Summary of Key Points
This article discusses the phenomenon of DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) in the gaming industry, with the central argument being that DEI elements themselves are not the problem. The issue arises when DEI is forced to become a tool for preaching, placing identities above the core gameplay principles, which leads to player dissatisfaction. The failure of a game should not be attributed solely to DEI; rather, it is often due to a lack of innovative gameplay and misallocation of resources. However, DEI frequently becomes the scapegoat for public criticism. Large companies promote DEI driven by various interests (market, talent attraction, reputation, etc.), rather than purely moral considerations. In the future, DEI will shift from being a prominent label to a more subtle element within games. Diverse characters will continue to be included, but forced preaching will decrease.
1. Differentiate between DEI Elements and DEI Orientation
Many people criticize DEI, but they are actually targeting the wrong aspect. The article explains that DEI elements refer to the inclusion of characters with diverse backgrounds, such as female protagonists, black characters, or LGBTQ+ characters. These elements are not problematic in themselves; for example, Mei Ying from *Ark: Survival Evolved* is a lesbian character who first and foremost acts as a warrior and leader, with her sexual orientation being just one aspect of her personality, and players do not feel educated by it.
On the other hand, DEI orientation means treating identities as the core focus and forcing players to accept certain values. For instance, if a developer states that the game aims to create more inclusive characters and makes the character's identity (e.g., being LGBTQ+) the sole driving force of the story, requiring players to agree with this identity as "correct," it is similar to being served a bowl of "values-based nonsense" at a restaurant, which no one would enjoy.
2. Players Dislike the Feeling of Being “Educated” While Playing Games
Players buy games to have fun (through combat, exploration, role-playing), not to receive moral lessons. The article highlights a crucial difference:
- Good games (such as *Radiation* and *The Witcher*) create a realistic world that naturally conveys values through the characters' fates (e.g., opposition to war and racial discrimination).
- Preaching-style DEI games, on the other hand, establish a predetermined “correct conclusion” (e.g., that all minorities are victims) and create characters that embody this conclusion. Players can only choose politically correct dialogue options; other choices are either absent or portrayed as foolish. This is not gaming but more like taking a compliance test, which no one wants to pay for.
3. Why Does DEI Often Become the Scapegoat?
The reason players resist DEI in games is often due to a lack of innovative gameplay. In recent years, the gaming industry has faced the problem of high investment without new innovations. Despite significant financial investments in better graphics and larger maps, core gameplay remains repetitive (questing, equipment grinding, remakes of old IPs). When players become tired of this, they look for reasons to criticize the games.
If a game includes obvious DEI elements (e.g., characters using contemporary political terms), players may think, “You’re focusing on these trivial aspects instead of improving the gameplay.” For example, the failure of *Star Trek: Beyond* can be attributed to the highly competitive hero shooter market and lack of distinctive gameplay. However, players blame DEI for its character design, even though it didn’t cost much in terms of resources. This criticism serves as a symbol that the company doesn’t value player feedback.
4. Large Companies Promote DEI Out of Self-Interest
Don’t assume that companies suddenly become more compassionate; they promote DEI for several reasons:
1. Market Expansion: They want to attract female and minority players, but this logic is flawed—just because there are more female players doesn’t mean they will only buy games with female protagonists, and LGBTQ+ players won’t abandon the game for its representation.
2. Talent Attraction: Young developers in Europe and America tend to be more liberal, so inclusive companies can attract top talent. For example, EA claims that diverse employees help create more globally appealing characters.
3. Reputation: Games with DEI elements are more likely to win awards and receive positive media coverage, which benefits the creative team’s reputation.
4. Risk Mitigation with Old IPs: Using well-known IPs (like *The Last of Us 2*) to promote DEI allows companies to tap into fan nostalgia while mitigating potential criticism. However, this can damage the IP’s reputation if players become disillusioned.
5. The Future of DEI in Games
DEI will not disappear, but its more overt practices will fade away:
- DEI will no longer be used as a marketing gimmick (e.g., not prominently highlighting “we have transgender characters”).
- Classic game characters won’t be abruptly changed to reflect new identities.
- Characters’ dialogue won’t contain contemporary political themes that deviate from the game’s worldview.
- Players’ criticism of characters will no longer be labeled as “discriminatory.”
Diverse characters (female protagonists, different ethnicities, LGBTQ+ relationships) will remain a standard part of games, just as various job roles are common today. Accessibility features will also continue to improve, as they expand the player base without imposing values on them.
In summary, DEI will become more subtle and integrated into game design, serving as a resource for creating more authentic characters rather than a separate “management system” that dominates the gameplay. Ultimately, the market will judge games based on one criterion: whether they are fun to play or not.
Final Conclusion
DEI itself is not a problem, but it shouldn’t overshadow the main purpose of gaming—to provide entertainment and an engaging experience for players. DEI can be used to make characters more compelling, but it should not be used to impose values on them or cover up poor gameplay. Otherwise, players will vote with their wallets by avoiding such games.