Honestly concord is a big enough screw up, I feel like that would be justified.

Thats just it, it wasn't terrible (this is twisting the truth, to fit your agenda, to a minor degree).
People that played it said it was "fine" or middle of the street type of deal.

The thing is, the competition has better looking models / sexier ones (to sell skins), and was free to play.... vs paid game.

"I have never fired up a game and went: "Gee, I wish this game was more diverse!" or "Gee! I wish this game was less diverse!"

Thats just it.... others have or do.

Thats why DEI is now a issue.
Theres people of colour that feel under represented in games (and have for along time). 
So their has been a push for getting more DEI in games, even at the cost of say haveing a white male character.

And now theres also white males (the vast majority who play games) that are like "wtf? theres not 1 white male character in this game?"
(and game devs going out of their way, to boast they purposefully ignored or didn't (by design) have any white males in the game)

You have consultent firms, like Sweet baby inc, that almost make it sound like "white hate".

This wouldn't be issue if excludeing white characters resulted in a equal or greater amount of others adapting it to compensate.
The issue is, the vast majority of people playing these shooter games are avg white males.
And there seems to be enough that are getting atleast slightly avoided by this take, and all the political agendas being pushed.
Im not saying its super impactful.... however I'd bet it does have some small effect overall.

Go super DEI, and basically scream "I hate white people", don't be surprised if less of them buy the games.

I don't have an agenda. I am an LGBT minority.
It was not a great game. It was a clone.

Correct. Other games are better, so why would you settle for the inferior version?

I don't buy a game because of it's diversity or lack there-of. I enjoy the game for what it is.

Mass Effect was literally the epitome of diversity in video games and is one of the greatest games of all time... But the diverse characters augmented the story, it wasn't -the- story.
A bunch of characters from all sex's, genders, sexuality's, age, race, shapes and sizes and more all came together to work together. - It's the epitome of what conservatives regard as "woke". - But it's also what made the game incredible.

Call of Duty used to lack diversity, mostly consisting of only a white-male cast but those games were still excellent as it was representing a historical context of specific war fronts. (I am talking Call of Duty 1+2 here). - They were incredible games at the time.

Making video games about politics is just nonsensical, let's enjoy the games for the art form they represent and leave the bickering to politicians.

That's been changing for a long time.

GTA5 featured a prominent african-american as the main protagonist. One of the best selling games of all time.

Is it though? Or are people just having a whinge for the sake of it?
You will never please everyone all the time, but you can please some... Some of the time.
|

The world is larger than the USA, these games sell in Europe, Oceania, Latin America and more. - It's not predominantly white teenage boys that are gaming these days on a world-wide basis.

I remember back in the 90's when Lara Croft: Tomb Raider burst onto the scene and made it big.
Guess what? A white woman was the star of that game series and the game was better for it, not because she was a woman... But because the entire character made sense for the story and world, Lara Croft wasn't just shoe-horned at the expense of a white male.

The truth is, diversity isn't the issue with most people and has never been the issue.  That's more or less how it's painted by the media in order to discredit any criticism.  We have tons of examples of IP with diverse casts being accepted or even praised by nearly everyone.

What people DON'T like is:

A)  Being preached at and bombarded with propaganda by self-righteous, know-it-all assholes.  That used to be why people rebelled against religions but now it applies to "activist" cult members just as much or even more.

B)  Being excluded.  What is the difference between the "Fallout" show and "The Acolyte" from Disney?  "Fallout" had a diverse cast but didn't try to exclude or alienate anyone because they were the wrong race or the wrong sex.  On the other hand, Disney's version of "inclusion" in "The Acolyte" is to say "this isn't for you" to the primary demographic that had supported Star Wars for decades.

None of that is complicated.  It should be obvious, really.  Unfortunately, a lot of people in Hollywood or game development really ARE self-righteous, know-it-all assholes who feel entitled to tell everyone else what to think and feel.  Besides being pure hypocrisy, it's also pretty stupid from a business standpoint.

^ so much this! 

You put it, explained it much better than I ever could.
100% agreed.

Frankly because a lot of the times, the criticism happens in the opposite direction.

Game/movie/tv show is bad => must be because of DEI, even if there is very little actual DEI.

A diverse show/movie/game is great => must not be because of DEI.

The Last of Us TV show had some of the most in your face diversity that I've seen in a big TV show, and yet it was largely appreciated, because the show was largely great. 

You're saying all of these things as if it's some one sided issue. As if people were just minding their own business, and then started getting DEI pushed on them. 

Just ignoring all the cultural and historical context.

Ignoring all the constant pushback against black people being in the same space, and ignoring that we still get to this day, big media companies wondering whether it's a risk to have a movie/TV show star a woman. 

America's most violent war was literally because some white people were scared of losing ownership of black people. 

I was replying to someone else which means I was talking about the subject THEY were talking about.  Do you really think everyone else is required to talk about what YOU want to talk about instead?  That's too bad because they absolutely are not.  Your petty attempts to force people to change the subject without ever addressing what they're saying are as lame as they are obvious.

You can throw up all the whataboutisms you want but NO ONE IS REQUIRED to switch gears to suit your agenda.  Do you not understand that? Don't quote me if you have zero intentions of discussing what I'm talking about in that particular quote.  

The content was pretty barebones, the character designs where mediocre at best and to top it off there are better competitors that don't require 40 dollars upfront. Also the promotion for the game was terrible.

This is not a whataboutism. A whataboutism is basically calling someone a hypocrite. My point is not "your side also does these things", which is a whataboutism.

The point is that People are pushing for inclusion directly because there is a long history of people being excluded. 

It's like arguing both the bully and person being bullied are equally bad, because they both punched either. 

State Street, Vangaurd, Blackrock and other big financial institutions say they are going to force this political viewpoint weather people want it or not.  They want every person to be under a points program like they do with companys that borrow money from them. And that pesky free speech is their enemy.