Quote Originally Posted by Veis_Alveare View Post
You're strawmanning here. It's clear the presupposition that the post you're quoting was based on was that SE knew they were adding Viera and Hrothgar based on the overwhelming demand for a bestial race and Viera.

From that point your graph and that logic literally supports the addition of female Viera and male Hrothgar since (of each race) those are the more popular genders.

As far as "regressive" ideas about gender aesthetic stereotypes we could go in circles all day and never agree but (again) your graph shows that more people play female Miqo and male Roe sooooo... if the statistics show that the playerbase seems to follow a certain set of ideas about gendered stereotypes it seems like a poor business decision for SE to break from that in a situation like this one where they don't have unlimited financial resources to create everything they might want to.



This is all conjecture and your opinion. I'm certain SE knows what will sell better than a random player, if there's anything they truly care about in this game it's making money.
Here's the thing. Come at me with "they want to appease the most people" and I'll point to the underrepresentation of beast players in almost every game that offers them. Come at me with "they wanted to add something new" and I'll point to the tired trope they are reinforcing. Saying "it's ok to sacrifice diversity and player expression because more people would do this" right before ALSO saying "it's fine that they don't add a popularly requested and represented archetype because they wanted to add different options!" seems hella contratdictory to me.