William gets a cookie. His commenters, not so much
William from Gaming Today writes an editorial entitled There’s No Room For Sexist Views In The Video Game Industry. I won’t quote it here since it’s not very long and there’s no reason not to go and read it, but don’t feel too good about yourself after that Digg tag, his commenters seem hell-bent on pointing out that there is room for sexism in games because girls like stupid games. Even though men play casual games just as much as women do and yet they don’t suffer any negative impact on their hardcore-ness. To wit:
Whether female gamers like it or not, their ranks have been swollen by the casual gaming housewife. I know that there are tons of hardcore gaming females out there. In fact there are several all-female gaming clans that can give any guys a run for their money. It’s not about that.
At the end of the day, it’s about someone in marketing reading a spreadsheet and making a decision based on a bottom line. Until that changes, you’ll see this same problem persist.
Translation: Even though there are a lot of hardcore female gamers out there, the fact that some moms like to play Peggle makes all women everywhere nothing but casual gamers. Because companies can only sell on product, to one target audience. Just ask any large company anywhere.
How is that even remotely sexist? It’s true. Face it ladies, most of your peers play some kind of MMO or some other game. I’ve run into more girls online there than in all my gaming.
Translation: Face it, ladies, I have my head completely up my ass. MMO’s are totally casual because people never lose whole weekends to them, and usually only play 5-10 minutes of it at a time.
Have you ever noticed how the instant someone points out that you shouldn’t treat women gamers like trash there’s instantly a swarm of commenters who trip all over themselves to be the first to reply “yes, you should!”
January 3rd, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Thanks for the comment on my article. So far, the comments definitely lead me to believe that male gamers simply do not seem to grasp reality yet. It’s obviously a subject that will need to be addressed a lot in the future.
January 3rd, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Hey! Thanks for stopping over, and thanks for the article! I spend a lot of time lurking in comments on different gaming blogs (yours, joystiq, kotaku, etc) and I’m inclined to agree with you there.
January 3rd, 2008 at 2:41 pm
http://digitalunrestcomic.com/index.php?date=2007-12-17
January 3rd, 2008 at 3:10 pm
While I can appreciate your viewpoint, I think you misconstrued my comment. My point was that I believe there are a lot more female gamers than most people think, but that the marketing decisions are made to appeal to the majority, rather than the totality.
I don’t believe that housewives playing casual games affects the status of the hardcore female gamer a bit. I’m married to a hardcore female gamer, and we discuss this topic a fair bit (usually every time she reads a new issue of any gaming magazine).
It’s just a matter of companies trying to minimize spending by picking a demograhic and trying to target it.
January 3rd, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Ron: Fair enough; but again, I would challenge your assertions. First of all, gaming is a several-billion-dollar-a-year industry (I lost count somewhere around 65?) and with that much money swirling around, there’s enough to invest in a demographic that is in fact 50% of the population. The point that William made: that the gaming industry willfully ignores the role of women gamers, dismissing them as just a bunch of Sims-playing casual gamers; doesn’t take into account the majority, it makes the majority (and a slim majority at that) into the totality. Coca-Cola may find that 60% of the people who drink their product drink Coke Classic, but that doesn’t mean they don’t offer Diet Coke and Caffiene-Free Coke.
One thing that I’ve been pounding my head against the wall over for almost a year now on this blog is that study after study finds that the female gamer isn’t such a small minority as the industry would like to think, and similarly that there isn’t as much difference between male and female gaming habits (as I’m sure you’re aware of) as the conventional wisdom would have us believe. And yet we still struggle with sexism not only still being factored into most games, but being increased in order to appeal to “the gamer stereotype.” Sexism, like racism, should not be something that development companies exploit in order to sell games. It’s not only wrong, but it’s also completely counter-intuitive to a company’s mission to increase its consumer base.
Hertza: Brilliant!
January 3rd, 2008 at 3:51 pm
You’ll get no argument from me on that score. I personally believe that as gaming becomes more and more widely accepted (as is happening every day), you’ll see this start to shift, simply because companies won’t be able to get away with it and succeed anymore.
It will also help as new people who are in touch with the reality of the issue move into positions of control in entrenched or new companies. With more women than ever becoming involved in game design and creation, it’s only a matter of time before someone gets the message.
January 3rd, 2008 at 4:00 pm
So (and this isn’t a trick question), do you feel that the Jade Raymond incident was a sign of progress, or a backslide?
January 3rd, 2008 at 4:06 pm
… Great article, William, and great commentary on it, Ponygirl. I’m in the process of coming out of hibernation. You’ll see something from me by the weekend.
January 3rd, 2008 at 4:15 pm
I understand the hibernation urge. It was difficult to shake the snow off my fur, myself.
January 3rd, 2008 at 4:29 pm
If you’re referring to the incident with the comic strip, I think that was simply indicative of the closed minds of some people. Jade Raymond is an intelligent, talented lady who also happens to be quite attractive. The fact that she is attractive has no bearing whatsoever on her abilities.
I think that Jade Raymond is a sign of progress. The incident with the comic strip was unfortunate, and the work of some poorly adjusted folks. More telling to me was the fact that Ubisoft leapt to her defense, which shows they appreciate her contributions, and that they recognize her abilities.
I’d think progress overall, but I can see how some people would think of it as a backslide. I’d disagree, but I do that a lot.
January 3rd, 2008 at 4:36 pm
I think that Ubisoft’s reaction was a good sign for the industry, but I think that the fans’ reaction to Ubisoft’s cease-and-desist order was a very bad sign for the culture. And if the industry really does take it’s orders from the sexist culture that it’s trying to market to, then I worry that the longterm ramifications of the Jade Raymond comic strip will actually herald a backslide as they adjust their hiring and marketing practices to continue to serve the sexists while limiting their liability.
January 3rd, 2008 at 5:28 pm
I’m a bit confused by this conversation. I will attempt to summarize, and make a few points.
A marketing VP allegedly said “Women don’t really play anything but The Sims.” Cori Roberts informed William of the alleged statement, and William posted it, apparently criticizing it. No VP is named, and no context is given. T he Marketing VP’s conclusion is not clear.
We can agree that the statement is not literally true. Women play every game out there. Still, I’m reluctant to endorse/condemn the statement without context/intent (assuming it was said).
William and the commenters appear assume that the statement was intended to explain that game companies are do not market to women and why. The commenters claim that it is consistent with the typical marketing viewpoint, which is focused on the majority, at the risk of rejecting the minority.
You seem to take issue with the commenters because “the instant someone points out that you shouldn’t treat women gamers like trash there’s instantly a swarm of commenters who trip all over themselves to be the first to reply ‘yes, you should!’” But, I dont’ understand your statement.
If we assume that the Marketing VP made that statements, and intentioanlly fails to market to women, we can agree that he is a fool. Not only is the statement wrong (if taken literally). It is also because that sort of negative attitude is not accepted in marketing. Marketing people tend to want to know how to grow their markets, not what markets are impenetrable.
But. I think there is a big difference between choosing not to market to a demographic and “treating that demographic like trash.” I can create/market a game focused on females, gays, ethnic groups, religious groups, children, the elderly, rural communities, urban communities, etc. And even if people outside of my target audience play my game, I can continue to ignore them. I don’t think I would call that treating anyone “like trash.” At worst, I would call it “fiscally unambitious.”
Finally (and very respectfully), I disagree with your misconstruction of some of the snippets you comment on above. I realize you are probably writing for dramatic effect, but feel that you are contorting the meaning of the people you quote. For instance, Ron was obviously not saying “the fact that some moms like to play Peggle makes all women everywhere nothing but casual gamers.” I think it’s pretty obvious that he was saying sales data shows a higher level of interest from women in certain gaming genres, and that women remain ignored in other gaming genres. He even suggests that the situation can/should change by suggesting that it will change when marketing people stop relying so heavily on risk free algorithms and starrt thinking creatively. Hoping that I don’t offend,I think that distorting his port so much really does the conversation a disservice.
January 3rd, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Hey, nice job Will, and MP, I’ve been lurking here for a while, so here goes. You are dead on when it comes to the different reactions that could come from this comic strip debacle. If people aren’t made to understand who is actually in the wrong in this situation, then companies could totally get the wrong idea, as sad as that is.
January 3rd, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Eudiamo — if you take some time to look through this blog, you will find ample proof that the industry has a problem with its treatment of women.
January 3rd, 2008 at 8:10 pm
MP,
I’m not suggesting otherwise. I was making 3 claims:
1. An unconfirmed, anonymous, context-free quotation does not provide sufficient information to suggest a thesis worthy of condemnation;
2. Assuming (as others appear to have done) that the quotation was intended to explain why a particular company does not market to men, that position is a poor business practice, but not immoral, and
3. That William’s commenters (Who suggested point #2) were not saying what you suggested that they were saying.
January 4th, 2008 at 8:17 am
1. I was not the one initially reporting on the anonymous, context-free quotation. However, I have this funny feminist habit of not assuming off the bat that women are liars. So I go with it.
2. No one is questioning whether or not a company markets to men. Women are at issue. However, if a company knowingly fails to market to women that’s not immoral, that’s dumb. If the same company uses sexism to sell their games, that’s immoral.
3. And you know this for sure? Live inside all their heads, do you?
January 4th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
I’m not assuming that Cori Roberts is lying. But William’s editorial does not make it clear that she heard the statement, personally or what the context of the statement was. I can say “we need more information” without casting aspersions on her or anyone else.
I don’t disagree with you that using sexism to sell games is immoral, but I disagree with you that the commenters on William’s blog were saying that using sexism to sell games is ok. Again, because we lack the context of the specific marketing practice, the company involved or nearly anything else, it is impossible for anyone to make an informed judgment of whether the company has sexist marketing strategies vs. simply marketing to men.
I think it’s a bit facetious to ask if I live inside anyone’s head. The commenters made statements that you purported to translate. But your translations were overly hyperbolic and changed the plain meaning of what they said. I’m not swearing as to their intentions (I don’t even know any of them), but I think it is reasonable even for someone lacking in psychic powers to say “they don’t appear to be saying what you’re accusing them of saying.”
Thanks for the discussion.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Facetious isn’t the word you’re looking for. To be facetious is to be humorous and lacking merit usually through self-deprecation. I believe the word you’re looking for is “specious” which means “appearing to be good and right but inaccurate.” For example:
The arguments weren’t verbatum “sexism to sell games is ok.” That was the implied meaning of comments like “How is that even remotely sexist? It’s true. Face it ladies, most of your peers play some kind of MMO or some other game” — lots of women like ____ , ergo, it is not sexist to stereotype women based on what a measurable sample likes.
(I’m not sure what “some other game” qualifies as — Halo? Grand Turismo? Ohh, we see someone charging in with “women like Nintendogs, haw, haw, haw”)
Let’s take this out of context since most people seem to put on blinders, stuff their fingers in their ears and yell “lalalalaCITATIONPLSlalalalala” whenever someone tries to talk about the gaming demographics of women and how maybe — just maybe — the way that the industry markets towards us is just a bit insulting. But what do I know? I’m just a woman.
Let’s pretend that a study came out showing that a significant number of college males play Halo 3; and another study indicating that while many people do continue to play video games after college, there is a drop-off in game purchases after the age of 25. I know, but just try to visualize it. Now, let’s say that the industry stopped producing any sort of M-rated game except for the console shooter, because, well, if college men only play Halo 3, then there’s no reason at all to make any other kind of game marketed toward people over 18. So we don’t get any more games that are rated M or above unless they involve space marines. Now imagine other college students who like games like Devil May Cry or Oblivion start objecting to this. Now imagine an article written in a prominent gaming journal/blog saying “hey–it’s not fair to people who like Devil May Cry and Resident Evil that there aren’t any good Action/Adventure/Horror games out there for a more mature audience.” Now imagine that the reaction wasn’t “yeah! those people deserve their games too!” or even “hey, I like Halo 3 but if someone wants to play Oblivion that’s fine too,” but rather various flavors of “Halo 3 is what makes money and anyone who doesn’t like is shit out of luck” and “hahaha, college kids also like Counterstrike!.” Now rinse and repeat for over a year and you get how fucking sick I am of industry apologists leaping in right away to point out that it’s all well and dandy that women shouldn’t have fun games, too, and how I might be a touch sensitive on the subject.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
You’re correct that I misused facetious. It was the result of a careless spell-check. Thanks for the call, though.