>>718724163 (OP)
Because markets need to grow and grow and grow.
They've been realizing for years that they've capped the numbers of moviegoers and gamers in the core demographics, ditto with fields outside of games, so the economist perspective is "Diversity = White audiences AND blacks, chinese, indians, women, gays = MORE GROWTH".
Reggie Fils-aime from Nintendo said something like this once, that Diversity is good, not because of humanitarian blah blah, but because it's a wider market with more "perspectives" = $$$
The problem is that economists are often stupid.
>Didn't realize that "diversifying" led to cultural dysfunction
>LGBT Marxists threatening the CEO class where the economists thrive.
>Anti-male agenda
>Whites hating that they need to care about people that aren't themselves
>Men not giving a shit about how women feel or see things, thus boycotting games that are too feminine.
The globalization experiment failed because it ended up with a culture war. They thought that would subside and still give an overall bigger market than whites-only, but the guarantees are exceptionally low, and it led to Trumpism, so now they're backpedaling.
The people that still search of the Modern Audience are all the other actors who always thought any of this was altruistic and not just economic reality.
But the fact still is, if you only sell to 20 year olds, and 10 years later, the 30 year olds, you have a dying market, so they're trying to examine what youth culture looks like, and it just seems purple-teal colored, it's more gay, it's more ADHD, people don't know what a storyline is anymore; dunno what game design means anymore.
If you're 8 years old you're no longer growing up on games that look like "games". They look like CG movies or Anime that you move around. So a lot of conventional design patterns just make people go "why is there invisible walls?" or "Where am I supposed to go?"
You have to keep in mind games are less intuitive the less abstract they've become.
