GHOB wrote on Sep 19, 2024, 05:45:
Rock Paper Shotgun is not going to be around for long. Their views are way out of touch with the majority of the gaming player base. Gamers are tired of 'messaging' in their games, from both the left and the right.
I personally fully support what the Saber CEO wrote and am happy to spend money on their games if this is going to be their guiding philosophy. Make good games and leave the messaging to the idiots who want their projects to fail.
Get Woke, Go Broke.
Funny. I'm not aware of any so-called "woke" company actually ever going broke - despite folks repeating that silly mantra like it's some kind of whimsical magical "Bloody Mary" invocation.
AB InBev's stock price has mostly traded flat for the past 3 or so years (predating the non-troversy over its Bud cans which apparently was the last straw for some folks or else the excuse they needed to stop swilling crappy beer) which is consistent with and in several cases far better performance than the other alcoholic beverage conglomerates like Diageo, Molson Coors, Pernod Ricard, Boston Beer Company, etc. And AB InBev revenue reached a new record in 2023. Harley Davidson - ditto - flat for 5 years. Their problem is aging demographics for their main customer-base, not "wokeness".
Rolling Stone profiled some of the companies that faced boycotts over supposed "wokeness" and found most are more profitable than ever:
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/woke-companies-broke-profits-1234710724/Predating all of that, the U.S. military integrated even earlier and somehow survived becoming "woke".
As crazy as this idea sounds, gaming - like so many other things - benefits from appealing to wider audiences. And funnily enough, this kind of thing has been going on for many many decades. The entire decade of the 1970s saw an explosion of television and movie entertainment that reflected "diversity" (another apparently scary word for some bizarre reason) - Dog Day Afternoon, The Jeffersons, Roots, CHiPs, Sesame Street, etc. (Star Trek and some other shows and films were already starting to do this in the 1960s). For that matter, Dungeons & Dragons encouraged players to develop adventuring parties composed of many races. Somehow folks managed to enjoy themselves and not ceaselessly whine about having to cater to the physical weakness of halflings or mages, or the goody two-shoes nature of paladins.
"Messaging" in entertainment changes over time. Over a century ago, British fantasy inevitably had a hero from the upper-class accompanied by a loyal but lower-class batman, and the messaging was that a stiff upper-lip and good breeding would always win the day over the raw savages and uncouth working class drudgery types who had their place and knew their place. And now a lot of American entertainment in recent decades has presented exactly the opposite - where the upper-crust person is either a twit or an adversary.
One of the great advances in games has been expansion of virtually everything - story, complexity, characters, etc. Pong was great in its time in its own simplicity, but generally most folks seem to appreciate that there is more to gaming than batting a virtual ball around. Some of the messaging around even first person shooters is what exactly makes the bad guys "bad" - spelling it out with their actions rather than just boringly saying "they're bad so just play the game".
As far as I've seen, the expansion of romances in games doesn't force anyone to do a romance option they don't want, and is there to provide options that appeal to more gamers. Because again, entertainment and any other money-making enterprise benefits from expanding its audience. But apparently basic capitalist concepts are "woke" these days and the "core audience" doesn't like sharing whatever it's latched onto with anyone else, so go figure.