Square Enix Stock PLUMMETS in Q3! Stop ruining our games with DEI

[zzzz]

https://80.lv/articles/final-fantasy-s-dev-s-stock-value-dropped-by-over-10/


Square Enix Stock PLUMMETS in Q3!

https://clownfishtv.com/aaa-gaming-implosion-continues-square-enix-stock-plummets-in-q3/


I love dragon quest games, but I will never ever give money to square enix again till they kick all the dei/censorship out of their games and company. It's about time the only thing that seems to matter to them $$$ is starting to feel the pressure.

Keep shining light on all this b.s. and hopefully gamers will get games back, or at the very least un altered from the original form.

I will never buy square enix till they officially address and hopefully apologize for this insanity.

[The_Box]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Lucas the Thief:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von The_Box:

Well, I'd argue they are pretty neutral as far as the storefront itself goes. They sell 'woke' games, yeah, but they also sell anti-DEI cringe-fests like Great Rebellion and what not. But again, that's not the same thing as how they run internally or how the games development side runs.

What the hell is Great Rebellion?

Cringe incarnate, lol. It sets its entire identity on being 'anti-DEI', and somehow, despite being one of very few games the whole DEI detected movement has ever recommended, they've barely ever seen even double digit numbers of players.

[zzzz]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Harriet Tubman:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von zzzz:

You're again acting like you have the numbers when you admit in your own argument you don't know the #'s. Neither of us do. My argument was every post of dissent is simply that someone saying enough is enough I'm done supporting people who employ dei activists.

In your assumption you also assume a lot of things. Mainly being that the change was to make trans people feel good. How? By erasing gender??, They didn't give them a "trans" option, wouldn't that be more inclusive? All of that however is missing the bigger issue. They're changing games retroactively. As someone pointed out in another thread, people didn't care about same issue in elden ring.

It's going into the past and changing the game to fit this agenda of today. That's one of the main reasons I'm vocal about it. Employing dei staff / consultants is at the very least using resources that would be more beneficial in so many other ways. QA has been lacking badly for example of newer square games.

Actually, I have repeatedly told you that I don't know those numbers, you don't know those numbers, and no one knows those numbers because they do not exist. Repeatedly. I'm not sure how that's lost on you. The numbers that do exist are concurrent users, and active discussions. I also said this much.

And yes, assumptions assume things. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make there.

If I'm wrong that you think that was the intent of this change, then tell me instead what you think the cause of this change is. Because, from what I've seen from your multiple comments, you do seem to think that these changes are for the benefit of a tiny fraction of people. I'm not sure why you're going back on that now.

And what exactly do you think a "trans" option would look like? Every single trans person I've ever heard of is genetically male or female, but presents themselves by a different gender, either with treatment or without. Everything they would need to reflect that in a character exists in this game now.

I'm also confused by this whole "they're changing games retroactively" thing. The original game was a 2D NES game with an archaic translation. Yes, they changed the game. Remakes do that. What's the objection here, that a remake happened? I don't understand the problem here.

The most charitable interpretation I can make of your criticism is that you think the game was not inclusive of trans people in the past, the developers were told to make it inclusive of trans people in the remake, the developers did so, and now it's inclusive of trans people, and this is a bad thing because being inclusive costs money that should have been spent on some other thing somewhere.

If I misrepresented your point, say so, but I really think you're overestimating the costs here. A and B would be strings. Changing strings takes seconds. Someone could have been told to make Male and Female say Appearance Type A and B when that feature was already developed; the developer would then go up to their search box and find all instances of Male or Female in the code, and simply overwrite them within a minute.

When developing the voice options, they were able to instead implement one box for all voices and then set the default cursor position in two different places by doing an if statement to check the appearance type of the character. That wouldn't be any more difficult than making two separate boxes for voices and doing an if statement to determine which box to display. There's also the matter of gender-neutral 'they/them' pronouns to refer to the main character on voiced lines, which would actually lead to less labor/cost for developers, writers, and recording artists.

The most demanding thing cost-wise would be paying the artists to make the changes on the sprites, which we all agree was done for the sake of ratings and not to meet some agenda.

I don't think the game cared if you were or weren't in the past. I didn't think then or now "let's exclude them I want the game for only my gender" It's how the game was. Maybe the cost wasn't budget breaking to redo all of what you mention, or maybe it was and is released higher priced as a reflection of that effort.

It's all effort that shouldn't be because it wasn't yuji's game. If he came out and supported the changes, it's one thing. When he doesn't it's another strike against square who ultimately went against him. Then looking at why square would do this you notice the continual insertion of said dei/advocate groups and what they're about, you realize they've added nothing for benefit of gamers but prioritize politics being put into games. I don't want this at all, I want games not politics. Then people stop buying or don't stop buying. Perhaps I'm in the very small minority (esp in your eyes) but I do think it important to make posts, and see others feeling similar enough to the point of never buying square again. Most like I was until last year or so probably had no clue how invasive and persistent these groups are until a shareholder meeting these said groups become focus of discussion.

I really do appreciate your responses as they've been the most well stated and made me correct my english a few times. (I'm sure grammer errors are everywhere still, at least the their, they're, there lol)

[theclaw135]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von The_Box:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von theclaw135:

Very funny. There is nothing neutral about Valve. They hire staff based on DEI, they're a client of SBI, and they sell "woke" games.

Well, I'd argue they are pretty neutral as far as the storefront itself goes. They sell 'woke' games, yeah, but they also sell anti-DEI cringe-fests like Great Rebellion and what not. But again, that's not the same thing as how they run internally or how the games development side runs.

I didn't consider looking for anti-DEI games. (such games aren't for me, personally)

[Pnume]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von zzzz:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Pnume:

Its current PE (i think), not average.

That's pretty close to Nvidia PE actually. Crazy

It's even more wild with all the accounting they allow now like trailing twelve months vs actual pe that gets reported.

The nvidia thing is an amazing study on when those top heavy companies break a certain threshold all the money that's getting dumped into ETF's from state/employee pension plans continues to grow it to the point of absurdity where no growth on the planet can sustain, yet they stay insanely high PE as more and more money gets dumped into them.

i.e. Your company invests in an etf that mimicks the S&P 500 , and Nvidia Corp NVDA 7.17% , you're dumping a lot of peoples money into an already giant stock. I never thought I'd see 7%+ in the S&P but here we are...

I get the feeling that some day it will crash down unlike anything we've seen before.

[leekrs1]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Lucas the Thief:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von The_Box:

Well, I'd argue they are pretty neutral as far as the storefront itself goes. They sell 'woke' games, yeah, but they also sell anti-DEI cringe-fests like Great Rebellion and what not. But again, that's not the same thing as how they run internally or how the games development side runs.

What the hell is Great Rebellion?

One of the few decent games to come out recently and calls out crap like this game in AMAZING style even if it is a bit on the short side. I got it from the dev's website because its uncut, though I think the gog version in also complete (Yeah, you can still do that with some games, see also, devotion, taiwan game that was banned from here AND gog because they wanted to pander to china)

Well that and the Lollipop chansaw remaster (Very little actually worth spending money on anymore, for obvious reasons. )

Oh and to the person making fun of the allegedly low steam player count, the steam version of the great rebellion had to be butchered to be released here. So most players would likely be playing the version from the dev's website (or the gog version)

[zzzz]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Lucas the Thief:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von The_Box:

Well, I'd argue they are pretty neutral as far as the storefront itself goes. They sell 'woke' games, yeah, but they also sell anti-DEI cringe-fests like Great Rebellion and what not. But again, that's not the same thing as how they run internally or how the games development side runs.

What the hell is Great Rebellion? [/quot

Ursprünglich geschrieben von The_Box:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von theclaw135:

Very funny. There is nothing neutral about Valve. They hire staff based on DEI, they're a client of SBI, and they sell "woke" games.

Well, I'd argue they are pretty neutral as far as the storefront itself goes. They sell 'woke' games, yeah, but they also sell anti-DEI cringe-fests like Great Rebellion and what not. But again, that's not the same thing as how they run internally or how the games development side runs.

I doubt I own many in either extreme, but they all should have a right to exist. I mean I did play adventure capitalist and adventure communist... lol . If you mean the game is pure political propaganda level it's cringe but at least valve is staying neutral in allowing the marketplace to reject them overall.

[Lucas the Thief]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von leekrs1:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Lucas the Thief:

What the hell is Great Rebellion?

One of the few decent games to come out recently and calls out crap like this game in AMAZING style even if it is a bit on the short side. I got it from the dev's website because its uncut, though I think the gog version in also complete (Yeah, you can still do that with some games, see also, devotion, taiwan game that was banned from here AND gog because they wanted to pander to china)

Well that and the Lollipop chansaw remaster (Very little actually worth spending money on anymore, for obvious reasons. :smell_like_lizard: )

Quick Look at it, gross it uses AI. Hard pass.

[zzzz]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Pnume:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von zzzz:

It's even more wild with all the accounting they allow now like trailing twelve months vs actual pe that gets reported.

The nvidia thing is an amazing study on when those top heavy companies break a certain threshold all the money that's getting dumped into ETF's from state/employee pension plans continues to grow it to the point of absurdity where no growth on the planet can sustain, yet they stay insanely high PE as more and more money gets dumped into them.

i.e. Your company invests in an etf that mimicks the S&P 500 , and Nvidia Corp NVDA 7.17% , you're dumping a lot of peoples money into an already giant stock. I never thought I'd see 7%+ in the S&P but here we are...

I get the feeling that some day it will crash down unlike anything we've seen before.

It's very terrifying , I thought the FANG was bad and too top heavy, but Nvidia... one company being up over 7% of the S&P is almost market breaking. I just can't imagine how that will continue to grow with the influx of funds into index funds. I mean the growth of Nvidia can only be so much. Really wild, and a great example of ignorance is bliss for people not thinking about this hanging over the world lol.

[The_Box]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von zzzz:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Lucas the Thief:

What the hell is Great Rebellion? [/quot

I doubt I own many in either extreme, but they all should have a right to exist. I mean I did play adventure capitalist and adventure communist... lol . If you mean the game is pure political propaganda level it's cringe but at least valve is staying neutral in allowing the marketplace to reject them overall.

Oh I'm not even talking about that level, I agree that those games have a right to exist. Great Rebellion is cringe at its greatest, but I'm not arguing it should be gotten rid of.

I'm talking about really extreme games, like School Shooter Simulator and Active Shooter (which to their credit they did eventually remove, but they still released them initially), or games that're obvious scams, like all those $199.99 hidden object games that're literally just one picture with 30 static objects.

[Harriet Tubman]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von zzzz:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Harriet Tubman:

Actually, I have repeatedly told you that I don't know those numbers, you don't know those numbers, and no one knows those numbers because they do not exist. Repeatedly. I'm not sure how that's lost on you. The numbers that do exist are concurrent users, and active discussions. I also said this much.

And yes, assumptions assume things. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make there.

If I'm wrong that you think that was the intent of this change, then tell me instead what you think the cause of this change is. Because, from what I've seen from your multiple comments, you do seem to think that these changes are for the benefit of a tiny fraction of people. I'm not sure why you're going back on that now.

And what exactly do you think a "trans" option would look like? Every single trans person I've ever heard of is genetically male or female, but presents themselves by a different gender, either with treatment or without. Everything they would need to reflect that in a character exists in this game now.

I'm also confused by this whole "they're changing games retroactively" thing. The original game was a 2D NES game with an archaic translation. Yes, they changed the game. Remakes do that. What's the objection here, that a remake happened? I don't understand the problem here.

The most charitable interpretation I can make of your criticism is that you think the game was not inclusive of trans people in the past, the developers were told to make it inclusive of trans people in the remake, the developers did so, and now it's inclusive of trans people, and this is a bad thing because being inclusive costs money that should have been spent on some other thing somewhere.

If I misrepresented your point, say so, but I really think you're overestimating the costs here. A and B would be strings. Changing strings takes seconds. Someone could have been told to make Male and Female say Appearance Type A and B when that feature was already developed; the developer would then go up to their search box and find all instances of Male or Female in the code, and simply overwrite them within a minute.

When developing the voice options, they were able to instead implement one box for all voices and then set the default cursor position in two different places by doing an if statement to check the appearance type of the character. That wouldn't be any more difficult than making two separate boxes for voices and doing an if statement to determine which box to display. There's also the matter of gender-neutral 'they/them' pronouns to refer to the main character on voiced lines, which would actually lead to less labor/cost for developers, writers, and recording artists.

The most demanding thing cost-wise would be paying the artists to make the changes on the sprites, which we all agree was done for the sake of ratings and not to meet some agenda.

I don't think the game cared if you were or weren't in the past. I didn't think then or now "let's exclude them I want the game for only my gender" It's how the game was. Maybe the cost wasn't budget breaking to redo all of what you mention, or maybe it was and is released higher priced as a reflection of that effort.

It's all effort that shouldn't be because it wasn't yuji's game. If he came out and supported the changes, it's one thing. When he doesn't it's another strike against square who ultimately went against him. Then looking at why square would do this you notice the continual insertion of said dei/advocate groups and what they're about, you realize they've added nothing for benefit of gamers but prioritize politics being put into games. I don't want this at all, I want games not politics. Then people stop buying or don't stop buying. Perhaps I'm in the very small minority (esp in your eyes) but I do think it important to make posts, and see others feeling similar enough to the point of never buying square again. Most like I was until last year or so probably had no clue how invasive and persistent these groups are until a shareholder meeting these said groups become focus of discussion.

I really do appreciate your responses as they've been the most well stated and made me correct my english a few times. (I'm sure grammer errors are everywhere still, at least the their, they're, there lol)

I think the fundamental problem with this position is that it says nothing is being added for the benefit of gamers but rather for the benefit of politics in games. I know trans people who play a lot more video games than I do. Pandering to them would be a lot more profitable than pandering to me. For them, being able to also be trans in-game isn't politics. It's just playing a character that reminds them of themselves.

Sure, there's a case to be made that it goes against Yuji Horii's vision to make this decision without him, but I think his comments point more to "it doesn't seem necessary and I don't understand the need for it" and less so "I dislike this and I feel it undercuts my vision." I don't get the impression that he's hostile to the changes, but rather that he feels like it's inconsequential that he doesn't get why this was asked of him.

I think if the backlash were really about the game going against his original intent for the Hero character, the critics would be asking to have appearance type B removed entirely, because the original version of this game only had a canonically male Hero. The re-releases added the Heroine option, and the dialogue wasn't even updated to acknowledge that the Heroine was female.

[zzzz]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von The_Box:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von zzzz:

I doubt I own many in either extreme, but they all should have a right to exist. I mean I did play adventure capitalist and adventure communist... lol . If you mean the game is pure political propaganda level it's cringe but at least valve is staying neutral in allowing the marketplace to reject them overall.

Oh I'm not even talking about that level, I agree that those games have a right to exist. Great Rebellion is cringe at its greatest, but I'm not arguing it should be gotten rid of.

I'm talking about really extreme games, like School Shooter Simulator and Active Shooter (which to their credit they did eventually remove, but they still released them initially), or games that're obvious scams, like all those $199.99 hidden object games that're literally just one picture with 30 static objects.

I agree with everything said here!

[zzzz]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Harriet Tubman:

I think the fundamental problem with this position is that it says nothing is being added for the benefit of gamers but rather for the benefit of politics in games. I know trans people who play a lot more video games than I do. Pandering to them would be a lot more profitable than pandering to me. For them, being able to also be trans in-game isn't politics. It's just playing a character that reminds them of themselves.

Sure, there's a case to be made that it goes against Yuji Horii's vision to make this decision without him, but I think his comments point more to "it doesn't seem necessary and I don't understand the need for it" and less so "I dislike this and I feel it undercuts my vision." I don't get the impression that he's hostile to the changes, but rather that he feels like it's inconsequential that he doesn't get why this was asked of him.

I think if the backlash were really about the game going against his original intent for the Hero character, the critics would be asking to have appearance type B removed entirely, because the original version of this game only had a canonically male Hero. The re-releases added the Heroine option, and the dialogue wasn't even updated to acknowledge that the Heroine was female.

Maybe I just feel they don't need pandered to at all? Just like I don't. I won't speak for them at all as I'm sure the viewpoints are wide ranging. If that's who a character is in game, great that's them, but I don't need the game telling me how to feel about them based on that one aspect. (race/sex/whatever) I don't need genders being eliminated in all past games, nor do I believe every trans person is for that. It seems like they've become pawns in a culture/political war, along with many others just because they're in one minority group. Take any minority group, point out difference(s) use said difference(s) for cultural change. This can be good or bad There is a playbook for this literally. The consultants that live off this for their own well being are imo a parasite and not only not needed in gaming but make games worse.

You make a good second point, and I have to wonder if the creator signed off on that change or not.

[The_Box]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von zzzz:

Maybe I just feel they don't need pandered to at all? Just like I don't. I won't speak for them at all as I'm sure the viewpoints are wide ranging. If that's who a character is in game, great that's them, but I don't need the game telling me how to feel about them based on that one aspect. (race/sex/whatever) I don't need genders being eliminated in all past games, nor do I believe every trans person is for that. It seems like they've become pawns in a culture/political war, along with many others just because they're in one minority group. Take any minority group, point out difference(s) use said difference(s) for cultural change. This can be good or bad There is a playbook for this literally. The consultants that live off this for their own well being are imo a parasite and not only not needed in gaming but make games worse.

You make a good second point, and I have to wonder if the creator signed off on those or didn't as well.

Here's the thing though dude, they didn't 'eliminate' gender. They just removed a label. The characters aren't super androgynous now. If you pick 'Appearance Type A', you can be a macho dude, the English version even goes so far as to say that type A is the 'hero', as opposed to the 'heroine'.

The only thing the change really does is it lets you see it however you want. If you want type A to be a macho dude, cool, that's your play through. Nothing about this change removes your ability to play it that way. The only thing it really does is make it so someone who might have a different life experience can more easily see themselves in the character too, because it's lacking an explicit label. For you, that might be the male power fantasy macho character. It might be something different for someone else. All the change does is make it possible for more people to identify with the main character they're creating for the game, and that's just a good thing all over.

[zzzz]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von The_Box:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von zzzz:

Maybe I just feel they don't need pandered to at all? Just like I don't. I won't speak for them at all as I'm sure the viewpoints are wide ranging. If that's who a character is in game, great that's them, but I don't need the game telling me how to feel about them based on that one aspect. (race/sex/whatever) I don't need genders being eliminated in all past games, nor do I believe every trans person is for that. It seems like they've become pawns in a culture/political war, along with many others just because they're in one minority group. Take any minority group, point out difference(s) use said difference(s) for cultural change. This can be good or bad There is a playbook for this literally. The consultants that live off this for their own well being are imo a parasite and not only not needed in gaming but make games worse.

You make a good second point, and I have to wonder if the creator signed off on those or didn't as well.

Here's the thing though dude, they didn't 'eliminate' gender. They just removed a label. The characters aren't super androgynous now. If you pick 'Appearance Type A', you can be a macho dude, the English version even goes so far as to say that type A is the 'hero', as opposed to the 'heroine'.

The only thing the change really does is it lets you see it however you want. If you want type A to be a macho dude, cool, that's your play through. Nothing about this change removes your ability to play it that way. The only thing it really does is make it so someone who might have a different life experience can more easily see themselves in the character too, because it's lacking an explicit label. For you, that might be the male power fantasy macho character. It might be something different for someone else. All the change does is make it possible for more people to identify with the main character they're creating for the game, and that's just a good thing all over.

Thank you. I don't see myself as the character ever, so it's perhaps hard for me to be empathetic in this regard.

I understand your view now, but understand that by removing a label they did in fact change something right? While the debate with you and others has shown me how minor in fact the change effects this overall game, it's still changed on behalf of someone other than the creator.

I feel everyone is viewing me in one particular light due to this game(Hero male macho ect...), would it amaze you that if for example a far right think tank / consultant group was hired by arc systems and changed the history of the character Bridget, I would be equally pissed at the Arc System works and not buy anything until they fired got rid of "x" consultants?

That character or Poison if you prefer SF over GG, are themselves. I greatly dislike all revisionist changes, and esp when they're made in any part due to consultant groups. If these groups are on your side of an issue (non video game releated) or not I feel is effecting peoples outlook on said groups/companies.

[zzzz]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von 󠀡Zale Unda:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von zzzz:

Interesting projection. Let's quote it and remember Zale Unda.

I don't think you understand how projection works? Do you just repeat ♥♥♥♥ you hear second hand like they are buzzwords without learning it's meaning?

pro·jec·tion

noun
1.
an estimate or forecast of a future situation or trend based on a study of present ones

It was used in the correct way.