Selling the game in the US and Europe, and you want to make all -- or nearly all -- of the characters and art to appear Caucasian? Go for it!

You don't see anything problematic with the fact that you just declared that Caucasians are the only people who matter in the US and Europe?

You've effectively just said "there's more of us than there are of them, so why in hell should we care about what they want?"

And that, right there, is the very essence of racism.

Where I disagree is that *increasing* representation could have a negative impact on profitability.

You disagree that it has the potential to decrease profit?

Suppose you had a game where the main character is black and female. I'd personally be fine with that, if the character is well-written and if it's a good game. But if subconscious or conscious biases are actually at work, then you might be losing more subtly discriminatory white customers that you gain from black customers. In that situation, it's possible that a lead black female might make your game less profit (while still being profitable) than a lead white male might've made it. Who knows? Maybe if I saw two games side-by-side in a store, one with a white male on the cover and one with the black female, maybe I'd unconsciously be more inclined to get the one with the white male - and may accidentally have gotten the worse of the two games, if one was better than the other.

If, by your own logic, having characters that represent you has a positive correlation to profits, surely having more character types that represent more people would increase profits, no?

Not necessarily. I've already went into this in my earlier post.

For multiplayer RPG games, they're usually build-your-own, so they already have diversity in playable lead character - at least in a blank-slate surface level way (that diversity may not extend to the NPCs within the game, but that's an unrelated issue).

The issue is for single-player games, just race-swapping or gender-swapping the character feels off, and can damage the quality of an otherwise good character or story. Writing two separate personalities (and interactions/dialog and dialog choices) for multiple different playable-characters is possible, but costs extra money for each one, and may take slightly longer to get the game out the door (even if just another day or two).

So it's a tradeoff - does having a second playable character increase profits enough to be worth the (minor) costs? What about a third? Does it actually help sell the games to minorities, despite you still having a white male on the cover as the "true" protagonist? (We've discussed this topic a few months ago, in relation to female diversity in games)

Selling the game in the US and Europe, and you want to make all -- or nearly all -- of the characters and art to appear Caucasian? Go for it!

You don't see anything problematic with the fact that you just declared that Caucasians are the only people who matter in the US and Europe?

You've effectively just said "there's more of us than there are of them, so why in hell should we care about what they want?"

And that, right there, is the very essence of racism.

As you wish.

If you want to market your mostly-caucasion game in central Africa, your mostly-black game in Japan and Korea, your mostly-asian game in hispanic cultures, and your mostly-hispanic game in US, Canada, and northern Europe, go ahead.

I don't see that as racism. That is not declaring "these races are supreme". That is adjusting to target the market demographic.

If we discovered a bunch of Little Green Men on Mars, I would expect that a game marketed to them would be quickly adjusted to the demographics of their population before being sold. I would not expect that a game sold on Mars to them would be set to the demographics of any location on Earth.

Now, if we had a game where one race was actively superior and the other inferior, that would be a different matter entirely. But that is not the case.

This is more like an regional art direction: "The Chinese SKU won't allow skeletons for legal reasons. Swap them out with werewolves." Instead, "The default race for different regions needs to match; Indian version should default Indian, Korean version should default Korean, ..."

There is an enormous difference between matching local demographics and discrimination.

You've effectively just said "there's more of us than there are of them, so why in hell should we care about what they want?"


And that, right there, is the very essence of racism.

I disagree very much with this when it comes to entertainment content. If we're talking about the ability to find employment or other "real things", then you are very right, but for an item like a game that only exists purely for entertainment that has no meaning at all. I still very much value an individual who wants to give good entertainment to minorities, but not someone who is demanding that others should do the same. Saying that there's a "right way" to handle content in entertainment gives me a very bad feeling.

Also, purely for quality purposes, movies/stories/games/whatever that appeal to us usually do because someone put their heart and soul into it. Doing that only works if you create exactly what appeals to you, employing what you know, and targeting people who feel the same.. if everything is modified to fit into some set rules for content, that severely impacts people's ability to express themselves.

If that set of rules is systematically applied industry-wide that would be a much worse problem, and exactly the same problem as any other discrimination (and now real, as it applies to real people's freedom to express themselves, and not just content for consumption as entertainment).

The only thing of real importance is liberty for people to create what they want in a free and peaceful society, be they majority or minority. Forcing some specific goods to fit a certain group in society has no meaning, only that group's freedom to live and create what they want themselves.

If there is a problem it's only with diverse people's ability to follow their dreams to create games, and nothing else.

It's also important to remember that becoming popular or rich or famous is not part of a reasonable expectation or privilege, but something 1% of us may perhaps sometimes achieve with a lot of luck stacked on top of a lot of hard work. We don't somehow "deserve" to have $100 million toys matching our expectations, and if we really want a game where the characters look a certain way I'm sure there are a few games to be found matching most of them if we limit our expectations just a little bit.

Actually, we've got a natural experiment happening. The US is already no longer caucasian majority under the age of 5. If it's just demographic marketing, games aimed at children should start shifting away from whites in games aimed at children. In the coming decades that'll move up towards the vital teens and twenties market for games. White is still a plurality, but that'll just make it the largest niche.

That is adjusting to target the market demographic.

I'm sorry, but you repeatedly make the same logical fallacy. Why do you insist on seeing the US market as 100% white?

Yes, Whites do account for 77% of the total American population at this moment in time. But have you ever looked at the demographics by age? Among 18-35 year-olds, that percentage drops to 58%... By insisting that your market is only Whites, you are leaving nearly half your market on the table. That's just bad business.

And as far as gender diversity in games, I presume everyone in this thread is aware that more than half the population is female?

Actually, we've got a natural experiment happening. The US is already no longer caucasian majority under the age of 5. If it's just demographic marketing, games aimed at children should start shifting away from whites in games aimed at children. In the coming decades that'll move up towards the vital teens and twenties market for games. White is still a plurality, but that'll just make it the largest niche.

Well.. the part of demographic marketing is hardly even an experiment but a given, as it's like the very definition of capitalism. (If that's what you meant)

This only applies to games where the content is specifically designed to make as much money as possible of course. I have no idea how many games are designed by people enthusiastic for their particular vision and how many are created as ordered by the economists....

However, there are many other real experiments.

Will the majority want or care that game characters look like them? (That is, is the game character necessarily the same race as the target audience).

There's the question of authorship, especially when it comes to indie games (those not necessarily designed to be optimally profitable). Will those games change when the market changes, or when the authors change?

And another... if a green person would choose between two games created by blue people.. would they choose the one with the blue character or the green character? (related to what someone mentioned earlier in the thread, that some people think we shouldn't try to imitate others but be ourselves).

There's the question of differences between demographics... how different are we really when society is truly multi-cultural, will we still be different or will it all pretty much be the same either way?

Do people really want diversity in games because we want to see characters that look like us, or is it just random, or perhaps compensating for society?

etc. etc.

Actually, we've got a natural experiment happening. The US is already no longer caucasian majority under the age of 5.

Which ethnicity is the new majority under the age of 5?

Which ethnicity is the new majority under the age of 5?

They are still majority white. It's just that the percentage has fallen to ~50% white, for the first time in history.

So the general consensus amounts to, "It doesn't matter if we think it's an issue or not. The bottom line is profitability. Target only the people whom we believe will turn a profit and ignore everyone else...literally...until, of course, we believe that they represent a significant majority in the market--which by our reasoning means that they will turn a profit." Oh, the world of business. I should remove my rose-colored glasses. I guess marketing==game design.

For what it's worth, MMOGs seem to have the closest thing to "diversity" among characters (which are created by players). If I wish to create a game that's both profitable and diverse, that's currently the only option I have I suppose. But that's a saturated market.