Computer games.

[Allezfan]

And I'm not sure, but IF you just indicated I think what women think doesn't matter, then that is very indicative of the problem, as you've shown the exact willingness to paint anyone who defends the concept of free market gaming - the right for people to enjoy whatever they wish to enjoy - as sexist, racist or homophobic.

But I haven't done that.

All i've said is I believe that whatever women think, they should be able to say it without getting rape and death threats.

That's not me painting gamers as anything. That's me disagreeing with rape and death threats.

My opinion on feminists is almost identical to my opinion on israel, if I'm honest. I'd get behind criticism of them a lot mrer if the people criticising them didn't seem to have such unpleasant elements in it.

 

[blue4eva77]

Anyone played Wolfenstein new order.

Might give this a go as its getting cheaper. I like playing the world war II based games

 

[Tubey]

But I haven't done that.

All i've said is I believe that whatever women think, they should be able to say it without getting rape and death threats.

That's not me painting gamers as anything. That's me disagreeing with rape and death threats.

My opinion on feminists is almost identical to my opinion on israel, if I'm honest. I'd get behind criticism of them a lot mrer if the people criticising them didn't seem to have such unpleasant elements in it.

But it's not about criticising feminists, it's about supporting gamers and a free market.

It's actually more targeted at gaming critics - the feminist movement has actually been hijacked here, as you're talking about one or two feminists being publicly involved (extreme ones with a very extreme agenda at that).

I said, "There are people who want to standardise every game to appeal to everyone" - not feminists, people. That's why it's all so sinister - it's people with a disdain of people who identify as gamers looking to paint them black.

http://whatculture.com/gaming/10-lessons-the-gaming-industry-must-learn-from-gamergate.php/2

I actually do have an issue with a lot of feminists, not for who they are, but for what they represent (take, for example, Kelly Brook admitting to punching her partners in the face and laughing about it; not one feminist spoke up about that, but if the guy had punched her they'd be in uproar - that's my issue with feminists; it's a naturally one-sided outlook in life without looking for balance, the same as guys who adopt masculism get equally the same amount of ire from me) but that's a whole other issue.

The very fact feminism is being discussed in relation to what #GamerGate was about is indicative of the problem; they aren't the victims or even a factor in this, they are a strawman.

 

[johnnyW]

It got slammed by Gamespot and Polygon, and has been underwhelming in review scores all over the place.

Hopefully its' failure will begin to slam the lid shut on the FPS genre.

Yeah just read the reveiw was what I expected. the problem for me is that essentially people are idiots and want to be told what they want rather then choose what they want.

people want lies and to be told something is going to be boss the they will sit there while playing it and go "wow this is boss" as they walk down the same grey corridor for the millionth time killing the same things over and over. with no imagination and no innovation and big developers getting all the money with there big flashy games with no substance to them and the masses lapping it up because they are told to.

meanwhile indi devs are making fantastic games everyday but are crippled by market and that's how all the big cope rations want it they want games that appeal to everyone and please no one imo.

 

[Smudge1985]

Anyone else played The Wolf Among Us? Downloaded it ages ago having enjoyed the Walking Dead but not really started playing it until this week. Really enjoying it and into episode 2 now.

 

[DualityNSNO]

Smite is boss.

That is all.

 

[Basil Fawlty]

Anyone else played The Wolf Among Us? Downloaded it ages ago having enjoyed the Walking Dead but not really started playing it until this week. Really enjoying it and into episode 2 now.

I bought episode 1and thought it was a really cool game, I was waiting for the other episodes to be on sale or disk but I ended up getting an Xbox one

 

[RaleighBlue]

But it's not about criticising feminists, it's about supporting gamers and a free market.

It's actually more targeted at gaming critics - the feminist movement has actually been hijacked here, as you're talking about one or two feminists being publicly involved (extreme ones with a very extreme agenda at that).

I said, "There are people who want to standardise every game to appeal to everyone" - not feminists, people. That's why it's all so sinister - it's people with a disdain of people who identify as gamers looking to paint them black.

http://whatculture.com/gaming/10-lessons-the-gaming-industry-must-learn-from-gamergate.php/2

I actually do have an issue with a lot of feminists, not for who they are, but for what they represent (take, for example, Kelly Brook admitting to punching her partners in the face and laughing about it; not one feminist spoke up about that, but if the guy had punched her they'd be in uproar - that's my issue with feminists; it's a naturally one-sided outlook in life without looking for balance, the same as guys who adopt masculism get equally the same amount of ire from me) but that's a whole other issue.

The very fact feminism is being discussed in relation to what #GamerGate was about is indicative of the problem; they aren't the victims or even a factor in this, they are a strawman.

This is a fallacy.

There is currently no free market in gaming. This is because the industry has a boys club attitude. For men, by men. It's not even always intentional. In fact, it very rarely is intentional, because we all just want to make money (free market!). But that ignores the fundamental difficulties of attracting women to the industry due to ingrained misogynist behaviours among both the customer base and the developer base. The lack of a feminine voice in gaming means the market is skewed away from a true free market. People can only buy the games that are made, and the people that make games are, by and large, men. Therefore the production is dominated by men, meaning that many women do not take up the hobby because there are so few games that speak to their interests.

#GamerGate is about a toxic culture among those that consider themselves 'hardcore gamers'. Yes, they are most probably a minority. However they exist, and they are vocal. They are misogynist and insular. The industry has fed this culture because so often those truly hardcore are precisely the sorts of people that are willing to do the (absolutely insane) work it requires to become a developer.

I personally agree with your Utopia - there is room for Saints Row and Lollipop Chainsaw. Just as there is room for games with strong, non-sexualized female characters and leads. The thing is though that the second group of games is massively underrepresented. The strongest (non-sexualized) female characters in games are either the games that let the protagonist pick their gender, or games with a female villain.

I'm not saying gamers are sexists. Because that's a ridiculous stance to hold. However, I think you are defending your hobby and being blinded to some very real problems within the industry and within the culture.

 

[Tubey]

How a free market in relation to gaming works.

* Gamers want certain types of games.
* Developers make those games.

There's nothing more complicated than that. It's not a "boys club", it's just that gamers have traditionally been predominantly male as consoles were not aimed at women, nor generally wanted by women (and the same generally holds true today!) Look at the adverts in the 80s/90s for the console wars. Look at the titles. Look at sales.

The shift towards women has been an organic process and that's how a free market works. I actually should have known the capability for casual games to be successful, such as the Wii, as my own mum was absolutely addicted to Duck Hunt when I was a kid - casual gaming based on dexterity. But throw Ghosts n' Goblins at her and she wasn't interested.

And that's free market - a game system was made that appealed to casual gamers, and women became involved and loved it, as it was aimed at casuals and families. Imagine if "hardcore" gamers were up in arms at the Wii not being aimed at them - it wouldn't make sense, yet the reverse scenario is happening here and people think it's fine!

Mobile phones became a thing, and ever since Snake on the Nokia women have gamed on these devices more and more. A pattern emerges - console gaming appealed broadly to males, casual games appealed to females and families.

But these things didn't exist in the early 90s and earlier - it was Sega Mega Drive, SNES, Atari 2600, Commodore 64 and so on, and they had male audiences, just as much as Barbie has a female one and GI Joe has a male appeal (no matter what the gender neutral brigade wish).

Women don't need to be attracted to the industry to develop AAA titles - they either want to be there, or they don't. There has to be an appetite for that standard of game in the first instance. Why would a triple A studio go against everything that the market tells them makes for a best-selling game, lose a shedload of money, just to get the odd girl to think "oooh that may be for me after all!"

People are blinded by the console games being male-orientated, and don't step back to think why that is, instead looking at overall figures. Perhaps the market is working exactly as it should be - gaming is in a boom period, women gamers are on an upward trajectory, specs for "hardcore" gamers are rapidly progressing, online gaming is diverse, and so on.

So why is gaming being treated like it's sick and needs fixing, simply because females now identify as "gamers" and think that everything and anything to do with that tag should be aimed at them? Isn't there room in a market for free choice anymore?

 

[Millea]

Anyone else played The Wolf Among Us? Downloaded it ages ago having enjoyed the Walking Dead but not really started playing it until this week. Really enjoying it and into episode 2 now.

Finished it mate, utterly brilliant.

 

[RaleighBlue]

How a free market in relation to gaming works.

* Gamers want certain types of games.
* Developers make those games.

There's nothing more complicated than that. It's not a "boys club", it's just that gamers have traditionally been predominantly male as consoles were not aimed at women, nor generally wanted by women (and the same generally holds true today!) Look at the adverts in the 80s/90s for the console wars. Look at the titles. Look at sales.

The shift towards women has been an organic process and that's how a free market works. I actually should have known the capability for casual games to be successful, such as the Wii, as my own mum was absolutely addicted to Duck Hunt when I was a kid - casual gaming based on dexterity. But throw Ghosts n' Goblins at her and she wasn't interested.

And that's free market - a game system was made that appealed to casual gamers, and women became involved and loved it, as it was aimed at casuals and families. Imagine if "hardcore" gamers were up in arms at the Wii not being aimed at them - it wouldn't make sense, yet the reverse scenario is happening here and people think it's fine!

Mobile phones became a thing, and ever since Snake on the Nokia women have gamed on these devices more and more. A pattern emerges - console gaming appealed broadly to males, casual games appealed to females and families.

But these things didn't exist in the early 90s and earlier - it was Sega Mega Drive, SNES, Atari 2600, Commodore 64 and so on, and they had male audiences, just as much as Barbie has a female one and GI Joe has a male appeal (no matter what the gender neutral brigade wish).

Women don't need to be attracted to the industry to develop AAA titles - they either want to be there, or they don't. There has to be an appetite for that standard of game in the first instance. Why would a triple A studio go against everything that the market tells them makes for a best-selling game, lose a shedload of money, just to get the odd girl to think "oooh that may be for me after all!"

People are blinded by the console games being male-orientated, and don't step back to think why that is, instead looking at overall figures. Perhaps the market is working exactly as it should be - gaming is in a boom period, women gamers are on an upward trajectory, specs for "hardcore" gamers are rapidly progressing, online gaming is diverse, and so on.

So why is gaming being treated like it's sick and needs fixing, simply because females now identify as "gamers" and think that everything and anything to do with that tag should be aimed at them? Isn't there room in a market for free choice anymore?

You're a developer then?

I am. I live in the culture. It is a boys club. Hence the regular usage of phrases like, "You got raped."

You're going on about how the consumers drive the culture, but it's far more complicated then that. Consumers can only consume what is created. So if there is some initial seed of misogyny(such as exists in games - i.e. most programmers in the 70s and 80s were male and designed from that point of view) then the brand new market will be saturated by things the devs want to make - which is male dominated. This will mean the majority of your consumers will be male, turning off half of the customer base. Then growing up more little boys want to be devs than little girls and we see the cycle continued.

Women are playing casual games because casual games generally don't have story at all. Anytime story or character is involved, it's written to the male audience, because that's the audience the early industry created. It's not a malicious attempt to push women out of the space, it's how it organically evolved.

Women generally don't go into game development because the culture is fairly toxic (often unintentionally so, bros making bro jokes) and you have to have a hell of a thick skin to make it. And making it just means you get to work 80+hour weeks for less pay than you'd get outside of games.

Hardcore gaming is the precise area that 'gamergate' comes into effect. Casual gaming is not misogynist or really gender split at all. Just like Tetris never was. But it's a fundamental problem in the industry that women have to fight so much harder to have an equal voice and then they get to live as second class citizens. And if anyone speaks out against it, they're labelled feminists, and god forbid a woman speaks out about it, because she may then have to live with rape and death threats.

Video games are a form of entertainment. They are not male oriented for any fundamental reason beyond the culture surrounding them. It's no different than movies, or books. And most people would agree that if 95% of movies were action war movies with women acting purely as scenery then the film industry and 'hardcore filmies' may have a problem.

I also take issue with your seeming belief that casual games are for women and hardcore games are for men. This doesn't have to be the case, and is part of the problem. Why can't women enjoy hardcore games that don't treat them as objects and simpletons? I'm not advocating we have no male-oriented games. I'm questioning the backlash at the idea of a female-oriented hardcore game. I'm also suggesting that in games that are not explicitly exploitative (Lollipop Chainsaw) developers would be wise to begin treating female characters as fully formed characters, rather than objects of the gamers desire.

 

[Tubey]

Because males buy games that interest them, and women buy games that interest them. That's the point.

It's not social justice to strive for equality in every medium. There's nothing wrong with a game like Lollipop Chainsaw existing, because if the market didn't want it, they wouldn't buy it. The onus isn't on the studio NOT to cater for a target audience; studios cannot tell people what they should buy; the market has free will.

You are a developer in a studio that, I assume, makes console games aimed at men, or is dominated by men - what you aren't seeming to understand is that is completely fine, because the products you are creating as a result are what the free market wants to purchase. If they weren't, you'd be out of a job - don't fool yourself into thinking your company is some sort of Godlike structure that dictates the market; it doesn't, and never will. Even EA can't do that - if demand for Madden and FIFA dries up, that's that. Look at LucasArts; with Monkey Island, Grim Fandango etc. they dominated, then the market demand shifted, and that was that.

Imagine, for one moment, that a beer company was forced to start making cocktails, because their beer was attracting too much of a male audience. It'd be ludicrous, because obviously the reason males are buying the beer is because it's what the male wants to buy, not because the beer company is telling them to buy it.

Look beyond your own job and you'll see studios making games like Candy Crush Saga, and they are doing so because they've identified an area of the market with an interest in the game. Is targeting in such a way making them sexist, or bigoted?

I see your point about male devs making games for males that then creates more male devs, but at the end of the day those new male devs wouldn't have a job if the market didn't exist for their creations. And if that was the case universally, then new areas of the market like Candy Crush wouldn't exist, but it does, and it's growing.

It's not sexism or bigotry, it's supply and demand, as it always has been, as it always will be.

 

[RaleighBlue]

Because males buy games that interest them, and women buy games that interest them. That's the point.

It's not social justice to strive for equality in every medium. There's nothing wrong with a game like Lollipop Chainsaw existing, because if the market didn't want it, they wouldn't buy it. The onus isn't on the studio NOT to cater for a target audience; studios cannot tell people what they should buy; the market has free will.

You are a developer in a studio that, I assume, makes console games aimed at men, or is dominated by men - what you aren't seeming to understand is that is completely fine, because the products you are creating as a result are what the free market wants to purchase. If they weren't, you'd be out of a job - don't fool yourself into thinking your company is some sort of Godlike structure that dictates the market; it doesn't, and never will. Even EA can't do that - if demand for Madden and FIFA dries up, that's that. Look at LucasArts; with Monkey Island, Grim Fandango etc. they dominated, then the market demand shifted, and that was that.

Imagine, for one moment, that a beer company was forced to start making cocktails, because their beer was attracting too much of a male audience. It'd be ludicrous, because obviously the reason males are buying the beer is because it's what the male wants to buy, not because the beer company is telling them to buy it.

Look beyond your own job and you'll see studios making games like Candy Crush Saga, and they are doing so because they've identified an area of the market with an interest in the game. Is targeting in such a way making them sexist, or bigoted?

I see your point about male devs making games for males that then creates more male devs, but at the end of the day those new male devs wouldn't have a job if the market didn't exist for their creations. And if that was the case universally, then new areas of the market like Candy Crush wouldn't exist, but it does, and it's growing.

It's not sexism or bigotry, it's supply and demand, as it always has been, as it always will be.

Your assumptions are not accurate, but that's ok they're close enough. What I'm saying is that woman are actively being driven from the medium of AAA titles. To separate mobile gaming, as I agree in that space for the most part (although you'll find plenty of men playing casual games as well, it's just not the broken market of AAA titles).

So let's talk about AAA titles in general, console and PC. The issue isn't that they are not catering to women. It's that many (most!) of the games are catering to the male audience to the point of sexism. Women in these games are treated as objects and sex symbols. Which is fine for many games. But utterly unnecessary for most games. This contributes to a toxic climate in which women are seen as objects and sex symbols, and contributes to toxic language such as my prior rape reference. That climate is sexist, even if the motives of the climates creation were not.

I understand your faith in the market. I simply do not share it. AAA games are expensive to make. Like absolutely balls-out nuts expensive to make. That means that the companies making these products are massively risk-averse. The male gamer market is a known quantity, thus publishers cater to it - it's the safe bet. The problem is that there are more and more women that are interested in games. And those women are underrepresented at publishers and studios. That under representation alongside the risk averse nature of the money men means that the market is unlikely to see a major change without people speaking up and vocally demanding it.

As to your point about EA not being able to drive the market - that's true to an extent but not entirely. Mainly because it costs so much to make these games. There are only a few real players - Activision, EA, Ubisoft, Microsoft, Sony...and the rare few indies like Valve which has enough money to do what it wants. Pretty much every other major indie studio goes through a publisher or has gone through a major publisher in the past. This means we have something of an oligarchy in relation to AAA titles. If none of them takes the risk, then the market simply doesn't have a choice except for to stop gaming altogether. And as they are massively monolithic companies with money as their primary motive in a hugely expensive and risky industry...those risks are very few and far between.

The market only has a choice if an alternative is presented.

LucasArts was on top when making a game didn't cost tens to hundreds of millions of dollars. It was easier to take a risk and see if it could knock them off their perch.

Indie games, and casual games do not suffer from these same issues precisely because of the little money involved in making them. It will be interesting to see how this all changes as Unreal and Unity fight for indie devs and make it cheaper and easier for unknowns to make a near-AAA experience.

 

[Tubey]

Your assumptions are not accurate, but that's ok they're close enough. What I'm saying is that woman are actively being driven from the medium of AAA titles. To separate mobile gaming, as I agree in that space for the most part (although you'll find plenty of men playing casual games as well, it's just not the broken market of AAA titles).

So let's talk about AAA titles in general, console and PC. The issue isn't that they are not catering to women. It's that many (most!) of the games are catering to the male audience to the point of sexism. Women in these games are treated as objects and sex symbols. Which is fine for many games. But utterly unnecessary for most games. This contributes to a toxic climate in which women are seen as objects and sex symbols, and contributes to toxic language such as my prior rape reference. That climate is sexist, even if the motives of the climates creation were not.

I understand your faith in the market. I simply do not share it. AAA games are expensive to make. Like absolutely balls-out nuts expensive to make. That means that the companies making these products are massively risk-averse. The male gamer market is a known quantity, thus publishers cater to it - it's the safe bet. The problem is that there are more and more women that are interested in games. And those women are underrepresented at publishers and studios. That under representation alongside the risk averse nature of the money men means that the market is unlikely to see a major change without people speaking up and vocally demanding it.

As to your point about EA not being able to drive the market - that's true to an extent but not entirely. Mainly because it costs so much to make these games. There are only a few real players - Activision, EA, Ubisoft, Microsoft, Sony...and the rare few indies like Valve which has enough money to do what it wants. Pretty much every other major indie studio goes through a publisher or has gone through a major publisher in the past. This means we have something of an oligarchy in relation to AAA titles. If none of them takes the risk, then the market simply doesn't have a choice except for to stop gaming altogether. And as they are massively monolithic companies with money as their primary motive in a hugely expensive and risky industry...those risks are very few and far between.

The market only has a choice if an alternative is presented.

LucasArts was on top when making a game didn't cost tens to hundreds of millions of dollars. It was easier to take a risk and see if it could knock them off their perch.

Indie games, and casual games do not suffer from these same issues precisely because of the little money involved in making them. It will be interesting to see how this all changes as Unreal and Unity fight for indie devs and make it cheaper and easier for unknowns to make a near-AAA experience.

They're not catering to be sexist, they're catering because it's profitable to do so!

Some actual figures:

• The HD shooter audience is 78 percent male.
• The HD action game audience is 80 percent male.
• The HD sports game audience is 85 percent male.

(Correct as of 2013).

So with that in mind, if you're a developer who is making a first person shooter, an action game or a sports game, what audience are you going to target, given that there's no evidence of female desire in these types of games getting any larger and given the formats you are making the game for (PC/PS4/XB1) are male-orientated? It's an absolute no-brainer.

As you said, AAA games are expensive, so that's why they take safe bets and appeal to established markets - but again, you seem to think this is a bad thing. It isn't - it really is supply and demand and applicable in ANY commercial market you care to think of. Imagine if Tampax or Vagisil launched a new product, say a deodorant, spent a sizeable portion of their assets on development and marketing, and aimed it at men - they'd be utterly off their rocker, as the risk would be ridiculous. Yet if they started small, brought in products gradually, then expand the business, they're exploiting the market at the correct pace and attitudes towards the brand/product change.

There isn't a monopoly going on here - if a developer feels the female market is big enough to target to, then they will, as it's meeting supply and demand. Maybe not AAA, but if the female market is there, then they will buy more and more games, and the landscape of gaming will change organically. You cannot force this, it has to happen organically, and it is.

Look at games like Fez, which sold well based on gender-neutral development, encouraging games with a bigger budget to do the same. Look at Minecraft, which single-handedly spawned a whole genre which the likes of Don't Starve and Terraria have sprung from. But to expect a GTA5 or Destiny style game to be developed which ignores gender is unrealistic at this point of time and, again, there's nothing wrong with that - pressure groups telling companies to ignore their core markets immediately is stupidity on stilts.

I guess this is my overarching point - I believe the gender bias in gaming is blown out of proportion and context; people expect things to happen overnight. Where people see "problem", I see "development". Every single trend in gaming right now is saying that female gaming is on the increase, sales are skyrocketing and quality is high - the issue is that some people expect universal, dramatic change overnight and are impatient. It's not going to happen.

 

[RaleighBlue]

They're not catering to be sexist, they're catering because it's profitable to do so!

Some actual figures:

• The HD shooter audience is 78 percent male.
• The HD action game audience is 80 percent male.
• The HD sports game audience is 85 percent male.

(Correct as of 2013).

So with that in mind, if you're a developer who is making a first person shooter, an action game or a sports game, what audience are you going to target, given that there's no evidence of female desire in these types of games getting any larger and given the formats you are making the game for (PC/PS4/XB1) are male-orientated? It's an absolute no-brainer.

As you said, AAA games are expensive, so that's why they take safe bets and appeal to established markets - but again, you seem to think this is a bad thing. It isn't - it really is supply and demand and applicable in ANY commercial market you care to think of. Imagine if Tampax or Vagisil launched a new product, say a deodorant, spent a sizeable portion of their assets on development and marketing, and aimed it at men - they'd be utterly off their rocker, as the risk would be ridiculous. Yet if they started small, brought in products gradually, then expand the business, they're exploiting the market at the correct pace and attitudes towards the brand/product change.

There isn't a monopoly going on here - if a developer feels the female market is big enough to target to, then they will, as it's meeting supply and demand. Maybe not AAA, but if the female market is there, then they will buy more and more games, and the landscape of gaming will change organically. You cannot force this, it has to happen organically, and it is.

Look at games like Fez, which sold well based on gender-neutral development, encouraging games with a bigger budget to do the same. Look at Minecraft, which single-handedly spawned a whole genre which the likes of Don't Starve and Terraria have sprung from. But to expect a GTA5 or Destiny style game to be developed which ignores gender is unrealistic at this point of time and, again, there's nothing wrong with that - pressure groups telling companies to ignore their core markets immediately is stupidity on stilts.

I guess this is my overarching point - I believe the gender bias in gaming is blown out of proportion and context; people expect things to happen overnight. Where people see "problem", I see "development". Every single trend in gaming right now is saying that female gaming is on the increase, sales are skyrocketing and quality is high - the issue is that some people expect universal, dramatic change overnight and are impatient. It's not going to happen.

Ok, so in a lot of ways I think we are closer in opinion that originally thought. I still disagree with certain aspects though.

So here are my main theses which I'll expound upon

1. Catering to the male audience for profit is not sexist, but it enables a culture of sexism
2. Putting pressure on these companies is a good thing

So for point 1:
I agree that the people with the money are not demanding games be made to be sexist. They are demanding profits, which means we should cater to the known demographic of 16-35 year old men. These men generally find women desirable sexually and enjoy thrills related to violence - hence the majority of AAA titles being action adventure, shooters, or rpgs with violent elements (Skyrim, Fallout, etc.)

The above completely non-sexist things lead the developers creating female characters with bigger boobs than brains (generally) and MANLY men as protagonists. Please note that I am generalizing severely, especially in regards to male characters as male characters tend to be much more fully developed than female characters. This is arguably sexist.

The problem comes in what happens next. Women in gaming begin to be seen as the are presented. As objects. Quests to conquer. A completely profit driven initial agenda enables a culture of sexism in plain sight, the same is true of homophobia. You simply need to spend a night on Xbox Live to know that hardcore gamer culture is awash in miscreants that are sexist and homophobic. Games that treat women as objects enable and reinforce this behaviour as acceptable. Real women begin to find that culture uncomfortable and distasteful and generally check out of it, which further enforces the demographic as the main customer base. Is this a problem for developers? Sure, you're alienating half of the potential money!

Point 2:
This is, to me, more of a your mileage may vary point. I think companies and developers aren't bad folks in general. Many people are just making games as they know how to and making things they want to make. They're imitating the games they loved as a kid and adding their own touches. They're fairly isolated in this process.

Putting pressure on them gives a lot of genuinely nice guys a bit of a wake up call. Those guys may go in and just add a bit more dialog to the female tertiary character that makes her less of a cut out. Maybe the concept artist decides to change a random squad character into a woman. It's small stuff, but as you point out it adds up. But without the voice reminding them that women are out there and matter, it may just not occur to them that it's a problem. It's a very isolated industry.

I do agree with you however that the industry is slowing moving towards the middle. I just think it's wrong to say that it's ok where it is now. We have to move to the middle or forever be labelled as a little boys hobby. No one wants that. If gaming is to progress as an industry and an artform, it needs to break out of the mentality that it's for straight men and begin to cast its line a bit further. I think you'll find, as a gamer, that this will serve you far better as well, as you will have a greater variety to choose from rather than (it seems like) Activisions Latest Shooter, Ubisofts latest action adventure, EA's latest sports game, and Microsoft's latest shooter.

This is, once again, ignoring the indie and casual scene, which I believe is in much healthier shape.