I should probably clarify just in case it's been lost in the discussion, as is the situation with most improvised argument. I think that it's short sighted to come to a [i]conclusion[/i] that the perspective [i]against[/i] diversity is all-encompassing, or even remotely large when contrasted with those who simply don't care/enjoy the changes. 

	Sorry if I sound excessively doubtful or presumptuous here, but from the sound of it, you're coming to an incomplete conclusion based on biased and inconclusive sources. I don't mean to bash your opinion, but it sounds as nothing more than just that: An opinion. There's nothing wrong with that, but I'm not sure if we're addressing the topic in the same fashion. Though to be fair, the burden of proof lays with you. If we were to treat this as an argument, and not just an exchange of opinion, I'm fairly certain that any evidence that you could provide would be hearsay. All of your conclusions are in fact, conjecture.

	[quote]1. [b]The gamers that are verbal on the subject are the group being discussed here.[/b]

2.[b]It's not hard to find reactions and comments from people who honestly believe that the current trend of 'diversity' is killing the industry and creativity and that it's some leftist plot.[/b] 

3.[b] Like it or not, social media is an absolutely valid place to gauge reactions from consumers, as are public forums.[/b] [/quote]

1. Is it? If so, isn't that cherry picking? I don't associate the minority on social media with any more than a fraction of the gaming market, regardless of genre/producer. Even if it wasn't, why is this group important?

2. It's not hard to find reactions and comments from people stating a variety of inane nonsense, that's why we call it propaganda though. Whether it be ''''news'''' on Hilary Clinton, Gaming, or political activism. The bottom line is, any evidence pulled from Social media on a scale that is less than [i]absolute[/i] amounts to conjecture [i]at best,[/i] hearsay at worst.

3. Social media is a collection of resources, covering everything from Twitter to you tube. It is not completely dominated by the aforementioned nonsense, and that percentage (Regardless of whether it falls between 70-90% or not) is unlikely to go ignored by the professional teams running social media for the companies in question.

	Outside of freakishly [i]uncommon occurrences,[/i] likened to the Battlefront 2 disaster, I don't think the musings of individuals have had any major effects on gaming. Rather, the direction of western society as a whole has likely been a far larger influence on the direction that companies have chosen to take with their games. If a handful of whining idiots had such a significant effect on the direction of the games that they seem to hate, or anything at all really, modern pseudo-activists would have turned the country on its ass by now.

[quote]1. 1.2 billion people are classified as gamers while 700 million of them are online, [b]males age 15-24 [/b]make up the largest demographic...For numbers, on console in the first week of Far Cry 5 (one of the highest selling games of the year thus far) the number of copies sold in America was roughly 981,000. 

2.More than 150 million Americans fall under the umbrella of gamers. 150 million people aren't buying games.[/quote]

1. I don't see how gender is relevant to the discussion at hand. If you want to get into the topic of trend differences in gender, that's a whole 'nother situation altogether, and I doubt it will benefit either side of this argument to be perfectly honest. Beyond that, I need to point out the disconnect in logic that follows here.

2. I see where you're trying to go with this, but this isn't an honest representation of information, nor do I believe it accounts for the discrepancy in data on social media.

	I'll use your Far-Cry example as a starting point. Does this number - the 1 million~ people that purchased far-cry 5 on console - take into account the portion of people buying online? Does it account for bootleg? Does it account for the sale of used games? Or the people playing games at a friend's? Or the people who haven't even played the game, but feel the need to comment on it? It's likely inaccurate, but for the sake of argument, let's assume it [i]is [/i]accurate.

	Far Cry is a single title, made by a single company, falling under a few select genres. In what sense does this speak for the social status of gamers as a whole? Or even those who have played Farcry 5 exclusively? Or even the majority that have played far cry 5? Who's to say that the majority of gamers that play far-cry have commented on the game via social media? Even then, how can we assume that [b]the majority, or a massive portion[/b] of those people have jumped on to anti-SJW bandwagon? Even then how can you insinuate whether their views are truly offensive or not?

	Is it just a serious chain of assumption based on your [i]personal perception[/i] of social media and how the masses have reacted? Or have you done the research necessary, [i]the type of research that companies like EA and Bethesda are doing on a massive scale across multiple platforms mind you,[/i] to insinuate a solid series of statistics, and extrapolate from there?

	I mean no offense, but I presume it's the former.

	Yes, social media is important, and companies take advantage of that. However, not only is it one of many sources for companies to improve their marketing, but it consists of roughly 2.5 billion people. Even if we were to assume that 1.2 billion of those people are [i]gamers[/i], we can't follow this with another series of assumptions based on hearsay. That just leads to a series of fallacies, and negatively impacts analysis of related topics.
	[hr]

	It seems that the main point of contention here is: [i]How big[/i] is this group of 'anti-SJW' gamers/how common is the anti-SJW mindset?

	The reason I hold my current position, that it [i]isn't that big or big enough to cause issue[/i], is because I've never seen any reliable [i]data[/i] to support the idea that they are large enough to make up a significant portion of the player base of any given game/gamers in general. I don't even think something like 20% would be large enough to have any significant negative influence on games at all. Why? Because they don't seem like they have in the past.

	The closest example I've seen was with the battlefront 2 situation, and the changes there had [i]nothing[/i] to do with gender, sexuality, race, etc. Even then, I don't think any of the changes being made were [i]negative.[/i] If anything, they were positive. So I have to ask, when have the idiotic musings of the anti-SJW crowd ever had a significant effect on games? When has it affected marketing? Was there backlash to that? If there was backlash, why didn't it have an equal effect? Where are the [b]facts?[/b]

	Is there any evidence to imply that this vocal minority has somehow... Stopped diversity from becoming more mainstream in gaming? It doesn't seem that way.

	To further complicate the topic though, what exactly defines an 'Anti-SJW' or an 'SJW' anyways? To me, if feels like they're both arbitrary buzzwords to refer to some nebulous concept of how a person thinks, which is entirely reductive and actually a little [i]prejudiced.[/i]

	But, as a bottom line, I do agree that anyone going around and complaining about Ellie being a lesbian, [i]which was established in a very fucking GOOD DLC TO THE LAST OF US 1,[/i] or diversity in any game, are complaining about shit that isn't even remotely important, and often make themselves look like idiots. I just prefer to ignore them, rather than complain about them, because I think they're relatively harmless and I'll still get to kill dudes as Ellie when the game comes out, regardless of their whining.