I think this discussion is going way out of hand. Games transported always a political agenda, as humans (and game makers are such last I checked) are political beings, and their opinions and views on the world influence their work, especially their artwork. Even if they don't intend it, that happen unconsciously. There were always lots of historical games, did the game makers side with one side of the conflict? Think about World War games, did games like say Wolfenstein side with the Nazis? Isn't that already a political agenda? Naturally it is, but as Nazis lost few people are on their side and are in result upset about such a game. Think further. Do you know games, in which you fight against islamic terrorists or russian spies? Politics right there. Even games that have nothing to do with the real world reflect often aspects of the our world and take sides. In many games you fight for the good against evil. And the game devs decides which side is the good one and which one the evil one.

So, games are political, so what is new? The difference today is, that some (and I say some) game devs use that more conscious and make their game design decision more conscious about politics. Also they often include now political themes that are more polarising than the examples I brought above. Most people can agree Nazis are evil, but not all are on board with the depiction of say homosexual relationships in their games. I think it is a good thing per se, if games are able to reflect more current discussions. All artforms are part of current discussions in society, and it is good if game makers realize that and seek actively to participate. Result can be a game like 'This war of Mine', which shows war from the side of non-combattants and can move your viewpoint on things you thought you knew your stance.

So can it be bad? Sure it can. As always there are good artists and bad ones. And the bad ones are often less subtle about their message than they should be. A good art message makes you think, it does not say: this is the right stance and you have to accept it. So it is not about political or unpolitical games, it basically is a discussion about good or bad games. And yes, if MS/Sony/Nintendo put out bad games it will influence their success.

Any of them making it in high scales will lose sales at large.

And if Sony got to that point of being pushing an agenda heavily I would go to reading more manga or perhaps pirating their content without a care.

Yeah, that too. I mean SJW is used as an insult against people having different political opinion than yours, usually used from the 'right' to attack the 'left'. But it is in base meaningless, as everyone uses SJW as it fits his agenda. Is there a proper definition of the term, so that objectively can be decided who is SJW and who isn't? If not the term is in my opinion completely useless.

If Sony did such a thing? I'd probably pull my junk backwards between my legs as far as it would go with tape, and start working on the idea for the video game I've been thinking about. A rhythm game based on the exploits of the world's greatest hero, Asia Argento.

I would say that when you have balanced coverage and also tackle the subject from neutral point people tend to accept more, but when you take a stance and name everything else evil them you have problems.

Sooo, Wolfenstein should be neutral towards the Nazis and don't call them evil?

If so they wish, probably would give them a big backlash, but you understood the point. If you choose a side as a company on a very divisive matter and push half your userbase as evil, you certainly will lose.

No, I disagree. Art should meddle in divise issues. As I said before, there are ways to make it subtle and as a incentive to think about stuff, or you could make it one-sided and blatant. That is the real question, and it basically boils down to good vs. bad art.

Look, a classic work of art in germany is 'Nathan the Wise' from Gotthold Ephraim Lessing. It is a work of art that includes at it's heart a discussion that was pretty current at the time, the Fragmentenstreit (seemingly no english wikipedia article for this). That was an important discussion about humanitarism and the role of religion in it. Lessing took a stance here and incorporated into his work of art (especially since his opponent Goeze reached a partial publication ban on Lessing, so he had to publish his ideas in art). Still, Lessing managed to make his play a good work of art, that until today is in high regard - because of it's political content AND despite of it's political content.

With what is written in this thread, Lessings work should be smaller because of the inclusion of a political agenda. But my point here is, that you can include your political agenda in your art in a bad way, or do it good. And Lessing obviously did it in a great way.

I know you get the point.

Sony isn't an artist, they are a company. If they offend half or more of their fanbase they will lose money out of it, it is pretty simple. They may employ artist and they may make good points regarding politics in a natural way in the game, but the day Sony or their games start painting conservatives or any right wing person as extremist and evil they will certainly get a big backlash. Even more considering people that dwell to deep on the PC side end up being eaten one by the other for not being progressive enough.

As a PlayStation fan and so far a fan of Naughty Dog as long as they make great games, then I can still game on. Players will vote with their wallets whether or not a developer made the right decision to push a political view point or not. If it's so sloppy and focus more on BS than it does a hero or heroin (or anything in between) saving the freaking day then the developers will know if their game barely triggers 200k sold at launch compared to their previous titles selling of 2 million at launch.