Kitkat5335 You may want to believe that it's never because of catering to the usual crowd that a game flops but I'm sorry, it just doesn't make it true. Ugly character designs that♑ seem ugly not by incompetence but by design are horrible turn-offs. Having hot or at least reasonably attractive female models in your games is not going to necessarily save your revenues, but at the very least will likely allow you to cut some losses. Swap the Stellar Blade chick with Kay Vess and that game would have flopped hard. And you know it.

Does every game featuring a lot of DEI pandering need to have ugly females? No. But whenever it does happen, it always somehow happens to the sꦿtudios and publishers most notorious for pushing these initiatives. We don't have irrefutable proof of course and as long as Jason Schreier is firmly on their side, we probably won't be getting any. But what we do have, the hints from inside sources as well as a hefty disease of common sense indicate that thꦉe post-2015 political push's disastrous effects on sales is acknowledged even by gaming executives. Over the past few weeks we have moved from "angry manchildren's whining doesn't matter" to "angry manchildren's whining killed our profit", essentially validating the GWGB mantra. That's why Sony removed the LGBTQ+ tag from the Concord Steam page hours after launch. Not that it helped. But the very fact that it was the first thing their survival instinct pointed them to should be a huge red flag to you.

You talk a lot about glitches and repetitive formulas but the thing is, none of these are really all that apparent until you at least have ꦯplayed the game, meaning having to spend at least a monthly subscription to U+ if not buying the whole game. On the other hand, Kay's ugly design was common knowledge long before it hit the shelves and it was free of charge to learn about t♊o anybody who was interested in the first place.

So no, you'ꦚre not going to separate DEI from financial losses, I'm afr🎉aid.