perfectly rational actions based off of perfect information.

They are inherently flawed things that are slow to adapt to change which have imperfect levels of information.

 Amaya wrote:
Corporations have proven time and again to be slow to change even when the information was right before their eyes. Data has often been misinterpreted and the true signal lost within static.

Also, simply because women make up a large percentage of gamers, doesn't mean they play the same game males do. Perhaps complaining about the lack of female leads in the FPS genre for example might be an excercise in futility if there is evidence that the vast majority of said players are male.

In a recession with competition for decreasing profits I fin it hard to believe that companies don't want to tap into untouched, viable markets. So is the signal being lost because of internal policy, or because there is a cultural imbalance regarding the perception of females?

Also even with the figures in this thread we see that women are still in the minority of gamers.

 Melissia wrote:
Tell me this, when a white businessman in the 50s turns aside black people, does that mean he hates black people?

Please clarify this statement. I think you're making a grievous factual error here.

 Amaya wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Tell me this, when a white businessman in the 50s turns aside black people, does that mean he hates black people?

Please clarify this statement. I think you're making a grievous factual error here.

The 1950s had black people segregated from white people, both in society and in businesses. For example, frequently, businesses and communities would have two separate water fountains that were labeled "for white people" and "for black people". Or they would segregate black people in to less desirable sections of a restaurant, assuming they allowed them in at all.

Most infamous photo example is here:

 Amaya wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:

 Amaya wrote:
Given that most people don't understand economics, I wouldn't be surprised if neither of you did.

A Ph. D isn't required to know what "supply and demand" means.

If you really think that is remotely that simple than you don't understand.

If I think what is that simple?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Amaya wrote:
Corporations have proven time and again to be slow to change even when the information was right before their eyes. Data has often been misinterpreted and the true signal lost within static.

Also, simply because women make up a large percentage of gamers, doesn't mean they play the same game males do. Perhaps complaining about the lack of female leads in the FPS genre for example might be an excercise in futility if there is evidence that the vast majority of said players are male.

In a recession with competition for decreasing profits I fin it hard to believe that companies don't want to tap into untouched, viable markets. So is the signal being lost because of internal policy, or because there is a cultural imbalance regarding the perception of females?

Also even with the figures in this thread we see that women are still in the minority of gamers.

And the minority can technically be as high as 49.99999%. At what point does the minority become statisically significant?

You also ignored the key point of my post, we have to analyze female gaming on a genre and platform basis. Making gross generalisations is unwise and I can guarantee you any competent company is analyzing sales on a case by case basis.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:

 Amaya wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Tell me this, when a white businessman in the 50s turns aside black people, does that mean he hates black people?

Please clarify this statement. I think you're making a grievous factual error here.

The 1950s had black people segregated from white people, both in society and in businesses. For example, frequently, businesses would have two separate water fountains that were labeled "for white people" and "for black people".

Do you really think I'm that stupid?

And do you honestly think that any good businessman wanted to support such policies? By forcing them to have seperate, yet equal (lol), facilities businesses were forced to invest additional capital into attracting "colored" business or ignore a segment of the populace and lose further profits. It was a lose-lose situation for businesses. Only extremely racist owner would turn away customers.



You're also erroneously comparing two very different things. Actively turning away customers is very different than not attempting to appeal to a certain demographic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Monster Rain wrote:

 Amaya wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:

 Amaya wrote:
Given that most people don't understand economics, I wouldn't be surprised if neither of you did.

A Ph. D isn't required to know what "supply and demand" means.

If you really think that is remotely that simple than you don't understand.

If I think what is that simple?

Economics...how was not obvious? Are we discussing something else that I missed?

And do you honestly think that any good businessman wanted to support such policies?

Yes.

I'm not sure if it's that I have an appallingly low opinion of businesspeople or that you have an astonishingly high opinion, but apparently we have very different expectations of rationality from them

 Melissia wrote:

And do you honestly think that any good businessman wanted to support such policies?

Yes.

I'm not sure if it's that I have an appallingly low opinion of businesspeople or that the average person has an astonishingly high opinion, but apparently we have very different expectations of rationality from them

By definition a good businessman would be interested in maximizing long term profits.

Maybe you missed the "good" part...

 Amaya wrote:
By definition a good businessman would be interested in maximizing long term profits.

Wow, the business community is utterly screwed then-- we don't have very many of those, to be sure.

It was not my intent to say that familiarity with supply and demand was sufficient for total understanding of the field of Economics.

I can't believe I just had to type that.

In addition, 40 percent of all gamers are women. In fact, the ESA noted that women over the age of 18 represent nearly twice as much of the gamer population, than do boys age 17 or younger.
In the world of online and wireless games, 44 percent of gamers are female, according to the ESA. Casual games account for almost half of the online games played the most often

Emphasis mine.

"The only difference is that women typically spend less time in a single sitting playing than their male counterparts," said Phaedra Boinodiris, chief executive officer of WomenGamers.com.

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/64900.html


Are we still honestly entertaining the argument that woman don't make up a significant portion of the total gaming population?

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with video games but there are fewer female leads and therefore less pronounced a "generic" female lead performance.

Monster Rain wrote:

 Amaya wrote:
Given that most people don't understand economics, I wouldn't be surprised if neither of you did.

A Ph. D isn't required to know what "supply and demand" means.

Monster Rain wrote:It was not my intent to say that familiarity with supply and demand was sufficient for total understanding of the field of Economics.

I can't believe I just had to type that.

Can you explain to me how I was supposed to read those eleven words differently? You made a vapid remark that didn't imply you knew anything about economics. Most people misuse supply and demand anyways...even if they "know" what is...

Melissia wrote:

 Amaya wrote:
By definition a good businessman would be interested in maximizing long term profits.

Wow, the business community is utterly screwed then-- we don't have very many of those, to be sure.

I think the number of failed companies or those in the red would have made that evident. Also, you don't have to be a particulary good businessman to be successful. Simply coming up with a unique and attractive product and avoiding being a complete buffoon will lead to some success.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with video games but there are fewer female leads and therefore less pronounced a "generic" female lead performance.

That's your best counter? Honestly?

Edit: It is really sad that you just can't come out and say Jennifer Hale is a good voice actress.

 Melissia wrote:
On the contrary, I never said that they were somehow emotional wrecks unable to control their emotions.

I never said that was your position. Now who is misrepresenting?

 Melissia wrote:
Companies are not perfectly intelligent things that make perfectly rational actions based off of perfect information.

They are inherently flawed things that are slow to adapt to change which have imperfect levels of information.

I'm not even dignifying your race discussion with any substantive response.
There is a vast difference between imperfect information and "intentionally" cutting out females as lead in games because of emotion and cultural reasons.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
There is a vast difference between imperfect information and "intentionally" cutting out females as lead in games

No, there isn't, when one causes the other.

Amaya, I can appreciate that you're feeling scrappy but damn, man, you are failing at reading.

As for me, I think Jennifer Hale is the best voice actor/ress of the entire video game industry. No exception.

 Monster Rain wrote:
Amaya, I can appreciate that you're feeling scrappy but damn, man, you are failing at reading.

That was a productive post, do you have any other useful insights or do you enjoy being a mosquito interjecting the occasional nonsensical observation?

 Melissia wrote:
No, there isn't, when one causes the other.

Imperfect information showing that female lead games do not sell as well as versus someone feeling that female lead games are not so popular so they shouldn't be funded. That's a lot of difference, especially when you haven't shown that the information is imperfect enough to cause such a disparity

 Amaya wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
Amaya, I can appreciate that you're feeling scrappy but damn, man, you are failing at reading.

That was a productive post, do you have any other useful insights or do you enjoy being a mosquito interjecting the occasional nonsensical observation?

It was a response to your post, after you engaged me by injecting a, ahem, nonsensical observation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
The NPD Group found in 2009 that 28% of console gamers are female. As of 2012, the ESA found women make up 47% of the general market for video games.

I have two problems with this. The fact that games marketed toward 28% of the console audience get 40% of the marketing budget than other games seems like an argument for my side. Also, the "video game market" is extremely diverse, making the second figure you posted less than convincing for the purposes of this discussion.

 Manchu wrote:
For example, are you actually ever going to answer that ratio question -- I mean, since you claim sincerity here and that one liners like "what ratio of objectification would be acceptable" is not just flamebaiting, then I'm sure you have an answer for me about whether you think the industry can justify objectification as long as they also have some quota's worth of non-problematic female characters.

Why should I have an answer for a question I asked you? #actualquestionnotasnideremark

 Manchu wrote:
[You are pretending that an argument you are making is a fact. It's called begging the question.

It isn't a fact that publishing executives, or executives in general, are primarily concerned with maximizing profit? #actualquestionnotasnideremark

 Monster Rain wrote:

 Amaya wrote:
Given that most people don't understand economics, I wouldn't be surprised if neither of you did.

A Ph. D isn't required to know what "supply and demand" means.

I'm sorry, Monster Rain, can you please explain how am I supposed to interpret this?

I state that most people do not understand economics (after you suggested Melissia does not) and that I wouldn't be surprised if neither of you did.

You stated that "A Ph. D isn't required to know what "supply and demand" means."

Other than an implication that understanding "supply and demand" is somehow the end all to understanding economics, how am I supposed to read your post?


This particularly confusing since most people who claim to understand "supply and demand" have a very rudimentary grasp of the concept and economics is much more complex than "supply and demand".

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
No, there isn't, when one causes the other.

Imperfect information showing that female lead games do not sell as well as versus someone feeling that female lead games are not so popular so they shouldn't be funded.

... which is the conclusion one comes to when one takes the data at face value instead of looking at the reason why the data is the way it is. If one sees that a movie has gone bad and sees a black lead in it, then assumes that all black leads will give poor returns on all movies in the future, it'd be a pretty stupid assumption, too-- and an assumption likely motivated by latent racism.

Both the historical and modern reasons for the disparity are fairly obvious, and I described them earlier.

Also, for the record, marketing that only gives you a dollar or less in return for every dollar spent is a very poor investment to begin with. Marketing is expected to return far more than that.

 Amaya wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:

 Amaya wrote:
Given that most people don't understand economics, I wouldn't be surprised if neither of you did.

A Ph. D isn't required to know what "supply and demand" means.

I'm sorry, Monster Rain, can you please explain how am I supposed to interpret this?

I state that most people do not understand economics (after you suggested Melissia does not) and that I wouldn't be surprised if neither of you did.

You stated that "A Ph. D isn't required to know what "supply and demand" means."

Other than an implication that understanding "supply and demand" is somehow the end all to understanding economics, how am I supposed to read your post?


This particularly confusing since most people who claim to understand "supply and demand" have a very rudimentary grasp of the concept and economics is much more complex than "supply and demand".

There are varying levels of understanding a given subject, from no understanding at all to total understanding.

The concept of the Law of Supply and Demand is one of the most basic principles in the subject of economics. While complete understanding of the concept might be difficult to manage, any basic education on the subject of economics should at least provide familiarity with the concept.

That's a bit like saying you don't need a PhD to do basic arithmetic when someone points out most people don't understand advanced calculus.

Worst thing you can do with economics is oversimplify. If all someone understands is supply and demand they can't really contribute an informed opinion to a discussion on economics.

But if they very clearly don't understand that basic of a concept, they don't have any business taking shots at someone else's knowledge on the subject.

I'm well and truly bored of this tangent, however.

Why don't we all get back on to the proper topic now?

This, may be a bit off topic but in general to females in gaming and gender roles. What type of games would have females as protagonists?
If it's a medieval game, I would probably not want to play it unless you play as a prominent female e.g. Matilda of Tuscany. In the FPS genre, it is a little grey, if it is late 20th century or futuristic I am fine with female characters but if it is world war II or any period before... No thanks. In RPGS and MMOS, I would like well written characters all round, I hate some characters who are there for sex symbols in thus discussed games.

There were a handful of female knights. There were female soldiers in the Resistance, Soviet Army, and Finnish army. The Viet Cong had female soldiers.

 Manchu wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
This is quality. The data is out there, go find it.

This isn't your first rodeo. Pretending ignorance on this subject is more of your trollery. The NPD Group found in 2009 that 28% of console gamers are female. As of 2012, the ESA found women make up 47% of the general market for video games.

 Monster Rain wrote:
While it was an interesting look at video game publishing, I didn't see the misogynistic heart of darkness of the industry.

Once, more a retreat to the strawman. Developers and publishers don't hate women. They do think female characters are worth less than male characters. This is "devaluation" in the most literal sense of the term.

 Monster Rain wrote:
how many sentences should I use to express ideas to cross the "snipe" threshold?

I suppose you'll say I'm starting another conversation about numbers now that you brought it up. If you don't know what the difference is between posting a rational argument and a snide remark then maybe you should read more and post less -- especially concerning this thread. Your innocent act is about as thin as I have seen on Dakka and that's saying something. For example, are you actually ever going to answer that ratio question -- I mean, since you claim sincerity here and that one liners like "what ratio of objectification would be acceptable" is not just flamebaiting, then I'm sure you have an answer for me about whether you think the industry can justify objectification as long as they also have some quota's worth of non-problematic female characters.

 Monster Rain wrote:
It doesn't attempt to keep them from criticism, it only attempts to make that criticism accurate. Whether or not the criticism is valid is another discussion entirely.

You are pretending that an argument you are making is a fact. It's called begging the question.

I'm a bit skeptical about the lack of sources indicated by the PDF. I also find it to be a bit misleading as it seems a majority of females gamers I have contact with like to play MMOs, jrpgs or are really casual in general. If it indiciated how long each gender of each age bracket plays the game, I found find the source more creditable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amaya wrote:
There were a handful of female knights. There were female soldiers in the Resistance, Soviet Army, and Finnish army. The Viet Cong had female soldiers.

They were a rarity, less than 1%, I don't think it fits the theme correctly. If there was a rare 1 in 1000 chance to spawn as female in those games. With an option on medieval games especially online where there is a female/male choice, it ruins the authenticity of the game. It ruins the atmosphere.

The ESA is a bad place to go for stastics. When we usually speak of Video Games, we mostly refer to retail games whereas the ESA also includes social games where female players are a whole lot more numerous than male gamers. And really, I don't want people to put both retail and social games in the same box...