Thread Closed
Both sides of the argument have a bit of a fallacy, if I may pipe up for a moment.
On one side is the "safe" choice. Using character data, SE can see what types of races and classes are being played. From that, they can seek to infer that this is what the players want to play. Since they already have evidence that people can and will frequently play these, making something similar ensures that many folks will try (and possible even enjoy) it. We see the same thing with games in general - how much deviation has there been in, like, Pokemon games? If it ain't broke, why fix it?
However, there's also the "spaghetti sauce" argument, as I like to call it based on a video about... well, spaghetti sauce. People liked straight tomato because they did not know they could have other options. And when new types were made, people suddenly had new favorites because they didn't even know you could put this or that in tomato sauce! People may not know they want to play a fully bestial race until the option is made available, but it also could be something they can see and go "do not want." It's risky even if there's a chance for great reward, and very few companies like risky.
The way I see it, if they see a bunch of people playing male Au Ra over the females, that would pass along similar data - people want to play more bestial than pretty. If there's more bestial options on the females, and a large percentage of folks use them along with an increased influx of femRoes and ladylanders, then there's precedence for players being for a stronger female archetype. Then it won't seem like such a risk, and more of a sure deal.
It is still ultimately the company's choice, but it's a choice based off what they think will sell well. And so they look at trends and data and try to find out what would give them the best profit. And, currently, it seems like manly men and pretty ladies. I mean, think about it, how many fat people are in Eorzea?
On one side is the "safe" choice. Using character data, SE can see what types of races and classes are being played. From that, they can seek to infer that this is what the players want to play. Since they already have evidence that people can and will frequently play these, making something similar ensures that many folks will try (and possible even enjoy) it. We see the same thing with games in general - how much deviation has there been in, like, Pokemon games? If it ain't broke, why fix it?
However, there's also the "spaghetti sauce" argument, as I like to call it based on a video about... well, spaghetti sauce. People liked straight tomato because they did not know they could have other options. And when new types were made, people suddenly had new favorites because they didn't even know you could put this or that in tomato sauce! People may not know they want to play a fully bestial race until the option is made available, but it also could be something they can see and go "do not want." It's risky even if there's a chance for great reward, and very few companies like risky.
The way I see it, if they see a bunch of people playing male Au Ra over the females, that would pass along similar data - people want to play more bestial than pretty. If there's more bestial options on the females, and a large percentage of folks use them along with an increased influx of femRoes and ladylanders, then there's precedence for players being for a stronger female archetype. Then it won't seem like such a risk, and more of a sure deal.
It is still ultimately the company's choice, but it's a choice based off what they think will sell well. And so they look at trends and data and try to find out what would give them the best profit. And, currently, it seems like manly men and pretty ladies. I mean, think about it, how many fat people are in Eorzea?
~