[tnones]

You're only making my point further by assuming "diversity" must imply a 50/50 gender distribution in the players.

Diversity implies differences in class, age, origin, occupation, and so on, and this is definitely the case in the consumer demographics. The fact that some games appeal more to men and others more to women is unsurprising, and irrelevant.

In fact, that you're seeing numbers such as 60/40 despite the game makers themselves being far more male-dominated suggests those men are doing a pretty decent job in appealing to people not like them.

[dahart]

> You're only making my point further by assuming "diversity" must imply a 50/50 gender distribution in the players. Diversity implies differences in class, age, origin, occupation, and so on

Sorry, but that's wrong. This is a common statistics mistake, let me try to help you.

You're conflating diversity of selection with diversity of demographics. There is one, and only one, way to demonstrate that something is "demographically blind".

The definition of "demographically blind" is when the number of people in each category playing games occurs in the same ratio as the number of people in that category in the general population. For example, for games to be demographically blind, there would need to be 3 men for every 2 women in the general population. The fact that men and women occur close to 50/50 in the population, and that men and women play games in a 3:2 ratio literally proves that games are not demographically blind.

Again I ask for some data. Have you worked in games? I have. Have you talked to publishers about cultural sexism? I have. Do you have any evidence for your claim that games are demographically blind? I provided some. Logic doesn't work, but feel free to prove me wrong with some data.