Is that and meaningful character development mutually exclusive?

If we were talking about accuracy, why can you get reload after you die? If it was completely accurate the game would be over and unplayable after you die once. The fact of the matter is that creative liberties are virtually always used in fictional media.

Narrative/Setting ≠ Game Mechanics

Montana is fairly barren of black representation. Argue all you want, but at the end of the day they chose diversity for diversity's sake rather than maintaining accuracy and integrity.

It seems the issue is more that white people aren't having as much of a monopoly as they used to.

The game got good reviews and sold a ton, I'm pretty sure they maintained their integrity.

That's a bit racist because you're generalizing a race based on no evidence. Also that's nonsensical. Why would white people be bothered by not having as much of a monopoly when they're the ones that allowed it by choosing to share it?

Integrity ≠ Financial Success

Unless you're implying Trump has more integrity than you.

I mean, not really, no. 

The population of the US is still majority white, majority straight, and majority cis. Gender is totally split into different genres, as men and women are attracted to different types of fiction. While other groups have expanded since the early days of film, America at least is still mostly white, hetero, and cis.

And you can't argue in favor of changing white cis straight males to something else while arguing against changing, say, Miles Morales into a white guy. Its hypocritical.

The problem is instead of introducing new characters, they're changing established characters. Don't pretend it's more complicated than that.

And finally, he pretty much sums up his entire post, though he thinks he's summing up opposing posts.

Just because the majority of the population is still white, doesn't mean that those other groups aren't becoming an ever larger audience capable of deciding whether or not your product is a success or failure, and the degree of either. For example, just look at what a big deal Black Panther was to the African American community. They basically turned that thing into a national event. So that goes to show you how much it means to some of these groups to really be directly targeted at the highest level in entertainment, and what they can do for you if you do it well. Straight white males are used to being the target audience, and frankly, have come to take it for granted much of the time.

Now, that said, I do tend to agree that one shouldn't necessarily go changing a bunch of existing characters every which way to try and draw in certain audiences. There are instances of it being successful, and that's fine, but I do very much prefer the approach of creating new characters and stories to diversify the portfolio, rather than trying take something with a well established identity and making it fit into your new vision. 

Sure, I can accept that, if you can accept what I said.

My biggest beef with that guy's post was his assumption that changing something into a white cis straight male is not okay, but the opposite is. I get that certain ethnic populations are bigger than they used to be and that there is an audience in them...

But it shouldn't be at the expense of the rest of your fanbase. Using Black Panther as an example, no one but actual racists had a problem with that movie. I was sickened at how political people had made it, sure. But it was mostly true to the source material, and pandered to fans of Black Panther- which is what it should have done to begin with. But then you've got garbage like the new Ghostbusters. You can't take an IP with a fanbase of, say, mostly men in the 20'-50's, and then make it a damn chick flick.