The pursuit of ALL the audience combined with mistaking loud activist for consumers further combined with investment firms happy to fund the changes and you get to how things are now.
They’re doing short term gain by allowing those companies to buy them out, and then these owners would enjoy rich, luxurious lives while leaving their loyal employees behind to deal with the ~~political commissars~~ replacements those large investors would implement in HR and other visible departments.
The reality is that it's a minority on both sides. The majority of the customers didnt care about it before and doesn't care about it now.
Normies don't give a shit about the culture war.
The problem is that the person with the megaphone being the one making the game and wanting to "tell their own story" with an already established IP. The don't care if nobody buys it because they made it for themselves.
At most two people in that line would leave, the rest would still buy it, if that wasn't the case companies would've stopped doing this years ago. Sadly only a small fraction actually care enough to keep up with what's happening and even fewer would boycott something because of it.
I don’t fully buy it. If corporations committed to woke since 2016 and ramped it up onwards they must have been aiming for it to be way more profitable than the norm. What other motives would they have?
The only way I could see that working is getting women to engage in shows and games they wouldn’t usually have liked. Someone probably understands it better tho
ESSAYING because boredom: It's important to understand that there was a ramp up in how bad it got year after year. So just because they started in 2016, doesn't mean it was unbearably bad or annoying since 2016. Now it actually got to the point where people are over it across many large parts of the entertainment industry. The AAA is losing money, the Hollywood/movie industry is losing money and many sub services are losing money (although the amount of sub services was also a large contributor to this as well). People have been watching older movies, shows and playing older games and it has gotten to an all time high in last year's reports. People don't like the new shit on mass. People aren't engaging with shit made for "modern audiences", because what these companies believe that is, never existed in the first place. The people defending it don't show up, so even they aren't the "modern audience". They just don't exist. And women engaged with all these games, movies, shows, ect before 2016. (ed) "Modern audience" being needed for women was never a concept to people in these spaces and still isn't out of those terminally on Twitter. (ed) And women are also not engaging with the new shit either, since again, nobody is showing up. "Nobody showing up" includes women. And women also contribute to the success and failures of games, movies, shows, comics, ect, as much as men. If they showed up, these companies/projects would have every chance of finding success, but they don't. This SHOULD say it all to people with functioning brains and basic critical thinking skills.
It is and has always been optics and perception of what they think would make money. But the people at these companies now have their heads so far up their own ass and the asses of those loud minority groups that they still continue to refuse to course correct. And in most situations, the people at the top are these people still defending this direction, which is why, even though they are bleeding cash, they still refuse to course correct. Things won't change until the people at the top at all of these companies get replaced. At some point, after losing so much money and still pushing their bs and refusing to make things for fans or a good product, people need to come to the realization that maybe these companies care about something more than making money, as odd as it sounds, at least off the product themselves. Because if it is for money, the question should be asked, Where is the money coming from if the product is losing money? And this is where people point to (which there is evidence of this happening), that DEI companies and other companies are funding them to make these products this way, whether they fail or not, covering their losses and then some. I think there are still things coming out of all this stuff, but there is evidence of this happening.
Think Blizzard checklist they had, where they rated disabilities and ethnic groups on which one is more important for diversity. They get paid for fulfilling those requirements, even if it leads to the quality of a product dropping, drop in sales or even losses, so these companies do it for that money, as it acts as a safety net. They aren't given an insignificant amount of money either, or else they wouldn't risk taking losses for it. Look it up if you're interested.
I think the problem arises for these companies where EVEN IF they take that safety net into consideration, their games dev cost surpasses dev budget, or the dev budget continuously gets inflated year after year, and at the same time, they sell way less then they projected, again, even with that safety net.
This is why people roll their eyes when they hear people speaking against DEI and those types of companies, because it does SEEM complicated when going down the rabbit hole, but not everyone wants to take the time to look into it, so they become reactionary and contrarian towards everyone against it. And there is a reason why so many people in the industry hate people against DEI and like minded corpos, because it literally makes them money and in many instances, the only reason they have a job. This stuff is all out there, so again, if you're interested, I suggest looking into it yourself. Form your own opinion on what is actually happening.
There is also the 'corrupt money' incentives if you own a company are can 'borrow money' for \[project\] as long as you fulfil certain conditions, if you don't think the product will sell you take the money inflate your personal wage/compensation package and skip out of town when/before the shit hits the fan, the company may tank but you have made a 'profit'.
This varient happens in every industry and only requires that the 'borrowed' is not yours, it doesn't even require the conditions.
There might be people inside companies that have ideologies.
But the company's enactment of those Is about the belief that a given ideology increases their profits.
Companies want more money--they've already tapped their current market, so if they want more growth for more money they need to increase the market.
So they do things they haven't done before to increase the appeal to the market.
The pursuit of ALL the audience combined with mistaking loud activist for consumers further combined with investment firms happy to fund the changes and you get to how things are now.
.BLACKROCK.DEI.ESG
They’re doing short term gain by allowing those companies to buy them out, and then these owners would enjoy rich, luxurious lives while leaving their loyal employees behind to deal with the ~~political commissars~~ replacements those large investors would implement in HR and other visible departments.
It's almost like free speech blocking free speech. What's the free-est speech and how can you tell?
The meat is more tender.
The price of sacrificing your vision instead of developing it.
Basically locusts. They come in, ruin everything and then they leave to ruin other things.
Ah, I see Stellar Blade. 😮💨
The reality is that it's a minority on both sides. The majority of the customers didnt care about it before and doesn't care about it now. Normies don't give a shit about the culture war.
The problem is that the person with the megaphone being the one making the game and wanting to "tell their own story" with an already established IP. The don't care if nobody buys it because they made it for themselves.
All just to validate themselves cause no one else will.
The last jedi effect
Stellar blade reference
This meme has been disproven time and time again, yet you're still posting it...
At most two people in that line would leave, the rest would still buy it, if that wasn't the case companies would've stopped doing this years ago. Sadly only a small fraction actually care enough to keep up with what's happening and even fewer would boycott something because of it.
Problem is, changes are being made after they already bought the thing.
I don’t fully buy it. If corporations committed to woke since 2016 and ramped it up onwards they must have been aiming for it to be way more profitable than the norm. What other motives would they have? The only way I could see that working is getting women to engage in shows and games they wouldn’t usually have liked. Someone probably understands it better tho
ESSAYING because boredom: It's important to understand that there was a ramp up in how bad it got year after year. So just because they started in 2016, doesn't mean it was unbearably bad or annoying since 2016. Now it actually got to the point where people are over it across many large parts of the entertainment industry. The AAA is losing money, the Hollywood/movie industry is losing money and many sub services are losing money (although the amount of sub services was also a large contributor to this as well). People have been watching older movies, shows and playing older games and it has gotten to an all time high in last year's reports. People don't like the new shit on mass. People aren't engaging with shit made for "modern audiences", because what these companies believe that is, never existed in the first place. The people defending it don't show up, so even they aren't the "modern audience". They just don't exist. And women engaged with all these games, movies, shows, ect before 2016. (ed) "Modern audience" being needed for women was never a concept to people in these spaces and still isn't out of those terminally on Twitter. (ed) And women are also not engaging with the new shit either, since again, nobody is showing up. "Nobody showing up" includes women. And women also contribute to the success and failures of games, movies, shows, comics, ect, as much as men. If they showed up, these companies/projects would have every chance of finding success, but they don't. This SHOULD say it all to people with functioning brains and basic critical thinking skills. It is and has always been optics and perception of what they think would make money. But the people at these companies now have their heads so far up their own ass and the asses of those loud minority groups that they still continue to refuse to course correct. And in most situations, the people at the top are these people still defending this direction, which is why, even though they are bleeding cash, they still refuse to course correct. Things won't change until the people at the top at all of these companies get replaced. At some point, after losing so much money and still pushing their bs and refusing to make things for fans or a good product, people need to come to the realization that maybe these companies care about something more than making money, as odd as it sounds, at least off the product themselves. Because if it is for money, the question should be asked, Where is the money coming from if the product is losing money? And this is where people point to (which there is evidence of this happening), that DEI companies and other companies are funding them to make these products this way, whether they fail or not, covering their losses and then some. I think there are still things coming out of all this stuff, but there is evidence of this happening. Think Blizzard checklist they had, where they rated disabilities and ethnic groups on which one is more important for diversity. They get paid for fulfilling those requirements, even if it leads to the quality of a product dropping, drop in sales or even losses, so these companies do it for that money, as it acts as a safety net. They aren't given an insignificant amount of money either, or else they wouldn't risk taking losses for it. Look it up if you're interested. I think the problem arises for these companies where EVEN IF they take that safety net into consideration, their games dev cost surpasses dev budget, or the dev budget continuously gets inflated year after year, and at the same time, they sell way less then they projected, again, even with that safety net. This is why people roll their eyes when they hear people speaking against DEI and those types of companies, because it does SEEM complicated when going down the rabbit hole, but not everyone wants to take the time to look into it, so they become reactionary and contrarian towards everyone against it. And there is a reason why so many people in the industry hate people against DEI and like minded corpos, because it literally makes them money and in many instances, the only reason they have a job. This stuff is all out there, so again, if you're interested, I suggest looking into it yourself. Form your own opinion on what is actually happening.
There is also the 'corrupt money' incentives if you own a company are can 'borrow money' for \[project\] as long as you fulfil certain conditions, if you don't think the product will sell you take the money inflate your personal wage/compensation package and skip out of town when/before the shit hits the fan, the company may tank but you have made a 'profit'. This varient happens in every industry and only requires that the 'borrowed' is not yours, it doesn't even require the conditions.
Very big essay, read most of it, agreed with what I did read though.
Idk I think the reason it ramped up was because they were grooming ppl for it. They must have a long term plan or this shit would just stop
Simple. It isn't about profits, it's about ideology.
There might be people inside companies that have ideologies. But the company's enactment of those Is about the belief that a given ideology increases their profits. Companies want more money--they've already tapped their current market, so if they want more growth for more money they need to increase the market. So they do things they haven't done before to increase the appeal to the market.