Quantcast
Microsoft Vetoed A Black Woman On Cover For Fable II

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Microsoft Vetoed A Black Woman On Cover For Fable II

potato_hamster said:
CosmicSex said:

James bond isn't actually a real person even in the lore.  Its a code name that  assigned to any Agent 007.

So you just wouldn't want a black bond (here on out known as BB lol)...  has nothing to do with the actual story.  

Secondly, it really doesn't matter who plays who as long as they do the role justice.  

"Skyfall" directly contradicts this.

Don't take my word for it:
http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2012/11/11/how-skyfall-clears-up-bonds-biggest-continuity-question

Fascinating. I never realized.



Chinese food for breakfast

 

Around the Network
Soundwave said:
the_dark_lewd said:
Hardly surprising news.
Black women make up about 0.5% of the Xbox audience. White men make up about 80%.

It's kind of silly to get annoyed about that. Microsoft are paying for it. They won't want to gamble on something like that.

I doubt that demographic, pretty sure Asian/black/latino makes up more than 30% of the gaming market. Could be closer to 40%.

By 2020 less than half of the children in the US are projected to be white, so continuing to make games in this "you can only make a game with a white lead" is quite frankly just stupid.

Well you just added asian and latino, dropped the "female" qualifier and dropped the Xbox qualifier. So sure. But I was very specific in what I said! 



Ka-pi96 said:
potato_hamster said:

 

Developers have all the agency they want if they're footing the bills. You can't honestly expect publishers to hand developers millions of dollars without any control or oversight over the final product.

Well if Microsoft didn't want to let Lionhead create their own games, ya know the games that made Lionhead popular in the first place, then why buy them? If they wanted to decide everything about the game they could have just made some new studio to do their bidding and avoided all the takeover costs.

Why buy them? The answer is obvious - to make money. There isn't a game out there that's paid for by a publisher where the publisher doesn't have substantial say in how the game turns out. It's the way it is and it's always been that way because at the end of the day, investors want to make sure they get the biggest return possible on their investment.



pokoko said:
SvennoJ said:

I'm glad someone else actually read the full article.

Kinda funny how this one little marketing issue is blown up to portray MS as the bad guy, while if you read the article, Peter Molyneux was a far more destructive force on his own people. The whole Milo and Kate episode was all Molyneux which he simply couldn't let go. Several times during his career his ambitions got the better of him, which marked the turning points in the studio, adding to its ultimate demise.
The acorn. Or, according to one former Lionhead developer, "that fucking acorn." sums it up nicely.

He's a great visionary that inspired a lot of people and made some great things, yet not suited to lead a big development studio. I hope he can get back to former Bullfrog glory at 22cans, although Godus is not a good start.

I still don't know what to make of Molyneux.  One paragraph, someone is talking about a brilliant idea he had, then the next, they're talking about him lying to the public and how his late additions almost screwed everything up. 

The Milo and Kate stuff, though, even with his excuses, it just sounds like a disaster.  What he supposedly envisioned sounds like something that is still years away from being possible, even with VR.

Also, to be honest, some of those Lionhead guys seem like assholes.  They made a LOT of poor decisions even before the Xbox One mandates started rolling in.

 

It's just my own thoughts on molly but I think he was given more credit than he deserved from the PC simulation game era and he never managed to live up to the pedestal he was put on, but felt as if he had to say things to make up for his short comings. 

 

By no means am I saying he was rubbish, but he never lived up to the status, and this article even states Fable wasn't his game. 

 

Your point about the devs there was the thing that annoyed me about the shortened rip off article, where so much has been spoken about yet people are fixated on a very tiny aspect out of a huge conversation with barely any context. 

 

I'm not the greatest fan of MS, but the article was pure clickbait.



Whoever said life to be like a box of chocolates clearly didn't know what he was talking about. 

Life is more like a game of bumper cars. At every turn there is a possibility you will get screwed.

kitler53 said:
as bad as this sounds...


...there aren't a lot of black female gamers compared to white male gamers. marketing has a valid point here. is it racist and sexist to not want to market a product with blacks or women? absolutely. but the market is made of of racist and sexist people. it sucks but i don't think disney or ms is obligated to risk their profits to try and change the world.

Disney is the same company that was gonna pull movie production out of georgia if some stupid discriminatory law got passed. Can't pick and choose and expct to be taken seriously. 



Around the Network
Jega said:
This is why there is a lack of fresh new games and innovation.

I suspect it is not just at Microsoft, probably happening at other major publishers.

What the eff, let the creators effing create.

That doesn't make sense to me. How does the character race bring in freshness and innovation?



COKTOE said:
KLXVER said:

This happens all the time unfortunately. Just like Sony not wanting a black James Bond.

In movies? ummmm, I think TOO many characters have been fiddled with in recent years. Especially in the superhero genre. And why always, always black? How about a Thai Hero/Villain? Indian? Ultimately, I think most of it should be left alone. Creating some new characters would be a radical idea, instead of messing around with well established characters by changing their ethnicity for seemingly no other reason than to do it. A Bond of a different ethnicity would be a-ok, as it's kind of accepted that there is no ONE bond anyways.

This is always my big question - why does diversity always mean black?



StarOcean said:
I'm sorry, but I would have to agree with MS on this. From a financial point of view it makes more sense to have a white dude on the cover versus a black woman. And its unfortunate but at the end of the day MS wants to sell a product and using a white guy on the cover is safer and ensures money than taking a risk

Do you have any evidence?

I'm not going to judge your own personal biases and prejudices, but bias/prejudice looks like the basis for your assumption on it being risky to put a black person on the cover.

Looking at the top selling movie and top selling game of all time: Avatar has Zoe Saldana on the cover. Wii Sports has 3 black males, 1 white male, 1 Asian male, and 1 Asian female. In other words, actual sales data shows the opposite is true.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Jumpin said:
StarOcean said:
I'm sorry, but I would have to agree with MS on this. From a financial point of view it makes more sense to have a white dude on the cover versus a black woman. And its unfortunate but at the end of the day MS wants to sell a product and using a white guy on the cover is safer and ensures money than taking a risk

Do you have any evidence?

I'm not going to judge your own personal biases and prejudices, but bias/prejudice looks like the basis for your assumption on it being risky to put a black person on the cover.

Looking at the top selling movie and top selling game of all time: Avatar has Zoe Saldana on the cover. Wii Sports has 3 black males, 1 white male, 1 Asian male, and 1 Asian female. In other words, actual sales data shows the opposite is true.

The evidence is all around. Companies wouldn't be spending countless millions on marketing towards the majority within their respective market if it didn't lead to higher sales. From a business standpoint, it has nothing to do with racism or social issues. If the majority in a market is white or whatever then that's what the marketing will be primarily focused on. For example, companies that sell skin whitening products focus their marketing on asians because they're the ones who are likely to buy that kind of product.  Which groups of people do you think Nascar, BET or Penthouse should market towards? Should Penthouse focus on marketing towards women? Should BET market towards asians? Should Nascar market towards black people? 

The consumers in the worldwide gaming market is mainly whites and asians.  Some games are tailored more towards one of them over the other and the marketing reflects that. Fable is a game made for western gamers and they are predominately white. The marketing will be focused on them. Having a black female on the cover makes no sense. 



Lawlight said:
Jega said:
This is why there is a lack of fresh new games and innovation.

I suspect it is not just at Microsoft, probably happening at other major publishers.

What the eff, let the creators effing create.

That doesn't make sense to me. How does the character race bring in freshness and innovation?

It doesn't. But the general attitude of always playing it safe and conforming to established formulae probably does.

Look how Mass Effect, Resident Evil and Dead Space were all "shooterized" slowly over time. That's probably the publishers doing.