This is part III in a three-part series exploring the inclusivity problem in the video gaming industry.
A person holding a video game control. Source: Piqsels.
In part I, the background and state of the current gaming industry is explored. Data is used to present the current inclusivity problem that exists in the industry.
In part II, research findings are presented on the inclusivity problem in the video game industry based on a quantitative survey and professional interviews.
In part III of this report on the video game industry’s need to address inclusivity in the industry, the research team makes specific recommendations that will move the industry to a more diverse, equitable and profitable future.
Recommendations
(1) Be cautious of making assumptions based on demographics.
Player motivations vary widely, and though research indicates differences in motivation between demographic groups, one should be cautious of assumptions based on these differences. Interview subjects, depending on their background and role in the industry, gave different answers when asked about research linking player motivations with demographic categories (e.g. that women are motivated by creative or nurturing tendencies while men are motivated by destructive or competitive inclinations).
According to Nikhil Kashyap, a technical game designer at PlayStation, it would be unwise to ignore the large body of research supporting this; awareness of these differences can be useful from a game design and marketing perspective. However, as others like Tanya DePass, founder of I Need Diverse Games, and Lizzie Leader, Director of Communications at aXiomatic Gaming, are quick to call attention to, one should exercise caution when dealing in assumptions about player motivation. They can often lead to bias.
For instance, DePass resists the notion that women avoid violent content. “I will sit there and play a violent game all day. There are so many women that I know that play first-person shooters and love them.” Though motivations like these may be based in statistical fact, it is important not to lean into these generalizations too heavily, as doing so may alienate potential audiences. Moreover, some of these drivers may be mere vestiges of historical marketing trends. Holly Newman, independent game industry consultant, mentioned, “I imagine that, truthfully, it’s just marketing. It’s just what was marketed to [women] when they were young. If we all grew up playing shooting games, we would be into that. I don’t think it’s the content per se as much as what women are taught to like when they’re younger.”
Few games will appeal to every player, but any given genre of game likely has fans spanning most, if not all demographic groups. Even in a more traditional, linear form of entertainment, tastes vary widely; this fact is amplified in games, thanks to the added layer of depth afforded by interactive gameplay. Someone who exclusively plays city builder games (e.g. Sim City) may simply be impossible to attract to a first-person shooter, or vice versa. Newman suggested that publishers should seek to diversify their product portfolios, including a wide variety of games appealing to a wide variety of tastes, rather than attempting to shoehorn as many tastes as possible into every game published.
What developers can and should do is be vigilant for opportunities to make individual games as culturally accessible as possible within each genre they touch. That may mean having a female protagonist, including a more ethnically-representative cast of characters, or simply being aware of and taking care to avoid stereotypes. This should be possible without compromising a game’s vision; if it isn’t, developers and/or publishers should revisit the core concept of a project, as it may be foundationally problematic.
(2) Build a more diverse development and publishing team.
Where appropriate, games should strive to capture aspects of reality, featuring three-dimensional characters from a rich variety of backgrounds. One way of doing this is building a more diverse development and publishing team that will bring a wider variety of perspectives and experiences. If the inclusion of diverse characters in a game is perceived by consumers to be forced or inorganic, they will likely feel a natural (maybe even imperceptible) resistance to those characters. At best, the game may simply fail to draw wider audiences. At worst, it may alienate and offend those audiences.
To paraphrase Holly Newman, a team of white men writing a Black character into a game, while well-intentioned, runs the risk of feeling contrived, and players will likely sense that inauthenticity. However, Lisa Ohanian, producer at Riot Games, notes that we should not demonize homogeneous teams for attempting to be more representative, as doing so would be counterproductive. “I think intent is important. If we’re saying [a team of 50 white men] can’t write diverse characters because it would be inauthentic, then that’s unfortunate. If the will and desire is there, that’s an extremely important first step.” Still, developers and publishers should strive to build more inclusive teams in the first place to avoid the problem.
As is the case with any artistic medium, developers are best at portraying the reality they know. A more diverse development team can naturally create more genuine, three-dimensional characters, thanks to their collective multiplicity of experiences. As a result, the game is more likely to attract wider audiences—and more likely to convert them into fans or members of the game’s community. DePass uses Watch Dogs 2’s Marcus Holloway as an example; he is representative of an authentic character, a Black hacker who is smart and capable simply because he is smart and capable—not because of some contrived and unnecessary backstory explanation.
(3) Establish socially-focused goals early in the development process.
From a development perspective, both Ohanian and Kashyap touched on the fact that cultural considerations should be established early in a game’s development cycle. Kashyap advised that it is not uncommon for developers to wait until the back half or third of a development cycle to begin considering multiplayer or community features in a game. The problem with that is the more developed a game is, the harder it is to tack-on features that might foster a healthy community. For instance, in a social VR game, the option to limit other players from entering one’s “personal space bubble” may have significant design implications and may be difficult or impossible to implement late in development. Instead, if a developer adopts “fostering a safe and inclusive social environment” as a design pillar from the concept phase, features like the personal space bubble will be that much easier to implement—and that much more likely to make it to the final game. That pillar could potentially result in ripple effects in other areas of the game as well.
Ohanian gave the example that, to animate a female player model from scratch requires a significant time and budgetary investment, including motion capture and animation rigging. As in Kashyap’s example above, establishing the goal to include both male and female player models early in development will reduce inefficiency and increase the likelihood of a representative final product. Kashyap notes that it may not occur to all developers to be cognizant of far-off cultural implications of early design choices; as such, in some cases, the onus may fall on publishers to make such directives to ensure that their game is as accessible as possible to the widest possible audience.
(4) Use the GaaS (Game As a Service) model to continually set a positive tone.
The GaaS model can be an effective tool when it comes to community engagement; each day is a new opportunity for developers and community teams to take ownership over their owned and operated ecosystem, address the fanbase, and foster a healthy community. A great deal of toxicity exists across various online platforms (both gaming and non-gaming); developers and publishers have limited control over community interactions that exist outside of their own game. They can, however, position their own product as an escape from that external toxicity by utilizing the GaaS model to set a positive tone and create an ecosystem that players will want to be a part of.
At its core, the GaaS business model asks players to invest a great deal of time (potentially hundreds of hours) into a game. Game companies should thus recognize that the community that players immerse themselves in is a key part of the product’s value proposition. GaaS offers developers the ability to be maximally transparent and communicative with their audiences. With every engagement comes another opportunity to foster a more inclusive community. As Geoff Keighley, founder and host of The Game Awards, notes, “Every day is a new opportunity to address the fanbase… use that as a tool to continually improve on the game experience.”
Likewise, developers can leverage this persistent dynamic for high-profile moderation tactics. For instance, Lizzie Leader praises Blizzard’s willingness to levy things like fines and suspensions against high-profile Overwatch players for homophobic language or otherwise toxic behavior. Though actions like these may draw criticism from a small, vocal segment of the community in the short term, Leader suggests that these vocal minorities are not likely to follow-through on things like boycott threats.
Conclusion
Much of this research will not come as a surprise to industry stakeholders; the culture issue that exists both in the core game industry as well as the gaming community is well-documented. However, the data contained within this report—and its economic implications—should instill new urgency for publishers and developers. The gaming medium is still relatively young and has significant growth potential, but much of that is contingent on ensuring the product is accessible to broader audiences. Diversifying the game industry and community will lead to increased revenues and a more robust culture, ensuring that the medium persists and grows for years to come.
Additional research into this topic is recommended. A follow-up study with a larger sample or increased focus on underrepresented groups would help to evaluate and/or reinforce the findings contained in this report and further shed light on these issues. Moreover, follow-up studies focused on other underrepresented groups are highly encouraged. LGBTQ+ and differently-abled individuals face similar, but not identical, issues, and the game industry would stand to benefit from diagnostic research into those issues.
The previously outlined recommendations should serve as an actionable starting point for game companies to diversify the gaming workforce thus expanding on-screen representation for underrepresented groups. Likewise, these recommendations should help developers to reframe their thinking and establish better practices for community management, ultimately cultivating a less toxic, more inclusive community, and better product.
About the Authors
This analysis was part of a capstone project by CMU Master of Entertainment Management Students: Mingyu Bian, Carina Carbetta, Olivia Green, Dan Hoyt, Joan Rodriguez.