[saint_fiasco]

I know that is what you intended to talk about, but I'm pointing out that it's not what your sources are talking about. They are about who buys games, about who identifies as gamer (i.e. is more susceptible to marketing)

[dahart]

Only one of those four quotes said something about buying games, but you used plural language twice now. You drew a false pattern where none exists.

The fact that the stats I provided shows the same gender bias no matter how you slice it - whether it's playing, or purchasing, or identifying as a gamer, means that the bias is robust. It is more evidence of the bias, not less.

But, if you think the 4 links I posted are all wrong, feel free to actually refute it with some data instead of faulty logic.

All gamers are susceptible to marketing, whether they buy games or play free ones, that is part of the problem. Our marketing system is oriented toward boys, it is reinforcing the cultural problem we have, you can't escape marketing or divorce the problem from marketing, because marketing is half the issue.

[saint_fiasco]

Ok, so the first source is the one that says "buy" instead of "play".

The second and third are alright, and also the least outrageous ones. The 2nd says the male/female ratio is 56% to 44% and the 3rd says 58% to 42%, which are not that bad.

The fourth one is about "identifying as gamers".

I agree there is a marketing problem from our point of view, but from the point of view of the marketers it makes sense to market to boys because they buy more (per source 1) and they are more loyal customers (per source 4). Women (and for that matter, poor people) still play a lot of games, just not the profitable ones (from the publisher's point of view).

[hluska]

You know, you make some good points, but unfortunately, you're so unbelievably condescending that I can't make it through an entire comment.