370°

Atari on Making LGBTQ-Focused Games, Pridefest Criticism

J Station X: In a new interview, Atari discusses the importance of making games for the LGBTQ community and its plans for mobile game Pridefest.

Read Full Story >>
jstationx.com
staticall2448d ago

Why you have to focus on a certain group? Just make good games, that's all that matter.
I'm more than sure, that Metal Gear Solid, Half-Life, Diablo, Resident Evil and a whole bunch of other good games were enjoyed by all spectrum of games, no matter your skin color, sexual preferences or religious beliefs.

FunAndGun2448d ago ShowReplies(9)
BlindGuyMcSqueazy2448d ago

There just weren't enough same sex interactions for me in Diablo. I bought it with the expectation of getting some boy on boy action.

Eonjay2448d ago

People conflate political correctness mind-washing with advertising. The various groups that exist all have money to spend and anyone serious is gonna make money on them all. There are people who, while being disgusted by bigotry, will placate to them too for their money. Fox News pioneered a business off of that. If you don't want to see boy on boy action stay home and stay away from the internet lol. Either way, I think that that there are better ways for Atari to go after that market that are a lot more interesting and classy. I do believe that real advertisers know how to balance their personal views with their ultimate goals, which is to maximize money. Its not for everyone though.

sigrid2448d ago (Edited 2448d ago )

Why can't you just accept that it's their time and money and they can make whatever game they want? What happened to freedom of speech and freedom of expression? Isn't that what the right has been holding their rallies about? I guess it's not about wanting freedom of speech it's about wanting freedom of discrimination.

CaptainObvious8782448d ago

Are you being deliberately stupid, sigrid?

Please point out in staticall's comment where he called for censorship?

It's alarming how many agrees you got with your arrogant, ignorant statement.

Gh05t2448d ago

Wouldn't he be expressing himself? He didn't say they "couldn't" do whatever they wanted he suggested they "shouldn't".

Who's threatening violence and shutting down speeches again? Saying that people CANT speak if it goes against what they believe?

That's the difference. It's one thing to have a differing opinion and voice opposition. It's another thing to say that someone else CANT express thier opinion or aren't allowed to speak because of that opinion.

Although after writing this I realize you probably don't care about what liberty and freedom really means.

Ogygian2447d ago (Edited 2447d ago )

I never understand this type of comment, because it doesn't actually address the point raised. If someone says something is bad, to try and rebut them by saying that someone has a "right to do it" is a bizarre thing to say, because it does not conflict with the original point.

For example, if I say "Coca Cola is bad for you", and you say "people have a right to drink Coca Cola", we see how ridiculous this becomes, because I never said that Coca Cola should be banned, but that people perhaps ought to voluntary choose not to drink it. If you choose to engage with my argument, you would have to say that Coca Cola is a healthy drink.

Now, I'm really struggling to see where the argument you rebutted expressed a desire to ban LGBT video games. So the only conclusions to be drawn are that you either misunderstood what was said, or chose to try and deceive for the sake of argument.

jonh682448d ago

"Just make good games"

Well, what if it is a good game? I don't see why having a gay character means it can't be good.

staticall2448d ago

Hey, if this will be a good game, i will definitely try it out!
But when developer firstly says that their game is for certain group, for me it's a big red flag, because that means they're have nothing to say about gameplay, plot, graphics and so on, which is much more important aspects of the game, IMO.

Testfire2448d ago

What is it to you what games they make? I imagine you didn't read the article right? If you did you would know that it's about Atari refreshing support for an already existing game, "Pridefest". They said that's a priority right now as far as LGBTQ games are concerned.

It's not like all the games in production are suddenly going to be LGBTQ focused so calm down.

senorfartcushion2448d ago

Every game focuses on a certain group

Fullmetalevolust2448d ago (Edited 2448d ago )

you know what? How about just making a game with a gay lead without making an announcement about it?
he/she kicks ass, can do anything and everything a heterosexual or bisexual character can do and loves to be with the same gender romantically.
Like if Nathan Drake didn't have Helena as a love interest but a dude but it'd be the same story line, then would it have the same appeal? Heck I'd play it either way. But in our hetero normative society, other gamers wouldn't play it either way? They'd say dude is gay and they wouldn't touch it, even though it is naughty dog and a sure fire game of the year (hypothetically).
So my question is, to the general population does a gay lead appeals the same way a hetero lead does? And why can't we have gay characters that appeal to those who seek variety in their gaming experience?

Princess_Pilfer2447d ago

Literally every game has target demographics. Typically, it's 18-35 year old men, because (for what I'm sure is a large variety of factors) they're the ones who buy the most.

Them announcing their game is targeting LGBT people is no different than say, Obsidian or BioWare announcing they're targeting Baldurs Gate fans (which has actually happened with Dragon Age Orgins, billed as a spiritual sequel to Baldurs gate, and Pillars of Eternity, billed as a revival of the long dormant CRPG.)

The only difference, is that certian people make anything involving LGBT people "a political statement" or "putting pandering over gameplay" or whatever, while ignoring or being unaware that the vast majority of the AAA gaming industry has been specifically pandering to their tastes for 15+ years now. I'm sure all the muslims and arabs all over the world were *thrilled* to play as a bunch of white americans who slaughter them by the thousands in CoD. Oh wait. The game was targeting Young/middle aged white men who were afraid of muslims in the post 9/11 US and western Europe. I'm not saying CoD is racist or shoulnd't exsist, I'm saying it's target audience is quite clear and while other people *can* enjoy it, just like straight people *can* enjoy Dream Daddy, that doesn't change what the target demographic was or how the informed the game.

These things aren't mutually exclusive. You can have a target audience of or including LGBT people and also be focused on making a good game. I don't expect Atari to manage that, because they're Atari, but that doesn't negate the point. Examples? Well the previously mentioned Dream Daddy. Whatever you think of ME:A, and DA:2/Inquisition, the widly acclaimed Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2, as well as Dragon Age Origins made a point of including LGBT people. GTA: The Ballad of Gay Tony. Fallout New Vegas.

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 2447d ago
InKnight7s2448d ago (Edited 2448d ago )

Yeah, that so annoying as example hollywood is forcing and suddenly its full ofLGBT characters.

Typo

BlindGuyMcSqueazy2448d ago

The representation of LGBTs in the media is way off from what you see in real life. And many times having a gay charachter just seems out of place. It rarely adds anything to a story line instead it often times is just obvious that the character is gay for the sake of it.

We don't have to pretend that queer is normal. So many times an LGBT character will just be used a shock/wow factor.

bennissimo2448d ago (Edited 2448d ago )

That's because a lot of idiots are still bigoted toward the LGBT community.

4% of Americans identify as LGBT. So, if 1 in 25 characters you see in games or movies/TV is gay, then the demographics would be correct. I'd wager that the number of LGBT characters is less than that, so the gripe isn't that there are too many.

It's that there are any at all.

2448d ago
FullmetalRoyale2448d ago

Though there are times when being gay adds something. Titus Andromedan(The Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt) wouldn't be as great a character if he wasn't so flamboyant.

2448d ago
bennissimo2448d ago

beepbeep thinks that the only games that can have LGBT characters are gay games. lol

2448d ago
+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2448d ago
VideoGamesAreDumb2448d ago

Wow. It's like an entire segment of the population was edited out of since the dawn of popular media.

Shadow_Fall_X2448d ago ShowReplies(3)
Pancit_Canton2448d ago

Atari is just trying to become relevant in a gaming scene once again by stirring a controversy topic.

bennissimo2448d ago

Only controversial due to bigots.

2448d ago
2448d ago
bennissimo2448d ago

The Christian right's main objection to LGBT rights is centered on acronym size, Marxism, and feminism? That would be news to them. lol

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2448d ago
Paytaa2448d ago

How is it controversial? Them saying what their intended target demographic is would be the same if Activision declared CoD is being made to cater to the teenage boys who love mountain dew and junk food. Everyone knows it is they just haven't said it. Now would that be controversial?

Only ones making it controversial are people who have an issue regarding people who are a part of the LGBT community.

Someone above said it affects gameplay somehow. That's actually the dumbest bullshit I've ever heard.

Injusticewarrior2448d ago ShowReplies(3)
Show all comments (98)
250°

[Exclusive] Xbox Reaches Agreement With Batman: Arkham Trilogy Creators For A New AAA Game

Ex-Rocksteady directors' Hundred Star is collaborating with Xbox Game Studios Publishing for its first-ever AAA game.

Lightning776h ago(Edited 6h ago)

Highly doubt it'll be an actual Batman game that IP belongs to WB Games along with other DC property.

They're making an action adventure game. IMO I think it needs to be another Marvel game despite MS already have Blade as that action Marvel game. Dead Pool? Punisher?

Realistically it'll probably be a new IP entirely.

The_Hooligan4h ago

I agree with you. I think I'll be a brand new IP. Now it could be a superhero themed, kind of like infamous. Speaking of which, Suckerpunch needs to make one after Ghost 2.

neutralgamer19924h ago

would love a infamous collection for ps5/pc

Lightning774h ago

I definitely think it'll be super hero themed game 100%. Something MS needs in their portfolio.

ThinkThink2h ago

Please, no more super hero games.

PhillyDonJawn1h ago(Edited 1h ago)

Dead Pool or Punisher would be amazing!!!
Don't tease me like that man lol. I see them making a new IP that's like an arkham knight clone

MIDGETonSTILTS174h ago(Edited 4h ago)

I hope these devs needed support to start/finish (like Stalker 2), vs are basically done with the game but wanted to secure an exclusivity-bonus because they know Xbox needs a system seller (like Titanfall).

It’s a bit strange that they’d rather invest in this game than Tangoworks’ TWO canceled projects; or just trust a single dev from their existing massive stable of talent to emerge with a system-seller themselves anytime soon.

Either way, it is just cool that we’ll likely get a new IP from the geniuses behind the Arkham Trilogy. I wonder how creative they’ll get now that they aren’t married to an established franchise.

darthv724h ago

This is about the former co-founders of Rocksteady and their new studio. So naturally it makes people think its Batman related with the way its worded, even though its not.

-Foxtrot4h ago

Exclusive? Sure

This year alone Microsoft has changed their plans so much with Xbox regarding multiplatform releases as they step closer to just being a full blown third party publisher and it's only been 4-5 months, imagine where we'll be once this game is finished. It will be a completely different landscape.

ThinkThink2h ago

I don't think MS will ever go completely full 3rd party with all of their games. I can see them looking towards expanding their own mobile store and moving into Mac as ways of expanding. I'm sure ms will bring more exclusives over to ps and nintendo, but I don't think it'll be as many games as you think it will. I hope I'm wrong.

Lightning771h ago

The ever contradictions thoughts and actions of MS definitely says otherwise MS changed up so much on the past 6 months of the year I lost count.

Though I'm more declined to believe they also won't go full 3rd party also.

But.

This year they're having Renaissance a super bowl of gaming with Gamepass this year. BO6, older ABK games, Avowed, Indy and other 3rd party exclusives all to grow and expand gamepass. If these games don't grow the service or grow only a little bit. Then you can fully expect MS to hit the red button and put everything everywhere. Satya will have full Xbox take over doing what he wants from that point on next year.

It's up to Xbox to advertise these games and gamepass in the next 6 months or so get the word out.

Profchaos58m ago

The more the news evolves the more I'm inclined to believe we will see MS embrace full third party status but not call it third party in their word soup ways.

It will be Xbox everywhere plays best on a Xbox.

Next gen Xbox is rumoured to be a reference design similar to the 3d0 where any company can make and sell it.

If you're offloading hardware costs to a third party yet still profiting from the games then you've cut out losses on the hardware you still have a store front that users can use and still make a 30 percent cut on that.

Your games sell for a profit on PS and Nintendo platforms and on Xbox reference hardware along with PC

You lose .kney on DLC and games sold on a competitor storefront they are seemingly already comfortable with this.

The ms bean counters are coming for the ROI that was promised they don't care if they kill the brand as it stands Xbox was never a profitable business it was always just done for reputation

PhillyDonJawn57m ago

@Lightning the would end the console then. No one would buy Xbox over PS at that point cause now you get both with just a PS. If GP flop for them, Logically, rolling back on GP would be the smarter than to do. No more day 1 title. Less quality titles. They'd lose subs but people would go back to buying the games.

purple1013h ago

Spawn (as well as master chief) are the only characters I associate with Xbox. Are there more I can’t remember?

rlow13h ago

Gears is another big game one.

purple1012h ago

Yeh big game, do you know the name of the lead character. Or team of lead characters. I don’t

rlow12h ago

Marcus, Dom, Cole Train. And I can’t remember the fourth.

Profchaos56m ago(Edited 55m ago)

Also the chick from gears 5 seems to pop up on all their modern advertising I can't remember her name either.

Cars also feature heavily in a Xbox ad it's always master chief front and centre with cars and maybe a gears character hanging around

Show all comments (21)
200°

Resident Evil Zero and Code Veronica Remakes are reportedly in the works, not Resident Evil 1

Industry insider Dusk Golem reveals that there is no Resident Evil 1 Remake in the works. Instead, Capcom are reportedly in active development of Resident Evil Zero and Code Veronica.

-Foxtrot1d 12h ago

RE Zero would be better to do first over RE1 because they can tie the story into RE1 more.

The original RE Remake was weird because Rebecca never mentioned anything about what happened in Zero and it felt so disjointed because Zero was developed during the Remake and they clearly didn't share any notes with one another.

Cacabunga10h ago

Wise decision. 2 of my favorites!

Knightofelemia1d 9h ago

Give me Dino Crisis dammit Capcom

TGG_overlord15h ago

And all it took was +24 years + a phone call from me lol.

GotGame8187h ago

LOL! A phone call from you? ROFL! They have been remaking RE games for YEARS! It was a matter of time!

Show all comments (17)
280°

Metal: Hellsinger dev says he is against Game Pass after seeing how it affects sales

Founder of Metal: Hellsinger studio says he wasn't against Game Pass until their game launched on Microsoft's service, which affected game sales.

TheProfessional20h ago(Edited 20h ago)

Why did PS copy gamepass if it's so terrible and unprofitable? PS Now was before gamepass but it was streaming trash that no one had any interest in.

And honestly the way the industry releases overpriced and broken games with day one season passes and dlc who wouldn't want to just pay for a subscription instead of $70 per game?

Only biased PS fans would defend paying more to a corporation rather than an option that's cheaper for the consumer overall. If it's from an indie studio that needs the sales that's different but games published by larger companies are fine on a subscription model. Also any of these devs who complain did decide to put their games on gamepass in thr first place.

ocelot0718h ago

Ahhh yes the typical but but but Sony in a Microsoft article.

When did Sony copy Microsoft? I havent seen Sony's big day one titles such as God of war Ragnarok or GT7? Do you want to know why they are not on the service? Because people are still willing to PAY for the games. Sony has already admitted they lost millions putting Horizon Forbidden West and Ratchet & Clank on PS+ Extra.

"larger companies are fine on a subscription model" Oh really? So why is all the cod games yet to be on it? Where is elden ring? Resident Evil 4 Remake? Street Fighter 6? Boulders Gate 3? Alan Wake 2? Where are they of gamepass is great and big publishers are fine putting newer games on it?

I'll tell you where they are. They are currently still selling for their respected publisher's. You know actually making them money. That money they can use to fund the next project.

who wouldn't want to just pay for a subscription instead of $70 per game?

I'm one of the millions who much rather pay $70 so fully support the publisher. Why do we do this? Well for starters I rather just pay for it rather than keep renting it each month. If we all just kept renting years ago blockbuster would still be around. Secondly, I rather we have AAA titles in 10 years time to enjoy. Rather than play mobile quality crap from a subscription.

Tell me how this is a good thing for gaming going forward. The last time I subbed to Gamepass was October 2023. During that one month subscription I played the newly released Starfield, Forza and a few other titles. All for the cost of about $7. Since then Microsoft have not released anything I want to try out or put anything on GP I want to try. So they last made $7 from me 8 months ago.

In the last 3 months. I have bought Sea of Thieves on PS5 (earning MS more money on that than my 1 month subscription to gamepass). Resident Evil 4 for £20 and Diablo 4 for £25 (again earning MS more buying this than buying a sub). Tell me how it's best for gaming I pay $7 and play the latest and greatest for a month. Rather than just buying what I want even if it means waiting a few months and getting it cheaper than full price yet earning the publisher more than renting said games of a monthly sub.

darthv7211h ago

...but didn't this game leave GP and then join PS+?

If a sub service is so bad, why get into another one right away?

Cacabunga10h ago(Edited 10h ago)

Finally devs waking up! More will follow .. reminds me of capcom during PS3,360 era almost going bankrupt they released extremely poor games because Xbox gave them paychecks not to release them on PS3 for as period. Sales were terrible and they went away from that.

Hofstaderman18h ago

Sony has never released new titles day one. They experimented with Forbidden West which was fairly new and quickly discovered that it cannabalized sales. XBOX gamepass was always an act of desperation to remain relevant and in their desperation they effectively dug their grave where today everybody is biding their time for their formerly exclusive titles. In a nutshell GamePass made XBOX not relevant.

Plague-Doctor2711h ago

It wasn't desperation. Subscription Models had a very different outlook in 2017 and then with the gaming surge during COVID reaching critical mass seemed more and more possible.

Phil convinced Satya to chase a trend and it hasn't worked out

shinoff21836h ago(Edited 6h ago)

Pretty much. People can say what they want but Ms said it themselves with the court papers. It was definitely desperation. Xbox was getting it handed to them. They were desperate.

lellkay17h ago

Literally dev who put game on gamepass:
It's not good

TheProfessional: but but sony but sony

S2Killinit16h ago(Edited 16h ago)

Sony didnt copy MS. MS copied Sony, then MS went on to make xbox a subscription device. Remember that part? Yeah.

MrNinosan16h ago

You're not too bright, right?

First of all, Sony didn't copy Microsoft regarding PS+ and GamePass, which you admit to early in your comment, but with some faults. PSNow was not only streaming.
The mentality at Xbox gamers, is to NOT buy games, because they are used to get it on GamePass, preferbly day 1 like with all Xbox Studios games.

This is not a thing at PS+ and never was.
Sure there was plenty day 1 games on PS+ like, Rocket League, Stray, Sea of Stars, Tchia, Operation Tango etc, but those didn't take away from gamers that it was more like a "bonus" than a "thing".

Playstation gamers buy games, a lot of games and PS+ has been proving to be way better for business than GamePass, both by actually having more subscribers but also no eating up sales.

dveio16h ago(Edited 16h ago)

"Only biased PS fans would defend paying more to a corporation rather than an option that's cheaper for the consumer overall.“

How can you possibly come to this conclusion?

First, you pay for a subscription.

Then download games. But games will eventually leave the service. You will again need to buy them if you want to play them ever again. Or if you cancel your subscription. Right?

Eventhough this may NOT have an effect on every subscriber, this IS in fact the economical motiviation behind the service like GP.

If you are not already paying "double" this way, you pay at a 1.2 or maybe even at a 1.5 ratio eventually than opposed to simply buying the game in the first place.

As I said, this maybe doesn't apply to every subscriber. But this doesn't erase the fact of this business model existing. And possibly keep growing.

It's driving me nuts at times that especially the die hard Xboxers seem not to understand what they are actually cheering for foolishly.

The Wood15h ago

xbots always tryna group...

..they'll never understand or refuse to acknowledge why these two console brands are miles apart. Gamespass isn't the golden egg some would have you believe. Its hit its peak and is nowhere near the demanded target of subs by the purse holders

The Wood14h ago(Edited 14h ago)

xbots always tryna group...

..they'll never understand or refuse to acknowledge why these two console brands are miles apart. Gamespass isn't the golden egg some would have you believe. Its hit its peak and is nowhere near the demanded target of subs by the purse holders. on top of that it seems more devs on top of the devs that have shunned the service are not seeing the value of subs vs actual sales. Sell first, sub later works better than sub off the bat. MSGaming has a major sea change decision to make regarding COD. Do they release it dod and lose a high portion of up front revenue or either up the price of gp on the whole or create an even higher sub tier to cushion the blow or don't release it on gp at all and potentially damage the good will gesture reiterated not too long ago. The acquisition money wasn't free money....they'll have to pick their poison

anast13h ago

"Why did PS copy gamepass if it's so terrible and unprofitable?"

They didn't copy GP. They aren't dumb enough to put their exclusives day 1.

"Who wouldn't want to just pay for a subscription instead of $70 per game?"

People who don't like to rent things.

outsider162411h ago

It's funny when he says who wouldn't pay for a subscription instead of paying 70$. Well no shit...if MS keeps releasing average titles who wouldnt..🤣

Cockney9h ago(Edited 9h ago)

The reason is playstation didn't copy anybody and they don't release broken games, their games are still not day 1 and Ps players still buy games so ps+ is just an option for those that want a subscription service, the fact playstation doesn’t push it front and centre should tell you a lot.
On xbox gamepass IS front and centre with an option to buy games on the side, look how that is panning out for them!
Xbox fans are the only ones trumpeting this from the rooftops

shinoff21838h ago

Weren't we able to download ps3 on ps3 and ps4 on ps4 systems back then I really don't remember.

Truth is Ms still copied Sony and made a couple adjustments. One adjustment being day one games which clearly has been xboxs issue hence the ps5 releases, and they groomed the base to not buy games.

romulus237h ago

To be fair it takes it's own level of bias to not see the harm day one game pass is doing to xbox and the industry as a whole. Harm that xbox themselves have admitted to.

ChasterMies7h ago(Edited 7h ago)

“Why did PS copy gamepass”

This is a long story that spans decades. Sony subscription services for games (PS+ and PS Now) before Microsoft. Sony and Microsoft weren’t the only ones. We’ve seen OnLive die, Google’s Stadia die, and disc rental services die. What made Game Pass successful is the amount of money Microsoft is able to lose. Everyone expected Sony to offer a one-to-one Game Pass competitor and they did. To actually make money, Somy sells its own games for at least a year before relegating them to PS+. Sony also has scale. More PS5s sold means more users which means more money. Will these subscription services last? Probably not. Few things do.

Flewid6383h ago

As a huge fan of PS Premium, I don't recall a single AAA game launching on it. Even a AA game.

Everything I've found on PS Premium has already been out for sometime. Better selection too. There are games I trialed that I said "yup, I'm buying".

+ Show (12) more repliesLast reply 3h ago
Skuletor19h ago

I feel no sympathy for the guy, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that putting your game on gamepass would affect sales.

JEECE13h ago

Seriously, how is it that devs need one of their games to bomb in sales due to Gamepass for them to realize what so many people could easily predict? Like people joke about "armchair CEOs" on here, but at least with respect to the effect of Gamepass, we keep seeing that the armchair CEOs are actually smarter than the real heads of these indie studios.

Skuletor6h ago

Probably short-sightedness when he saw that initial Microsoft check, temporarily made all reason jump out the window 🤑

shinoff21836h ago

In some of the devs defense they know the game won't sell. So why not take the gamepass check. Hopefully yaluza/like a dragon sell decent on Xbox. I'd like to keep this series around.

dveio17h ago(Edited 17h ago)

The 'day-one' feature is the breaker or maker with GP, business-wise.

GP is no Netflix.

Because, from all the Marvel's Avengers to Sicarios, illustratively speaking, they all had their box office money. Before they had entered Netflix.

This concept shows you what Microsoft have actually put themselves into.

And what situation studios put themselves into if they go day-one into GP.

solideagle13h ago

GP/PS Extra day one is best suited for GAAS or free to play games

truthBombs17h ago

Why not sell your game the traditional way first? Then after about 6 months to a year put it on a sub service.

Day one on gamepass is a gamble. It works for some (Pal world) and not for others.

anast13h ago

It's the old psych. experiment. Set out some candy and tell the person they can have it all now, or if they wait, they can have double the amount. Most choose the first option, then complain when it doesn't work out for them.

Show all comments (50)