What Inclusion Means to Players

>When, where and who did this survey

EA did the research themselves. I don't know why you think the marketing department of a publicly traded company would seek to falsify their own market research which is only going to result in the company losing money as they act on bad data. As an example, in regards to research on why females don't play online as much as males one of the quotes is
>I stay away from multiplayer games because I get paired up with those far superior than me and it's not fun for either of us
Both males and females complained about "toxic" communities more or less equally but females tend to admit to being more sensitive and insecure about it. The only part where there tended to be massive deviation was in regards to violence. Females don't like it. Interesting, the females considered "more diverse representation" to be less important than the males did.

>LGBT identities

Attached: 1530539595264.png (1226x1063, 113K)

Polls don't ask all gamers, they ask 100 "gamers" and then extrapolate that to all "gamers".

To game these polls you just ask 100 gamers from California or something.

Bullshit research. "more inclusive towards a diverse audience" is a nothing phrase that means nothing and is not important, and I'm sure the rest is similarly meaningless. Throwing buzzwords at people and asking their thoughts is not research.

There is nothing wrong with an "inclusive" game. The problem is when its virtue signaling or the game goes out of its way to point out that its being inclusive. The gay guy doesn't have to tell me hes gay. The black man doesn't need to point out that he is a black man. Just let the characters be themselves and be realistic to the world that they are set it.

The problem is, the people who are most likely to spend 10-15 minutes filling out the questionnaire from EA about social justice in gaming are the ones that care the most about it.
This is why this kind of "research" is bullshit, they are never accurate.

It’d be cool if EA focused more on making quality games than minor details like this. Want inclusion? Great, so that, but stop pumping out shit year after year

So EA did some research huh? I buy ea games why was I not asked, sounds like bullshit to me.

>Is customisation in video games important to you?
>How will customisation in video games affect your decision to buy said game?

Guarantee the questions were something like this (not mentioning diversity at all).

whenever I see trite like 'inclusion' or 'diversity' included in promo material, I immediately drop it.
You can make games without resorting to idpol crap nobody cares about. Shame only 7% of people are actually self-aware and have principle.

>loaded words like "toxicity"
>done by an minority female
>buzzword filled prompts
>self selection
Literal garbage data. How does someone get paid to do this without having ever taken a statistics class?

Attached: 1516288048463m.jpg (1024x706, 108K)

Where did I say they would seek to falsify? I pointed out how surveys are hardly reliable the reason for this is you can get wildly different results depending on when you try to get the survey answered, in what manner you present the survey such as direct calling or just a random email, even down to what areas you have the survey focused at.

EA has 100% shown they are incompetent not out of maliciousness but out of seeking one thing above all and becoming out of touch with their consumers. A survey is a garbage way to prove something because of how easy it is to rig the numbers out of ignorance or deliberate intent.

This was targeted research created to push a narrative.

Attached: ea ((research)).jpg (730x597, 96K)

I find it funny that they brush off the 13% as being a vocal minority, but gays, trannies, otherkin, and genderfluid people make up less than 5% of the population, yet companies bend over backwards to appease them.

Also, where they fuck did they poll these people? RetardEra?

Probably within their own state only, California.

>MTX/DLC - 49%
>Piracy - 47%
The absolute STATE of normalfags

Attached: whale.jpg (593x537, 125K)

The bottom 3 are alarmingly high

That all just sounds like a bunch of communist gobbledygook.

SAGE

I hope that's right.

I had to search through a bunch of posts on kiwi bird watching forums for this. They were mad over the change to that trans character in Catherine Full Body for those curious

Attached: Reset Era Convictions.png (1199x250, 24K)

It all sounds like the average Yea Forumsirgin's opinion not even five years ago. But then again there was a time when we would laugh at the crazy conservatives crying about communists and gay propaganda in video games instead of having them shit up the board.

but I love how they're oh so virtuous around here with their constant thought policing and astroturfing.
Slimy faggots.

Back to plebbit you go.
You should really do some research before you make shit up. Some people actually have been posting here for a decade.

not really, tourist.

Attached: onr3i.jpg (619x449, 35K)

5 years ago? So 2014 when GG was at it's peak, or did you mean before that? Like when FemFreq was the focus

>making up statistics
>research
kek

This isn't how a fucking study goes for fucks sake
>would you buy this if X
>yes
>SEE GUYS ITS PROFITABLE!
Hows about you measure actual sales of games centered around diversity and get back to me. Fags and trannies will say they'll buy them, but when it comes time to pull out the wallet none of those "gamers" will do shit

And who did they ask? People who bought BFV? Why the fuck would they even bother if they just want to hear from like minded people that what they are doing is right?

Yeah, me, for instance. If you had been here when Fox News panicked about Mass Effect turning YOUR CHILDREN gay you wouldn't be here spouting the same shit now as if you belonged. Fact is, Yea Forums has been saying for years that inclusivity isn't a problem if it's done organically, which is exactly what this survey concluded as well.

Five years ago was a little before gamergate, but yeah, right around then. Granted, when GG was at its peak, Yea Forums was virtue signalling like mad, but still, wasn't that kind of always the point? We held the moral high ground over the SJWs because we had higher standards for inclusivity and didn't settle for token characters?

Or was that all a smokescreen?

Not him, but I've been on Yea Forums since like 2006 and back then we laughed at any retard that took politics in games seriously, not because they were liberal or conservative, but because they were retarded enough to take video game politics so seriously.

We didn't make fun of crazy feminists spewing bullshit about games because they were feminists, we made fun of them for being insane. Yea Forums actually used to care about videogames and would tell people to fuck off if they posted off topic shit. Back in the day people like you posting political garbage to own the libs would have probably been those fedora tipping autists that constantly posted "God isn't real, debate me." shitposting threads so they could own the christianfags

You're right, they should ask people who will never buy an EA game anyway

>among
>>>>>>>>>>>total
>>>>>players
Twitter is a cancer that cannot kill the world quickly enough.

>"EA fabricated this survey to get the results they wanted!"
>"How do you know that?"
>"Because it's not the results I want."

Are you people really this fucking stupid?

>06
kill yourself idiot

Attached: sok.jpg (705x435, 45K)

Asking people who don't play their game is a good starting point. Afterall they do research to grow their playerbase and how are you going to grow if your research only involves people who are already part of your playerbase instead of people who aren't? Make them buy 2 copies?

And seriously, answering no or don't care is like saying "yes I'd murder kitten and vote for Hitler given the chance" for these people.
The poll is biased, and the real life sales of, say, anthem mass effect or BFV says a whole lot about this whole diversity scam.

So explain why BFV flopped. It is the same shit if not a slight improvement gameplay wise to the series, what caused the bottom dollar, the only thing EA cares about, to get raped this time around?

I bet they only asked to retards that bought mass effect andromeda and other EA shit, kek

Yeah, this survey is probably accurate and unbiased. It’s still irrelevant though because EA is still pushing out unfinished shit products. They should do a survey asking people if they’d buy a game with effort put into it, and use those results to make games instead of this meaningless crap

The fuck is wrong with that year?
I found this place after a buddy at school referenced "ITS OVER 9000" and was shocked when I didn't get what he was talking about, so he pointed me here and said it was full of funny shit. Lurked Yea Forums for like 6 months before moving on to the hobby boards like Yea Forums, /tg/ and Yea Forums and never going back.

Being on Yea Forums for close to 15 years isn't an accomplishment to be proud of, but I still need to mention it when I correct people like you that pull shit out of their ass and pretend its fact while trying to rewrite history.
Yea Forums was just a place for manchildren to talk about their manchild hobbies together before it became a place to pretend to be retarded and repost memes, then it just became that + Americans being fucking retarded about their own politics and shoving it down literally everyones throats whether they want to hear about it or not.

I did some research and 100% of the people I asked said that this is fucking meaningless shit. Admittedly I did only ask myself but 100% is still a really big percentage so it's all that matters.

Do you see "Game Quality" at the top there?

So you think anyone actually cares how long you’ve been on Yea Forums? What’s with the blogposting

Fucking hell man, I've been here 20+ years just like yourself and this is THE most embarrassing post I've ever read on this website. Seriously my face scrunched up while reading your post.
How did the natural cringe not stop you from hitting the post button.

Don't even try to argue with retards like this, they'll continue to pretend the site was always like this no matter how many times they've been proven wrong
People tell Caturday posters to go back to re ddit, for fucks sake

So why aren’t they focusing on that? Why is this entire article talking about why everyone hates Anthem because it’s low effort and instead focusing on why people want black female main characters?

>So you think anyone actually cares how long you’ve been on Yea Forums?
Yes, because every time I fucking explain what this place was ACTUALLY like when zoomers from reddit try to make shit up they say "HURR UR JUST A TOURIST BACK TO RESETERA xD REDDIT IS THE OTHER WAY BUCKO, MAYBE YOU SHOULD TRY FACEBOOK! "
I literally always have to explain when and how I found this place for you retards to not just immediately assume I'm some foreign attacker from a liberal website trying to subvert your secret political base.

Except back then they weren't pushing their shit into games. I can't go 5 minutes into some Western games these days without some gay or minority shit shoved in my face, and I'm fucking Southeast Asian.
>play Andromeda
>get hit by a billion minorities within 5 minutes of the game
>play Inquisition
>get treated with a Qunari from California

This is called autism. If someone says you’re from another website and you feel the need to write your entire history of shitposting on Yea Forums that means you invest too much of your self worth in this literal shithole and you should probably stop posting

>Except back then they weren't pushing their shit into games.
Thats literally what we told them to do back then you fuckin melon.
Back in 2006 we all fucking said "Lol what a fucking whiner, if they want to see this in games so badly just make some, devs shouldn't have to make their games based on the way other people want them to be!"

And now that they actually are just making the games they want to see you retards are shitting your pants over it because HURR LIBERALS BAD, AMERICAN POLITICS IMPORTANT, MUH SOCIAL CIVIL WAR

jesus chirst man just stop posting.
Are you drunk?
Autistic?

I'm just trying to prevent historical revisionism from faggot zoomers from reddit because there aren't many of us left from back then. Most of the people around 10+ years ago probably fucked off to go talk about their hobbies and make OC a long ass time ago after they got sick of kids spamming memes and shitposting instead of actually talking about anything 90% of the time

Because "We should make better games" is not exactly a revelation. There's a lot push back against "inclusiveness", e.g. GET WOKE GO BROKE, and the research is showing that's a minority. Most people are only concerned that a) the game is good and b) they don't have to put up with shrill 13 year olds spouting of /pol/ bullshit when playing online. That is what the article is about.

Does samefagging so blatantly make you think people are going to think you were right?

For someone claiming to be neutral, you sure seem to love one side a lot. It's fine, I've started boycotting Western games anyway, those two games were the last straw for me. Good thing the West hasn't made a good game since like 2008 so it's not a big loss.

>kids spamming memes and shitposting instead of actually talking about anything 90% of the time

Says the faggot obsessively typing out 100+ word post's about how his Yea Forums aint like it used to be! back in my day!! etc etc.
You're pathetic dude, kill your self.

Hey i agree and generally Yea Forums and most of society is pretty liberal if you read up on political demographics in america. This study basically confirms what you're saying and what Yea Forums has said in the past that most people don't care if it's done well. That is to say the games industry isn't near as illiberal or sexist as certain ideologues would purport. What you miss however is that since 2012 or so there has been a rapid politicisation of games by institutions like, Polygon, Waypoint, Kotaku and as with anything political there is going to be two sides. It's niave to believe there wouldn't be some form of resistance made manifest when you've had 7 years of "toxic misogynists gamers etc" accusations been pelted at you / your hobby. Fundamentally i think most people are decent but are resistant to being lectured or condescended to by elitist. It's like Christianity, you probably don't have a problem with people believing in whatever and most Christians are decent enough people, but if you get harangued on the street by some bible thumper you're probably going to end up annoyed.

>56%
dios mios...

the new generation of human beings on this planet is fucked

>>>Fixing disruptive behavior and toxicity is more important than ever

This really means "emasculating and disempowering White men because they are going to kill globalists and their traitor hordes"

Attached: toxic behavior.png (1920x1080, 3.38M)

Funny thing, right. Yea Forums is full of these fucking morons who claim to have been here since '04, even though the board's population has exploded. And if you ask them why they went full reactionary tradshit Young Republican Christcuck when that is so completely at odds with the spirit of early Yea Forums, they say that it only makes sense. After all, it used to be the right working themselves into a moral panic about video games, and now it's the left! Yeah, except, firstly, opposing extremists on the left doesn't require you to take up an extreme position on the right, and secondly, the right never stopped doing that either, but now they're doing it on Yea Forums and claiming they've always done that here.

Have you tried not being toxic misogynists though

This.
If you believe in ANY research done past like 2010 then you're a fucking braindead retard. No matter if its done to push narrative of one or another side the fact is that most researches and statistics nowadays are complete fucking bullshit.

>add thread I post in to watch list
>someone replies to me so I open the thread
>not a brainlet zoomer on a phone so I can type 110+WPM
>takes literally less than 60 seconds to reply
Sorry I forgot Yea Forums wasn't for actually talking and was just for reposting memes

CRINGE! BASED AND REDPILLED! FPBP!
BTFO! Thats gonna be a yikes from me!

>For someone claiming to be neutral, you sure seem to love one side a lot.
Except I don't because I don't give a fuck about politics and don't even live in america, I just get more annoyed about the right because the left doesn't post on Yea Forums or derail any thread they can.
Of fucking course I'm going to be more hostile towards /pol/kiddies, the boogieman they're constantly fighting against doesn't fucking exist here and isn't a problem, if it wasn't for them I wouldn't have to see politics at all. Which is ideal since I clicked "Yea Forums - videogames" not "/pol/ - politics"

Attached: 1515704892750.jpg (221x250, 5K)

>done by an minority female
You answered yourself in your own post, retard.

Stop, you're making sense

I really enjoy the references in that article, combined with a material and methods to show the work they did to reach those numbers.
It's basically bullshit. Not that you need me to tell you that, since those numbers are so fucking exaggerated that nobody with half a brain cell would take it as truth.

are you?

if the results meant anything other than agenda/pr bull then they wouldn't release them publicly.

Attached: 1524546178239.png (545x764, 99K)

Where's the materials and methods? Where are their references? How was the interview or query framed?
This all matters. The fact they omit this data means it's most likely fabricated. Lrn2science you brainlet.

>The outcome disagrees with my agenda so obviously it's pushing an agenda!

>Give them meaning arcs and contribution to the story without dying
>without dying

nigga, death is as much a storytelling device as anything else, why should it be off limits?

I haven't but i respect the people that try

Attached: Rape Zone.jpg (500x500, 65K)

>highlight toxicity
>ignore game and sequel quality
>lump in DLC with MTX as if they're thame same (well in EA games they usually are)
Totally no bias here

>Enjoy these numbers we pulled out of our collective asses.
Credible

fake studies made by "diversity officers" that these retarded companies hire

Well, you're the reason they have to endure those "accusations", but I'm sure your respect means a lot to them

read; and Are you fucking stupid? Learn to conduct a study before you're going to broadcast your (literal) fake facts/news into the world. Fucking EA does it again.

Do they even give a sample size?

>The findings outlined below are from an online survey sent out to US gamers in May 2018. 2,252 individuals took the survey, ranging from 13–54 years old, who own and play games on console/PC, and who are decision makers in entertainment purchases.

yes, 2,252. They don't mention the criteria of selection though. They also don't show the original query, which basically means the results mean fuck all. There's at least 5 ways to easily manipulate the data to suit your view that I could employ in a study like this from the top of my head. There's probably dozens more if you think about it for a few hours.
As long as they don't provide the raw data, selection criteria and all that shit, then the results mean nothing. Literally nothing.
As a scientist, I can always seethe so hard when people do this type of 'research' and retarded normalfags eat it up like truth. They should really give more attention in high school on how to be critical of these types of misinformation.

They aren't publishing a study. They did some market research and then someone wrote an article about what they found. It has more credibility than the retards in this shithole bubble that just declare their opinion is representative of all gamers everywhere and anything demonstrating that to not be true MUST be fabricated.

That's where you're wrong, it has literally the same credibility.
I think Yea Forums has more than 2400 active users. Give the same query here and the results would probably be reversed. You think that means the results would be equally unbiased?

Ofcourse you don't.

Yea Forums has a smaller demographic cross section than EA's customer base. You are all a bunch of incel weebs and that bias would be clearly demonstrated.

Funny because the poll is obviously wrong, just look at how poorly Cultural Marxist propaganda games sell. They will shoot themselves in the foot by doubling down on it, and their games will end up just like BFV.

And yet you're here.

No way to tell that, unless they show what the criteria were for the query. EA's customer base is a lot bigger than 2.2k people user. If you're going to only send a specific subset of people the query, then you obviously get results that you want to get.

Again, it's pseudoscience. It's not credible. It has literally the same credibility as a random user on Yea Forums saying that inclusiveness is not important to the majority of gamers.

Now to apply your own argument against you; you want it to be true because of your bias. It's demonstratively pseudoscience, and non-credible. However, you insist it IS credible. Why is that user? The only explanation I can come up with is because you want it to be. Which means you're probably biased.

It would be pseudoscience if it purported to be science. Your extreme scepticism seems to me what indicates a bias.

>EA is so stupid they have to do a survey to know that players don't want the same shit over and over again and prefer variety in a game's story

Attached: FUCKING FEMINISTS.png (2208x650, 122K)

>They aren't publishing a study
But that's exactly what they did?
>They did some market research and then someone wrote an article about what they found
Okay? You can't do scientific research halfway. You either do it correctly or you don't do it at all. Going in between is the equivalent of not doing it at all. It tells you nothing and you're just wasting time. You can't half-ass a study, no matter how 'casual' it is, or you might as well don't do it at all.

I doubt the research is actual reflective of the overall gaming population considering how every woke game so far that didn´t spent hundred million dollars on marketing flopped
but then again
>EA
who cares, it´s not like they are ever gonna make another single player game let alone game that I actually care about.
just lootbox shooters and service mmos

>EA did some research

Let's have a look at some possibilities then.
>EA sends out emails to accounts with a survey attached
>People who have had EA accounts for long periods of time will likely not read the email, or it will be sent to spam
>90% of it gets ignored, only 10% of surveys get answered, mostly by new users

>EA sends out emails to accounts with a survey attached
>results aren't what they expected
>muddle the results a little bit

>EA sends out emails to subscribers with a survey attached
>results are contrary to what they want
>Rotten Tomatoes the results and exclude a number of entries for being "toxic"

>EA just makes data up and calls it research

Pick any one of the above.

Attached: 1539946485466.png (868x719, 948K)

So you're admitting it's not credible?
Okay then, glad we cleared that up.
>Your extreme scepticism seems to me what indicates a bias.
What kind of non-argument is this? You're grasping at straws here. I fucking hate it when normalfags try to perform 'studies' and 'research' without a clue in the world what they're doing. It spreads misinformation, which is fucking important these days. People too stupid to look critically at these types of studies (e.g. you) gobble it up and portray them as truth, when it's literally nonsense.

>credible evidence about global consensus according to Yea Forums users
>"What I generally see users post on Yea Forums. As long as it agrees with what I think."
>not credible evidence about global consensus according to Yea Forums users
>large scale market research done by a for profit company investigating the most effective ways to make money

>More options in character customization
options actaully have gone down since sjws took over.
back in the old days games used to have an option to adjust breast sizes and have skimpy outfits for your female characters if you chose to do so

Let me guess, there were only 1000 people in the study and there are no further numbers to back up the claims?

But they pump out trash games exactly because their devs are SJWs, they are incompetent

5 years ago games were still allowed to feature cute and sexy female characters
unlike today where japanese games get censored left and right for triggering feminists, every female character in a western game has to be an ugly, men hating marie sue, every sony exclusive has at least one scene of "girls rule, boys drool" and mortal kombat only has skimpy outfits for male fighters while the women dress like muslims

I'm sure the full report is available for internal use somewhere. If you read an article in a popular science mag it's okay to be sceptical but it's another to assume that all the studies are fabricated just because the articles about them aren't up to academic standards. Anyway, if you're so concerned, why don't you shoot them a mail asking about methodology?

Are you fucking braindead ape that cant read? I literally wrote that it doesnt matter if its pushing one or other sides agenda the fact is these researches are complete fucking bullshit.

>1000
That is a very generous estimate, it's not uncommon for SJW studies to have a sample size of few dozen people

No shit sherlock, these fake studies are fucking easy to do, it doesn't help that some shitty universities accept studies made with 1000 people as legit.

>What kind of non-argument is this?
I'm saying that your demand for academic rigour is unwarranted in this case.

>credible evidence about global consensus according to Yea Forums users
>"What I generally see users post on Yea Forums. As long as it agrees with what I think."
No, I'm saying that's equally credible as the garbage EA just put forth. This means if I call one garbage, the other is also garbage. Ergo, I think the average 'consensus according to Yea Forums users' is also garbage.
>large scale market research
2.2k is not large scale user. That's almost microscopic scale with a userbase of a few million.

because in 2006 games still didn´t just one side of polticis
things where actaully fair and diverse back then while nowadays everything is just the same sjw/feminist/left wing proganda about how "white men all suck" over and over again

Then reporting it as studies should be illegal.

The joke here is that a walking simulator with a black girl that can't walk actually sold, right? Even gone home only had 600k and that was a hit

Attached: The-Left-Cant-Meme.jpg (480x272, 19K)

I am reminded of the Trump election success percentages here.

No, in 2006 you hadn't been indoctrinated to see ghosts everywhere.

Pretty sure that team of indie devs was pretty fucking happy to sell 600K copies of their 10-20 game, not everyone is EA user, some people consider making six million dollars in sales to be a success

56% shouldnt be enough of a majority to make a claim that it should be an agreed norm now. half and half split is the perfect demographic division to fake because the difference between 49% and 51% is so minuscule you will cannot notice it in practice. like if you'd flip those results around either party would be hard pressed to protest the result because they wont notice a 2% decrease in their cause's size.

Way ahead of you. Already send them an e-mail.
>I'm sure the full report is available for internal use somewhere. If you read an article in a popular science mag it's okay to be sceptical but it's another to assume that all the studies are fabricated just because the articles about them aren't up to academic standards
Sorry that I just don't take any bullshit article at face value. You should try being a bit more critical about the shit you get spoonfed everyday.

>And now that they actually are just making the games they want to see
I still don´t get why they don´t create new franchises and instead had to ruin all the old already established franchies form the past which created a huge fanbase by being not poltical or in many cases exactly the opposite of what sjws turned them into.
i didn´t care two shits about devsion or anthem since those where new franchises but why did sjws have to remove all the sexy girls from mass effect, mortal kombat or spider-man?

Feminists were able to get GTA pulled out of stores.

It should, but isn't. Such is a civilization run by kikes. Truth doesn't matter anymore.

>2.2k is not large scale user. That's almost microscopic scale with a userbase of a few million.

Fuck no, it's no microscopic. You see legit published studies with a far smaller sample size than that be accepted. If you think proper scientific research always involves sample sizes in the millions, hundreds of thousand or even tens of thousands you are way off fucking base. Not everyone is the government with the option of a legally mandated census.

>le 56%
lel

Attached: mutthurt.png (959x799, 483K)

Right wing politicians were trying to do that long before feminists

Well of course people are gonna say that it's important games are inclusive. If you ask people in a survey "do you think it's important for games to be inclusive to everyone?!" then of course most people are gonna say yes

Out of a store.

And right wingers being haven't been able to do that for a while. The problem is that feminists are now doing it. Now with the support of the gaming press that made fun of right-wingers that were trying to do the same thing. You know you can think both are a problem, right?

>EA
>Conducting anything that they won't skew in their own favor

Meanwhile, they conveniently left out the big one, which is "How do you feel about FORCED 'inclusiveness' aka pandering?"

There is zero problem with inclusiveness if you have control over it. You don't want to play a protagonist who is a non white, non binary xe/xim/xer who bashes on white people, specifically cis males, for their white privilege and how they'll never understand the mc's struggle at being a special snowflake? Then give us the option to play whoever the fuck we want to without agenda pushing bullshit. Game has a female MC? Great, we don't care. Game has a female MC who is also forced lesbian and the terrible romance subplot takes up 80% of the game because you want to be inclusive and doesn't let people pick if the character is straight or gay or not even interested? Fuck right off.

All the backlash stems from agenda pushing with no player control over what agenda is pushed to them. Women probably don't want to play a game where the female MC is just a blatant sex object with no personality. Men probably won't play a game where the male MC is belittled and berated at every fucking turn and forced to apologize and be submissive because he was born a white male. LGBTBBQs probably won't play a game where they are forced in to a heterosexual relationship without having the option to "just be friends."

It's common fucking sense. EA probably just made this poll because of battlefield being shit, and claiming "No see it was just trolls all along! The actual players don't mind inclusiveness!" when battlefield wasn't about being inclusive, it was about pushing an agenda and forcing historical inaccuracy because they wanted to push said agenda.

tl;dr - no one gives a fuck about being inclusive, people only care about forced agendas they have no control over.

>Fuck no, it's no microscopic. You see legit published studies with a far smaller sample size than that be accepted
Besides the point that this is factually not true and in many cases (like market research), where it is not uncommon to see sample sizes of 10-100k, there are indeed legit studies done by people who don't have easy access to a bigger pool. If you can validate that your sample size is a good representation of the entire pool of people that you want to test, then you can do that. EA just send people a fucking e-mail. If you have a few million users of Origin alone, then you might want to get a slightly larger pool of individuals.

>You know you can think both are a problem, right?
I never said I didn't, I just don't sperg out about it and pretend I'm fighting some kind of culture war by shitposting Yea Forums like a total faggot even though the only people on here either already agree with you or don't fucking care

What the hell, are you me?

>In their own words (before inclusion was defined)

Word twisting. Great. EA could make a poll about micro transactions be in their favour if they wanted to.

Also why it's important to know the query itself. Which is not a fucking weird thing to report if you're going to write an article on the results. You generally specifiy the amount of people, how they were selected and the exact questions they were asked.
Don't get mislead by 'misinformation user' ITT who thinks that you don't need these things for a regular article. That's basic fucking journalism.

>It turns out inclusion isn't just nice to have in game
>In fact, a majority (56%) of players say it's important to them
Nigga wat. I play games to escape reality, not to recreate my shitty life. Why do retarded ameriniggers feel the need to self-insert themselves into everything?

Attached: wat.jpg (505x431, 26K)

>Accessibility
>43%
Somebody is drawing numbers.

We polled players on whether they value *word*. Turns out a majority say they value *word*. Therefore it's clear that we should adopt *policy*.

Politically motivated "research" 101.

>FORCED 'inclusiveness' aka pandering
Don't learn all your vocab on Yea Forums, children

>EA just send people a fucking e-mail.

Yeah. And they probably collated various bits of demographic information from the respondents, e.g. age, sex, nationality, etc. That's how it's done. It's not uncommon, for example, for individual demographics to have sample sizes of only a dozen or so. This is generally considered fine. Shit, you should check out some of the medical and psychology research out there that has sample sizes of all of four or five people. These studies are still accepted by the scientific community. And it's why meta-analysis is done.

They can already do that with their current results
>51% of people were NOT concerned about MTX (and DLC btw, which is completley the same thing)
>Therefore the majority likes MTX!
>We're planning a new game to grant the wishes of this MAJORITY, where you can buy extra fast reloads, to get a competitive advantage over your enemies!

>ITS OVER 9000
> Yea Forums is for 18+
>In the BAN you go

What is wrong with that statement? Forced pandering under a different name while misusing the other name. Being inclusive isn't pandering. Pandering isn't being inclusive. But you can be 'inclusive' as in, force pandering or an agenda.

How about you learn the nuances of english you twat? Literally no one but an ESL'er would have issues understanding the meaning behind that statement.

I genuinely lurked for like 2-3 years before posting anyway. Everyone was so on-topic and knew so much on the hobby boards that I didn't want to make a bad post and get made fun of so I just read through threads. Its kind of a shame that telling people to lurk moar isn't encouraged anymore, it honestly worked well back when low effort shitposting was ridiculed and not encouraged

Again the researches you are commenting on with a low sample size are not market analyses. You're constantly confusing the two.
>Shit, you should check out some of the medical and psychology research out there that has sample sizes of all of four or five people. These studies are still accepted by the scientific community.
They are accepted because the scientific community has all the details on the studies and agrees they are performed properly. You know, peer reviews and open books and all that scientifc annoyance?
If you cannot present to me the data and have ridiculous claims, then I'm not going to take your 'research' and reports on it seriously. And I think more people should be critical like that. Misinformation is so easy to create and severely impact society. Just look at fucking anti-vaxxers.

The jewry is off the charts. Where did all this bullshit come from?

Attached: 1525411154429.jpg (887x1097, 77K)

literally a poll made by themselves

Dude, you're making less sense than before. If you don't speak any other language than English I feel genuinely sorry for you.

Do you honestly not realize you are just reaching for reasons to discount results you don't like? If this shit had come back saying "99% of gamers love naked titties and being able to spout off hate speech online" you'd accept it as "obviously true" without a second thought. Because you are biased.

>"Waaah I don't understand english subtleties and expressions therefore YOU'RE the retard! Go out and learn another language that isn't so confusing so that I can understand you!"

>Right wing
It's amusing how prevalent this narrative has become when it is not reflective of what happened at all
youtube.com/watch?v=x1udjd2Aq3E

>Do you honestly not realize you are just reaching for reasons to discount results you don't like?
Kek, obviously you're not incredibly biased user and really want me to be as well.
>99% of gamers love naked titties and being able to spout off hate speech online" you'd accept it as "obviously true"
Yeah because you know me so well. If they showed me who they asked, what questions they asked and how the selected their userbase, then I might agree it's realistic.
You're really grasping at straws here, projecting your own dogma on me. Please stop doing that, I am not you. I'm not that biased. I know how to differentiate my opinions from facts. I also know the 'research' showed in the article is probably bullshit, unless they ever respond back to my e-mail.
Protip; they won't.

This isn't an "English expression", it's a mangled buzzword spread by the semi-literate baboons of Yea Forums who, if they themselves had any sense for the subtleties of language, would have found better words to express themselves with a long time ago.

>I also know the 'research' showed in the article is probably bullshit

See? You don't even realize you just demonstrated your bias with this statement. Why "probably bullshit"? Why not just "unverified"? Because you are a dumb biased fuck masquerading as an intellectual. Go suck your mom's dick, faggot.

seething tranny

Not either of you, but I just wanted to hop in as a third party to let both of you know that neither of you is going to look cool at the end of this even if you feel like you "won"
You both look retarded

You really hurt my feelings, user. I'm going to go cry now.

Did Roland from poland and olivia from bolivia vote?

You must have got lost, let me help you.
www.reddit.com

>20+ years
Fuck off liar.

Can't wait for Andromeda II

How is using the phrase that EA themselves used MULTIPLE TIMES in the article a "buzzword"? Or do you mean how I said forced 'inclusiveness' aka pandering and have no idea what it means when someone captions a phrase with ' s? Or are you so fucking retarded that you think pandering is the buzzword in all of this without knowing the literal definition of the word and realizing it was used in the correct context?

Pretty good joke user, did you come up with that all by yourself?

Probably because of Hollywood.

P-hacking is a thing.

Because it would be racist, of course.

nigga u dum

>when someone captions a phrase with ' s
Ah yes, spoken like a true native speaker who's definitely an expert on the English language.

But back to you initial mistake: it was your conflation of "pandering," which has been all but reduced to meaninglessness by Yea Forums, with the utterly retarded term "forced inclusiveness" which never really had any meaning to begin with. Your use of these terms is so boilerplate and interchangeable I can only assume you've never encountered them outside of Yea Forums.

Not him but it would not be the first or last time that a company wasted money on masturbatory pseudoscience.

This

just make good games is it that hard
the fuck i care about whos the main charactercters

Demo is honorary aryan

>losing argument
>better samefag

>that entire post
You just proved that even trying to use "advanced" words to prove a point means fucking nothing when you fail to understand the point to begin with. Pandering, forced inclusiveness, and just plain old inclusiveness are NOT interchangeable at all in the original post, dipshit. The two interchangeable ones, and only posted once, were "forced 'inclusiveness'" with "pandering". And to separate the difference between inclusiveness and 'inclusiveness', as in, the word being misused, you use apostrophes to show the difference. It's the written way of showing verbal inflection.

Quit being a tosser and learn how to speak the language like a native would instead of how you think it should be spoken because a textbook told you. If you knew fuckall about english as a spoken language, you'd know it's total and complete bullshit compared to other written AND spoken languages.

So again, there was nothing wrong with the original post nor the original statement, you're just a faggot who doesn't understand the nuance of the language.

You fucking retard, you fail to even comprehend the issue here.
>The two interchangeable ones, and only posted once, were "forced 'inclusiveness'" with "pandering".
Yes. The only fucking thing I addressed, if I do recall.
> And to separate the difference between inclusiveness and 'inclusiveness', as in, the word being misused, you use apostrophes to show the difference. It's the written way of showing verbal inflection.
You're still on the quotation marks? You're in absolutely no position to condescend to me.

My issue is that "forced inclusiveness" is a bullshit term whether you put sarcastic quotation marks around it or not and it also doesn't actually mean the same as "pandering" (if it means anything at all). My problem is not with the "nuance" of the language but actually with you using terms you barely grasp as sledgehammers against things you consider vaguely negative for ill-defined reasons.

Can a white user explain why white people fetishize corporate research so much?
Have none of you faggots ever worked in a corporate office?
Do you think that because research is done by corporate employees that it means they're no longer human and don't make mistakes or do shit the easy way because their lazy?
I see this shit so much and it's fucking baffling, it must be children because any adult who has an actual job and isn't a McJobber should already know this.

You're the one failing to comprehend the post, dickwipe. Contextual understanding of that post 100% relies on the understanding of the nuances of english. "Forced inclusiveness" does not mean the same as pandering, no shit. But it was misused to mean the same as pandering, something you'd understand if you weren't an ESL brainlet.

When you misuse a term, it shows a lack of intelligence. It's why I had
>"How do you feel about FORCED 'inclusiveness' aka pandering?"
as a thing EA would say because they're fucking retarded and were trying to mislead other retards by using the word incorrectly. I had to point out the 'aka pandering' bit to give context to their retardation and give satire to the quote.

No one is sledgehammering terms here. You're just a fucking retard who doesn't understand contextual english.

>At least developers are realizing that no-one, not even the people being pandered to, likes pandering.
The people that do can't even get past the tutorial stages anyway. So there's literally no point to begin with.
Also it's not like they complete the game had 2 weeks to work on it and went fuck it add this pandering garbage instead of a new stage, new weapon, or some cameo for the fans as fan service.

>I was pretending to be retarded because I was pretending to be EA if they had actually talking about this issue that I had wanted them to talk about because if they had they would've done it using retarded terminology even though that terminology is actually pretty much exclusive to Yea Forums
What the fuck m8, that's retarded. And you're still using these weird expressions all over the place.
>I had to point out the 'aka pandering' bit to give context to their retardation
Which you made up, giving no indication that it wasn't your own retardation.
>and give satire to the quote
This isn't how those words work.

It's okay, user. Contextual english is hard and is only understood through experience and spoken immersion. If you failing to understand it but thinking you're right is what helps you sleep at night, so be it. Explaining this to you is like trying to explain to someone why water is wet if that person had never touched water before.

Its genuinely baffling how literally every company is fucking retarded all the way up. No matter how many jobs I get, every person in management is fucking clueless and I have no idea how they actually make any money when they do such a terrible job of running things

Do shut up you smug cunt, you're clearly unable to express yourself properly in English and your attitude is preventing you from seeing it. There's nothing left for you to explain. In fact, your random ass assumptions about what I must have "misunderstood" all completely missed the point. If you pretend to be retarded and give no indication of it, you're just being retarded. I'm frankly still not entirely sure what your actual point is because your entire post was still bitching about "agenda pushing" and whatnot but apparently EA is actually retarded for asking something they really didn't? Honestly, between this and your consistent slip-ups, I think you're probably just an ESL shitter yourself who thought he could convincingly pass for a native speaker.

did your parents drop you on your head as a baby? there was nothing wrong with and if you think there is you must be genuinely retarded

Yeah, that's probably because you think "forced inclusiveness" is a fine phrase to use and from there everything makes sense.

Attached: 1460764979449.png (474x311, 151K)

All I got from that post is that you know fuckall about contextual english, missed the point entirely, and then blame me for it because you can't properly learn our language. Here, let me cherrypick a quote to point out how fucking stupid you are.

>If you pretend to be retarded and give no indication of it, you're just being retarded.
to which I'll refer you back to and point out the line about, "I had to point out the 'aka pandering' bit to give context to their retardation and give satire to the quote."

You fucking fail at understanding contextual english and refuse to admit that the most bullshit language in the world can in fact be bullshit with stupid things you won't get unless you actually immerse yourself in the spoken form of the language to understand the written context.

And also, you further prove your retardation by admitting you didn't understand the entire post at all, even though it was plain as day. But let me reiterate it for you in easy words.

>People like to play video games when they're allowed to choose how they play them. People don't like to play video games that are meant to push a certain point of view that people don't like or agree with and have no say in the matter.

and isn't even me you twat. You've had two other people now call you out on being a retard. Don't just assume it's all me because you're afraid of looking like a daft cunt on the internet.

Well, finally, a proper use of the word "forced".

>"I had to point out the 'aka pandering' bit to give context to their retardation and give satire to the quote."
This doesn't actually fucking mean shit. It's not even a proper English sentence. You gave "satire" to the quote? Stop excusing your complete lack of making sense by just going "lel contextual English you just don't understand".

>and isn't even me you twat.
Obviously. Learn contextual English. Like, actually. Holy shit.

Oh, right, the actual point.
>People like to play video games when they're allowed to choose how they play them. People don't like to play video games that are meant to push a certain point of view that people don't like or agree with and have no say in the matter.
So would you describe the latter as "forced inclusiveness," "pandering," or both? Just making sure I understood you correctly.

>do shit the easy way because their lazy?
People lazy? Here in planet earth? You don't say.
Yes that's why it's there, easy money, no effort.
At least labor jobs require stamina and skill makes the job less daunting. The kind of shit lazy shills never go through since if any effort or skill is required that equates to moaning and bitching.

>I don't know why you think the marketing department of a publicly traded company would seek to falsify their own market research which is only going to result in the company losing money as they act on bad data.
If it was any other company I’d see your point. But it’s EA. I wouldn’t put that kind of idiocy past them.

Depends on the fucking context you twat. Since that entire quote was meant to help you be less of a fucking mong, I'd say pandering. Because I wasn't misusing 'forced inclusiveness' to show objective retardation.

Except it does make sense and you clearly have no idea what satire is and how it can be conveyed via written text.

But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night, retard. If it makes you feel like a big man arguing textbook english versus actual written and spoken english, you do you. It doesn't make you right, but it'll at least make you feel good about being 'special'.

If EA sends you an e-mail that means you bought their game, this alone makes it bias since only retards play EA trash.

Should I care about this? 56% of their audience wants games to be "more inclusive." 56% of their audience also breathes through their mouth. It's not like people wanting something is going to make me change my mind about it and quality isn't democratic. This research is completely pointless. Video game developers have been targeting lower and lower common denominators for years. Doing research now to say, "Well, look, our audience likes it," is a fucking joke. They made the audience first.

This is a nice microcosm of America. There's a group of people who made modern civilization and they comprised 90% of America. Then the flood gates were opened and now they only comprise 56% of America, and their opinion is only listened to half the time. The other half of the time, it's people who crawled in from NOT-modern civilization with their own opinions on how to run a country -- like anyone wants that opinion. So American politics is a constant tug-of-war between first- and third-world policies, and when the third-world wins, they say
>Well, hey, we took a vote! This is what "Americans" want. Why aren't you respecting the opinion of "Americans?" Don't you believe in the "American" way of doing things?
It's one huge con.

To clarify, this isn't to say diversity is a bad thing. I don't mind more customization options in games. Sometimes I love them. But the insistence that it's a good thing or necessary is wrong, especially when you do so by promoting negative lifestyles or lecturing others on how they need to accept that they're not going to be catered to anymore.

Just make your fucking game, faggot, and let the money do the talking. Polls are for strippers.

Attached: 1508034254578.png (374x376, 221K)

>Because I wasn't misusing 'forced inclusiveness' to show objective retardation.
Then what were you doing? Are you implying there's a proper application of this misbegotten phrase?

>Except it does make sense and you clearly have no idea what satire is
You legitimate double-digit IQ retard, I am simply pointing out the fact that "giving satire to something" is not an English expression whilst you're lecturing me about the "nuances" of English. And it's not the first weird turn of phrase you've used either. I haven't even begun to call into question your tenuous grasp on satire.

I wonder if it's actually all that surprising. Is there not a rule that says than any individual who has climbed the corporate ladder will generally get promoted to the role one tier above their actual skill level? If you do well (in theory, at least) you get promoted, if you just barely struggle along, however, it's somewhat difficult for management to demote you/fire you, so you get left in your position with your sub-optimal performance.

>and how it can be conveyed via written text.
Actually, hang on, are you confusing satire and sarcasm here? Because the implication that satire is dependent on inflection is, well, quite something.

Let me guess they collected data from 10 resetera trannies

>* More options in character customization to help people feel unique, such as adding quirks and physical nuances to characters’ teeth or being able to create characters who look biracial
>* Ability to create and play characters with LGBT identities
>* Diverse storytelling, especially with multicultural sets of characters
>* More females as main characters or in pivotal roles

How was this pool done, cause all of these points can be wildly misrepresented.

>* More options in character customization to help people feel unique, such as adding quirks and physical nuances to characters’ teeth or being able to create characters who look biracial.
More customization options for characters is always a good point in any game, the goal of creating biracial characters is just a byproduct of people wanting more customization features.

>>* Ability to create and play characters with LGBT identities
Same as above, more customization.

>* Diverse storytelling, especially with multicultural sets of characters
Diversed storytelling is good and then they bait you with the later muticultural sets of characters, which isn't inherently wrong but i've never seen it done well in any game(DA:I).

>* More females as main characters or in pivotal roles
They don't give you a choice, even if you want female characters in pivotal roles you must agree you also want them as main characters.

Yeah because they're hypocrites that only care about that shit when it allows them to shit on the other bad gamers

>. I don't know why you think the marketing department of a publicly traded company would seek to falsify their own market research which is only going to result in the company losing money as they act on bad data.
They same company told people to not buy their product retard

Wait, I am getting this now. Okay. Yes. When you put 'inclusiveness' between quotation marks, that was sarcastic. When you tried to explain to me that "that's how EA would've referred to it" you were only referring to that single word, and not to the whole phrase "forced 'inclusiveness' aka pandering". So you did, in fact, straightforwardly complain about forced inclusiveness and pandering and conflate the two, which was precisely my entire complaint that you seem to have failed to pick up on all along and you are exactly the retard I pegged you as.

And you immediately jumped to the conclusion that I didn't understand sarcasm (or "satire") and that it must've been because I speak a language that doesn't have it and that my poor foreigner brain was unequipped to deal with it.

Christ, this whole time I was interpreting your posts as if you were at least trying to offer some sort of defence for resorting to idiotic buzzwords but it was basically just the random flailing of a confused spastic.

>Then what were you doing? Are you implying there's a proper application of this misbegotten phrase?
I was answering your question without using words you couldn't comprehend. Yet even that seems to have failed as you're still hung up on that specific phrase rather than everything else surrounding it. And yes, there is a proper application of it, but I've tried to explain it several times to you with no avail so I won't try further. You're too simple.

> I am simply pointing out the fact that "giving satire to something" is not an English expression
Except that wasn't an expression, was it? It was a statement of fact. You 100% can give satire to a phrase or expression based off of vocal inflection. Conveying said inflections via writing, especially when you can't italicize on Yea Forums, is often done via quotations. But hey, like I said, explaining this to you is impossible because you're too simple to get it.

No, I'm not. I mean satire. And if we go by the dictionary definition of it, "the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues" whereas sarcasm would be "the use of irony to mock or convey contempt."

To be fair, accessibility to those with special needs would include shit like colorblind modes, which I think even you faggots would have difficulty trying to successfully argue is a bad thing to want.

>>"EA fabricated this survey to get the results they wanted!"
>>"How do you know that?"
Because they didn't provide the sources for their data like every research that wants to be taken serious

But they don't do any of that shit in OP's pic and instead just do things like include a trans dwarf whose only interaction in the game is to call the player an ignorant transphobic bigot.

Just FYI
youtube.com/watch?v=FH2WeWgcSMk

>56%
dios mios

>sources are all internal polls
really makes me think
no agenda here at all for HR diversity hires to keep their jobs

>I don't know why you think the marketing department of a publicly traded company would seek to falsify their own market
If someone who did that is getting money from LGBT community, then there's nothing surprising. Company =/= people working for it. Even CEOs will fuck up their own company for some sweet dollaridos.

>And yes, there is a proper application of it, but I've tried to explain it several times to you with no avail so I won't try further.
Well, no, there isn't, but when I disputed this you got sidetracked.
>Except that wasn't an expression, was it? It was a statement of fact.
It was neither, really, but it definitely ought to have been the former, at least. But yes, it's not an expression. Hence my complaint that it's not an expression.

For the record, an expression would be like a fixed way of saying a certain thing, and "giving satire to something" is definitely not how you express the act of making something satirical, mainly satire is not an inflectional quality of a phrase but a literary genre so the entire idea of "giving satire" to something is nonsensical to begin with.

But it's okay, these subtle nuances of the English language can be difficult.

Reality and sales across both video games and movies prove that pandering to SJWs will destroy your franchise. THEY are ironically the very vocal minority that don't even play video games/watch movies, who don't matter when it comes to the bottom line.

>When they asked if they would play a game with features such as
>Customization for females (beacuse everyone either likes or is indifferent to more customization options)
>Diverse ethnic backgrounds (beacuse everyone likes being represented in some way, however those people want actual representation not cliches, the current diversity stuff just changed cliches instead of removing them)
>Diverse storytelling from different perpectives (beacuse multiple or unique points of view are usually a good storytelling device but it's never a thing in AAA games)
>Accesibility to those with special needs (beacuse why the fuck would someone be against people crippled in some way being able to play vidya?)
Of course if they frame everything right everyone will be supporting it, it's not a rocket science.
None of these promised things besides maybe more customization options is ever done in AAA games, instead you get shitty characters with a depth of a puddle but since they're not white now journos get to shitpost for the next 5 years praising it.

Attached: 1541603015055.gif (512x512, 437K)

>mainly *because satire
Imagine that, catching yourself when you say something weird, and being able to identify the mistake and fix it.

Inclusion is like communism, good in theory.
Regardless, everyone knows consumer surveys are inaccurate as to what the consumer would actually want, this goes back to a study on coffee were surveyed consumers would say they prefer a rich dark roast but actual taste testing an sales show people actually liked a weaker light roast. There has been plenty of studies on the matter and I'm not going to entertain any mouth breathing anons who have an opinion on the matter without knowing what this is. If EA thinks their drop in Battlefield sales is just a random spell of bad luck they're in for a surprise (namely the designers who worked on the game as their next will bomb and they'll be out of a job).
Basically, they probably put this out to cover their ass as investors would be breathing down their neck about Battlefield 5 and they had to insist they didn't fuck anything up.
>"r-really guys it wasn't our 'inclusion' bullshit that ruined sales, we just got unlucky!"

Attached: 1509728149972.jpg (429x429, 46K)

>I don't know why you think the marketing department of a publicly traded company would seek to falsify their own market research
I can't tell if this is snide sarcasm or you kids actually don't know shit about big businesses and their history.

>Well, no, there isn't, but when I disputed this you got sidetracked.
Says the guy who ignores literally everything else because he can't wrap his head around the meaning of a phrase.

>Hence my complaint that it's not an expression.
You were the only one who had issue with it not being an expression. And yes, it was a statement of fact. That is a thing that exists and that people make.

>satire is not an inflectional quality of a phrase but a literary genre so the entire idea of "giving satire" to something is nonsensical to begin with.
Except literally all of that is wrong. Your failure to understand the word makes that entire sentence wrong. See my previous post for the dictionary definition of satire. The genre is named after the word which has a specific meaning, not the other way around. So yes, you can 'give satire' to something. There's even an adjective for it, it's 'satirical'. And in case you don't understand what nouns are, they're persons, places, or things. Adjectives are words that, in the most basic sense, modify a noun. But how you use that adjective and if you use it correctly is all up to context.

Sorry that the subtle nuances of english are so difficult for you that even when you use the phrase 'subtle nuance' to describe your entire argument, it's wrong because the argument itself was wrong.

But like I said, you're free to feel like you've won here. You haven't, but you're free to feel that way if it helps you sleep at night. There's no point in me arguing with you further as you've proven time and time again that as an ESL, you can read and write english, but you don't understand it when written contextually. Feel free to get the last word in on this argument lad. I'm sure it'll help your balls drop when thinking you've won an argument on the internet because one chose to stop responding to your stupidity.

people talking about themselves are never trustworthy

these people likely consciously think diversity is important, but in reality it's just their subconscious jerking itself off, and in reality they barely even notice.

>Says the guy who ignores literally everything else because he can't wrap his head around the meaning of a phrase.
I'm ignoring everything else because it's irrelevant nonsense that we only got into because you misunderstood what I was talking about in the first place.
>You were the only one who had issue with it not being an expression.
Wow, imagine that, between the two of us.
>And yes, it was a statement of fact.
It was utter nonsense.
>Except literally all of that is wrong.
Nope, sorry. Learn English for real.
>So yes, you can 'give satire' to something.
This is not something any native speaker of English would ever say to indicate the use of satire. So spare me the condescending explanation of basic grammar.

>There's no point in me arguing with you further as you've proven time and time again that as an ESL, you can read and write english, but you don't understand it when written contextually.
Context can't save retarded phrasings, sorry.

>Inclusion is like communism, good in theory.
There's to many variables that are ignored. It's why there's no good formula that can allow for "every single one" to enjoy 1 product.
Look at the essentials we need to live by, such as air and water. People find reasons to hate those despite "every single living person" being able to use them.
The left is full of hypocrisy because they wont associate with everyone because it is literally impossible to do so. A line will eventually be drawn because of it or death will follow because of ignorance.
People that want to kill/hurt/torture are part of this world.
Look at that one robot that was traveling the US. It didn't last long same with the idiot leftists that look for their own doom with their virtue signaling.

Shit I dont play EA games diverse or not.

lol, this easily proves the whole thing is BS

That other user has quite literally stated several times why he thinks the study cannot be considered credible. You have yet to respond to those complaints beyond attempting to refute their point about sample-size. Do you have the reading comprehension of a goldfish or something?

Your argument jumps around so much nobody is able to understand what you are saying.

this is why modern "science" is a joke. you cherrypick your sample and ask them biased questions, while demanding yes/no answers to limit criticism.

that article is a perfect example of how to manipulate data to get your desired results.
and then people wonder why the backlash for Captain Marvel when the data points otherwise.

Yeah, I didn't have much of a problem with that as the others, but SJWs take shit too far sometimes.

>The $302 million that Captain Marvel made for its opening weekend is the sixth-biggest opening in the history of movies on a worldwide basis. In North America, Captain Marvel finished its opening weekend as the seventh-largest opening weekend in the MCU.
lol

>56%
this has to be edited

Can you give a concrete example of SJWs going too far in making a game accessible?

>Survey
Ok match that to hard attachment numbers now and see if they come close. What people will say in a survey is different from what they actually do

I said backlash, not failure
people calling for Brie's head on an Iron Man-themed plate

but even then, I guess you missed all the articles calling out Disney for buying seats and saying the movie is barely breaking even due to the MASSIVE advertisement

not brainwashed btw

Yeah because I don't subscribe to any conspiracy theorist websites

>and saying the movie is barely breaking even due to the MASSIVE advertisement

I guess you don't subscribe to fucking math, either

Came back after 2 hours to see you are still seething.
>SEE?! SEE?!
Jesus Christ, I just spend multiple paragraphs explaining why it probably is bullshit. WHY would you omit these relevant points, it literally takes a few lines? The only logical conclusion is because you don't want people to know. It would've been so easy to just say;
>People were selected at random according to the following criteria
>You can find the query here (hyperlink this)
And that's it. All you have to do to make your "article" credible, IF it was properly done. It's not hard to see why they didn't. Barely anyone in this age of misinformation does this, because they don't do research to uncover the truth, but to push an agenda. And retards like you gobble it up like you're starving. Like, goddamned user. Why are you so hellbent on accepting everything at face value? Maybe because you're biased as fuck? Don't try to push that shit on me though. I might have some bias now and then, but I'm aware of it. In this case, I'm completely unbiased. I just don't believe their results for one second. It alligns too perfectly with their agenda for it to not be a coincidence they omited crucial information. It's your typical misinformation agenda piece.