I didn't say it wouldn't have an effect, i just disagree with the amount of weight you're putting on Horizon itself. If Horizon was a multi-platform title that managed to push 15 - 20 million copies, then i'd agree its effect would be substantial. You're right that gaming hasn't yet had a female focused AAA title achieve truly huge success (off the top of my head, i think FF13 has the record at 8m+), and one is likley needed to really kick start a larger push, but i don't see Horizon being it.

It could be argued it'll effect Sony themselves, but they've already had several such titles in development for a while now. They seem less concerned about if a game has a male or female lead, so much as just letting their developers tell their stories. I think that's the best way to do it.

As a side note (because i'm not sure if you misunderstood me, or i'm misunderstanding you), when i say the "media" i'm not talking about people like Anita Sarkeesian, but the media as a collective. Publishers absolutely do care what the media says, many even use review scores as the basis for their developers getting bonuses. To have more female titles, we need publishers to know it won't effect their bottom line. To increase the chances of that happening, we need them making more of those titles. To make them do that, they need to see it as less of a risk. I think the media is slowing that process.

You mentioned the example of Final Fantasy XIII selling 8 millionish units. Well one-third of those units were sold to female players.

It's worth adding here that when I say "Horizon", I'm not necessarily always referring to Horizon: Zero Dawn, but often to Horizon the franchise. We already know that a sequel starring Aloy is in the works and the saying is that if the first installment is a hit, the sequel will probably be a bigger hit. Even as things stand though, Horizon: Zero Dawn may be well-positioned to at least approach the record you referenced eventually.

As to the media, yeah it's possible that reporting on phenomenon like Gamergate may possibly have negatively impacted the reputation of games as a medium by painting gamers with a broad brush sometimes, but at the same time, I also think that that section of the gaming population deserved to be criticized and shamed. I wish the media didn't paint gamers with such a broad brush sometimes, but I also hope that we're not just passing the buck and being like 'the next time something like that happens, nobody should say anything'. And I don't see why the opinions of male gamers have to be the only ones that publishers concern themselves with anyway. You mentioned the example of Final Fantasy XIII selling 8 millionish units. Well one-third of those units were sold to female players.

I can understand that more. I think Horizon has a lot of hurdles to cross to establish itself as a consistently viable IP though, mostly relating to GG. They've shown they can do a good job of polishing established ideas, now we have to wait and see if they can give Horizon's sequel a gameplay identity of its own. If they can, then it could well be another Uncharted.

The media should definitely report on those who are genuinely terrible, but as you say it's the broad strokes that are really an issue. It's hard to know if that'll ever stop though; the gaming media seems to genuinely hate its audience, with little discrimination between the awful and the normal.

Male gamers definitely shouldn't be the only consideration, them being the majority of the AAA market just makes them the largest concern for publishers. How they ended up as the majority is up for debate, but the end result is the same. They just need to learn that most gamers, both male and female, really aren't too bothered. Give them good games with a variety of interesting stories, and you'll be set.

I think the upcoming game that'll have the largest effect is TLOUII. Not only was Ellie actively called upon to be the lead, but she's a very well written character. I've not finished Horizon yet, but so far I've found it really difficult to relate to Aloy. I never feel like she's in danger, because she's also capable of everything the story needs of her. Her problems are all external, and even most of those are hand waved away (such as her impeccable social skills, despite having apparently only ever spoken to a few people before). She's not a bad character, i still like her, she just falls too close the [insert gritty while male] we've all come to groan at. I want more Horizon, but they could replace her with another female lead for the sequel and i wouldn't feel any loss. Obviously that's rather subjective though.

I think Ellie will show that not only can a female-focused AAA title be successful, but that said leads can be well written too. The former just confirms or expands the known, the latter create active demand for more characters like her. 

Oh I'm with you (100%, as my annoying president might say) on Aloy as a character! I said nothing about Horizon: Zero Dawn being the best game on the market or anything of that nature. Personally, for my taste, I consider the level of storytelling in so-called AAA games to be kind of a joke and Zero Dawn doesn't offer the best of them at that. Like BOTW, it's basically a kazillion-dollar, multi-national technology corporation selling you on the merits of technology and trying their damndest to make you feel as awesome as they can in the process. It'shallow stuff. Aloy is just another generic, superhuman hero character in essence and the tribal peoples are just lazy stereotypes about First Nations (despite the research that GG supposedly did on the subject). It's standard-issue feel-good gaming complete with most of the usual tropes that go along with that (detective vision, radio towers, and all the other "gamey" superficialities). It's a plastic corporate product with a self-serving theme that's calculated simply to sell as many copies as possible. I consider Zero Dawn to be narratively inferior to the likes of NieR: Automata and Tales of Berseria, to say nothing of the real narrative competition in the indie scene. And I completely agree with you that TLOU II would make for a much better success story when it comes to female-focused "AAA" games if it obtains commercial success (which yes, it very well may).

All of that said though, neither commercial success nor gender politics are an art contest. If they were then Gone Home would be top-selling game of all time. We're not talking artistic merits here. We're talking sales projections. We can't be naive about what that does and doesn't imply. Strong character development and plausible lines and abilities have never mattered when it came to establishing Mario, Link, Master Chief, etc. as household names. For that matter, neither was it important for Samus during her time. I don't think that strong character arcs are necessarily what will cement the success of the next popular female game character.

Source?

I don't think it'll cement it, but i do think it's an important part of the process. Just as direct final success shows the viability of an IP, the demands that game creates help shape the specifics of future projects. When a game does something really well, others often follow suit. As it happens the original TLOU makes for a good example. It was ND's first attempt at a serious, character driven experience, and the overwhelmingly positive reception it got helped make Uncharted 4 was it is. It's not perfect, but it was nice having it be able to properly explore Nathan's flaws as a character, and in turn how they fuel his motivations (while still being goofy fun haha). 

Slightly off topic, but since you mentioned it; How long is Nier? It's been on my to-do list since it launched, and i think i'll be done with Horizon in a couple of days. I'm wondering if i'll have time for Nier before Persona 5 comes out early April

I think that in some cases (like Naughty Dog's recent past) you're right about that. However, I think you'll find that it's just as often the case that when a major publisher achieves success with a particular story, they respond to that by endlessly repeating more or less the same story on the belief that, hey, this one is safe. (See Japanese RPGs broadly during the first decade of this century, for example.) We're talking about a business here, after all. You'll find that quality art more often than not comes from quarters where there's no realistic possibility of a significant return on investment (like Steam), as this results in different motivations. Or maybe I'm just too skeptical of capitalism to see all the great exceptions that are out there.

Anyway, no worries on getting a little off-topic. I'm enjoying this conversation. :P NieR: Automata's length depends on how you approach it. To simply complete the basic quest takes about 10 hours, but it will take you three playthroughs as different characters (you unlock another more each of your first couple playthroughs) to actually get the crux of the story and the "true ending" of the game and each playthrough will take you about 10 hours. I highly recommend going for the "true ending", which is achieved by completing all three of the endings in the third playthrough. That will pretty much oblige you to do the majority of the side missions. In grand total, it should take you about 30 to 35 hours to finish with the "true ending", which is totally worth it for the unorthodox story and fascinating conclusion. So if you average about two hours a day on the game, you should be able to finish it with the "true ending" before Persona 5 comes out.

That's for 2 weeks sales. I'm not sure what the standard 3rd week drop off is, but I doubt it's small enough for it to have sold another 900k that week.