In a way you are just as bad and a part of the problem as those who push such changes to be made....just saying.

Who'll pay the interest? o.O

In what way? What problem? I haven't come here to demand any changes. I just want people to be actually honest enough to not lie to themselves when the reason was given, and it wasn't lore.

I meant the ones who choose not to buy over such small changes. I am also against pandering but I am a bit more lenient. If the change is a small one and barely noticeable I give the devs a bit of leeway.

To me this is almost(but not quite)as bad as those who still boycoot Ion Fury even after devs walked back some of their changes.

My personal purchasing decisions are not a "boycott". My purchasing decision is mine as are your decisions yours.

Yes the stated change is "small", but as a strong indication of pandering is inherent in the reasoning provided, it raises the question what other changes they may have made.

I made no claim about the OP's powers to will things out of existence.

I guess Ahmedinejad claiming that there are no gays in Iran, or the Burmese official position that there are no Burmese Muslims, only Bangladeshi immigrant infiltrators are just quirky silly positions with no effect on the very real people in question.

Stripping people of their right to exist makes it all the more easy to oppress them:
'There is no such thing as trans individuals, only perverted men who want to molest children in the women's bathrooms'.

And I guess shame on CD Projekt Red for wanting to sell more copies while simultaneously moving closer to the themes of their source material!

I was just stating my stance on it, but imo yes it is akin to a personal boycott(in essence I mean).....not to say this is either wholly good or bad by saying such, though.

And you have a point, but as I dislike not buying over various small things here and there(I consider them small...I know some might not) I cannot skip such over such games(I actually have very few exceptions as to things I choose not to buy over) for such reasons myself.

I admire your strong stance and convictions, though.

1st bit: Those people/groups actually have POWER to do such to such people, unlike OP and those like him. Big difference. Also just saying such does not deny such people the right to exist or deny them existence by itself.....they usually do other bad actions to accomplish such.

2nd bit: Saying things that others dislike or that sounds bad/are bad against some people does not make it easier to oppress them if those saying such are normal people like you and me with no charisma and such to make others believe such in large numbers large enough to make such people's lives worse to a noticeable degree.

i.e. Regular people saying "there are only 2 genders" does not make all LGBT suddenly oppressed or closer to being wiped out in large numbers or similar.

3rd bit: Yes, if they do so to sell more copies and not to be nice alone I have some issue with that. If you dislike that and disagree that's on you.
===============
You know what....if you're going to keep making broad generalizations(all actions against LGBT or words are as bad as mass murder of such people in other countries) I dunno what to say to you or if we should keep this conversation going, as it seems you have your mind made up on the matter.
===============

Yes it does. Where do you think 'the people in power' get that power? From the support of dinosaurs, and the apathy of others.

CD Projekt Red is a business entity. Everything they do is to sell more copies, including attempts at inclusivity. I'm under no illusions that they're some vanguard of progressiveness. Even if what you want to suspect is true, they likely made a cold calculated decision, ran the numbers, and realised that lost sales from dinosaurs were going to be vastly outnumbered by increased sales from everyone else.

So I don't get your argument. If they included skin tone options (they probably do, like every other customisable character RPG on the market the last 20 years), and explicitly stated that they were doing it to give more people the chance to represent the best fantasy version of themselves that they possibly could (100% pandering, and goofy pandering at that), then...what? You'd boycott them? Justify the thread of a racist who was boycotting them, while not boycotting them yourself? Demand that they reverse their decision on customisable skin tone?

There's a difference(imo) between making a fun game(in general) right off the bat to sell good to most people(to make money and be successful) and figuring out ways to sucker larginalized people and progressives into buying more copies.

Also it doesn't work for some as we can see through it and/or choose not to buy.

(Also also calling people who hold such ideas dinosaurs is a tad insulting......some are stubbornly stuck in the past and hold hatred in their hearts while other just hold scientific fact over feelings & others call them names over it)
===============

I am not against this choice 100%, and certainly not to the point of boycott. I just dislike such pandering and can see it for what it is & not automatically think(as some others seem to do) "omg they are totally doing it to be nice and not make money".

Also I don't support OP's boycott or most of his initial post....I just get why some might be sick of the pandering done by such companies.

Thank you. Part of that comes from how long I have been playing (and criticizing the direction of) video games.

The concept of inclusivity (but not necessarily the word itself) isn't really all that positive to someone who watched their hobby of 30+ years go through interation after iteration of games becoming more and more dumbed down, mainstreamed, and now hyper-monetized to maximize mass appeal and profit.

I appreiate someone such as yourself who can argue for their position, and still agree to disagree instead of getting personal.

TBH I like some of the newer "simplified" games and console games. To remain in one period of nostalgia and stuck in the past is something I think we as a species need to grow out of....i.e. new does not always = or have to = not good.

And yeah not everyone can agree on everything.....it is nice to find common ground, though. :)

So following my above example, if you had a 'fun game' where the only customisations were variations of white people (but not because of any reference or allusion to race), and the exact same game but with more skin tones, made to 'pander' to all the other demographics, which would be the better game?

In the case of CD Projekt Red, what do you suggest they should have done? Made a decision, and spoken about it (the route they went), made a decision and not mentioned it (dinosaurs would still be angry on release), or not have made a smart, inclusive, and on-theme decision that would make them more money, in case they got accused of 'pandering'?

The scientific 'fact' of the matter is that 'there are only 2 genders!' is dinosaur talk. I'm sorry if you feel it is mean to call bigots bigots.

But I suppose you're right. Dinosaurs were magnificent creatures likely wiped out through no fault of their own. It's insulting to attach them to this.

Well I refuse to buy Cyberpunk 2077 until the character creation screen lets you input your own set of pronouns for other characters refer to your player character! Including a phonetic version for voice generation to properly pronounce them!

Ends do not justify means; means dictate ends. So if you're advocating censorship, which I think is implied by your statements, the most you'd ever accomplish if you managed to gain power is to become a new oppressor.

Don't you think it's more than a little ironic that you're willing to adopt the methods of those you see as oppressors?

Where am I advocating censorship? I was simply mocking people who claim there are only 2 genders, and pointing out that ignoring them and not calling them out as absurd is what leads to the normalisation of those viewpoints and insidious use of such by people to gain power.