As usual, I believe you missed my point ...

If you go back to the early 1990s Nintendo was dominant in both Hardware (NES, SNES and Gameboy) and Software like no company has ever been before; people didn't play videogames they played 'Nintendo' and a Gameboy wasn't a portable videogame system it was a 'Portable Nintendo'. By all accounts, Nintendo sold nearly as much software on their systems as all other developers did (and there systems represented the bulk of the market).

Adults did start playing videogames in the 1970s but until the 1990s (like comic books and board games) most of the people who played videogames were young children and when they became teenagers they (pretty much) stopped playing.

PC games in the early 1990s were where the first "Mature" games were showing up with games like Wolfenstein 3D, most of these games were Shareware and there were no large publishers associated with them; some of these games were amazingly successful and catapulted these tiny companies to superstar status. At this point in time these violent games are still (mostly) a niche product.

It wasn't until Mortal Kombat (and the dozens of clones) that people really started to see "Mature" games as being a very profitable direction to move.

My point with bringing up Nintendo as being so successful was that if more publishers were having success in the same markets and on the same level as Nintendo they probably wouldn't have moved so hard into capturing the Teenage Boy market with these "Mature" games.

Anyways ... As I said before this focusing on such a narrow demographic pushed other markets away. Many publishers would rather spend their money to be the fifth copy of a clone of a popular "Mature" game than attempt to make a game which appealed to teenage girls or women.

I hope you are being ironic, o, how do you define sucessful in this case?

Let me exemplify (Athens):

Men having sex with boys for pleasure, women were only for giving birth to men, a necessary evil.

All free men were allowed to wote, that was about... 40% or less of the male population.

Is that a definition of your morals, or where lies the succes?

American society please, I never heard anyone complain about tits in computer games EVER in Western Europe.

And WHY do people keep on connecting SEX and VIOLENCE, or even mention them together.

Well, I'm gonna argue one thing another poster said. Violent crime is decreasing. It's been going up since 2004,(2007 figures aren't in yet), but property crimes have gone down. Anywho, whether you like it or not violence isn't caused solely by videogames. There's many more socioeconomic factors involved. In fact, the vast majority ( upwards of 80%) of death row inmates are illiterate. There's more of a correlation between education/ and economic status, than video games. I'll admit that I'm a violent video game fan, but the fact is video games are a scapegoat, for the real issues. Besides, I don't think it is possible to play a video game without any violence or sex. I use both terms very loosely, more in a freudian sense. Because even mario is violent, just much more subtle. Same thing with games where you create things. On a very primordial level, destruction and creation seem to be very basic human desires. I think would leads to many of the problems in this society is the supression of natural human things and the taboos that come from making people feel guilty. "Ooooh Johnny you have a playboy, you're going to burn in hell!" <-- these type of things are more detrimental to society than video games. Although, I think that current esrb things are good, I think people should actually read them. I don't think games like manhunt 2 should be censored, just make it 18+.

Oh and also, the reason women are seen more as an object. I'll take a wild guess at it but maybe from Judeo-Christian values? If violence in media is the real underlying cause, how come I haven't seen one significant study validating that claim. The only evidence that I've seen has been anecdotal non-sense, (post hoc ergo propter hoc shit) Because he played grand theft auto, he went and shot those people. You know why that's convenient? It's convenient because it doesn't adress the gap and the emergence of classes in our society. Here's some figures

That's from the cia world fact book. The economykeeps growing so I'm assuming that the wealth gap is increased as well.

Well, I'm gonna argue one thing another poster said. Violent crime is decreasing. It's been going up since 2004,(2007 figures aren't in yet), but property crimes have gone down. Anywho, whether you like it or not violence isn't caused solely by videogames. There's many more socioeconomic factors involved. In fact, the vast majority ( upwards of 80%) of death row inmates are illiterate. There's more of a correlation between education/ and economic status, than video games. I'll admit that I'm a violent video game fan, but the fact is video games are a scapegoat, for the real issues. Besides, I don't think it is possible to play a video game without any violence or sex. I use both terms very loosely, more in a freudian sense. Because even mario is violent, just much more subtle. Same thing with games where you create things. On a very primordial level, destruction and creation seem to be very basic human desires. I think would leads to many of the problems in this society is the supression of natural human things and the taboos that come from making people feel guilty. "Ooooh Johnny you have a playboy, you're going to burn in hell!" <-- these type of things are more detrimental to society than video games. Although, I think that current esrb things are good, I think people should actually read them. I don't think games like manhunt 2 should be censored, just make it 18+.

Oh and also, the reason women are seen more as an object. I'll take a wild guess at it but maybe from Judeo-Christian values? If violence in media is the real underlying cause, how come I haven't seen one significant study validating that claim. The only evidence that I've seen has been anecdotal non-sense, (post hoc ergo propter hoc shit) Because he played grand theft auto, he went and shot those people. You know why that's convenient? It's convenient because it doesn't adress the gap and the emergence of classes in our society. Here's some figures

That's from the cia world fact book. The economykeeps growing so I'm assuming that the wealth gap is increased as well.