|
Here's how an article about the "lack of women in gaming" typically unfolds.
"There aren't enough women in gaming. This is because there are too many dudes, and women are terrified of dudes. Besides that, there are also a million reasons why a reasonable woman would not want to get into games anyway. If we had more women in gaming, developers would be more mature and corporations would be nicer to us. I blame the education system, corporations, society, biology, sexism..."
Etc, etc.
First off, yes, there aren't a lot of women in video game development. (I believe the average figure is somewhere around 10%.)
However there are a lot of women in the fields of HR, PR, Marketing, and a good deal of women working in all kinds of positions that need to interact with the development team on a regular basis.
So please stop using the argument that there are no women in development because they are terrified of being exposed to the typical male developer and can't handle a fart joke. That's just nonsense.
As for the countless reasons often named in these kinds of articles, lets say they seem a bit misleading. Here are some of the points that get thrown out the most.
*QoL: The argument is that for some reason, women are less tolerant of working long hours. Now imagine a job where you were on-call 24/7, with 16 active hour workdays-including weekends (if you're lucky enough for a break that allows a full night's worth of sleep). This job doesn't offer vacation time, no medical/dental/vision plan and NO PAY. Best of all, you're locked into it for the next 18 years! Yes, it's the stay-at-home mom with a young child. Now replace that pride and love that makes raising a child worth it, with developing a project from an idea, add a salary that's better than the national average, add vacation time, and add a team of people to help you out with making sure the project develops into something great.
Lets just say there are more stressful things that women regularly take on.
*Maturity: Going along with the above caretaker point, dealing with the temper tantrum of a director probably isn't much worse than dealing with the public temper tantrum of a 3 year old that you can't just walk away from. Plus, unlike dealing with small children, most developers restrain from crapping themselves to make a fart joke.
I'm also trying to figure out what point "maturity" is supposed to make. Most of the other women I know in games will laugh at the fart jokes, geek out on nerd culture, and goof around with the guys without any issues. Are we trying to recruit women that are incapable of having fun into the industry of fun?
*Pay: If you look at a game developer salary survey, women earn about 10k less than their male coworkers. Now, that's not a chunk of change to sneeze at, but I do wonder if those numbers wouldn't drastically change when factoring in seniority. Say everyone starts out with the same entry-level salary, lets factor in retention...
*Regardless of the reason for quitting the industry!* If 20% of men don't stay in the video game industry past 5 years, you still have a decent number of high-level salaries to pull up the average male salary. If you get a 20% drop in an already sparse female workforce, the average salary is going to be dramatically reduced because you only have a handful of high-level salaries to offset the revolving entry-level income. Now extend that out another 5 years and another 20%... (And if a train leaves Chicago at 2pm...) Eventually you just run out of women, and it's possible that the 10k salary gap is due to the lack of retention in a small population of the industry, and NOT based off of a pay conspiracy.
The other fact about developer salaries is this: There are some people in video games that make more money than they're worth, and there are others that don't make as much money as they should. Male or female, it comes down to negotiation, and a company in the U.S. can't legally set a policy of paying people based on their gender (or race, or age). Ask for it, and if you're worth it, you might get it. Otherwise, just like with any other employee or any other business transaction, employers are going to try to get you as cheaply as they can get away with. A woman that is underpaid isn't necessarily underpaid specifically because she is a woman.
*General sexual discrimination: Yes, as it is with the general population, some guys do not like the idea of working with women. You will get this in ANY profession. And pretty females are favored just as much as dominant males; up to the point where they fail to perform their job. Everyone has two choices when confronted with this scenario; you can choose to allow one person's views to be your insurmountable roadblock, or you can choose to pay it no mind, and succeed by working around it.
And despite the few bad eggs, there are a great deal more that are glad (or even thrilled) to be working with you.
Now, if you're going to say that there is a need for more women in game development, don't give women completely ridiculous reasons to consider working in games.
"Women will balance the culture. Women will force us to make mature games. Women will open our eyes to new possibilities and bring video games to the next level. Women will prove that games are an art form. Corporations will only improve the quality of life if there are women asking for it."
...And on and on with the idealistic fantasies.
Women are not the saviors of video games. Please stop saying that they will magically transform the whole industry by their biological presence alone. Just about the worst way to pitch something is to complain about how terrible it is and follow it up with impossible expectations. It comes across as too desperate, too demanding and too much pressure.
You also don't want the women that feel like it is their single-handed duty to force square pegs into round holes either. They are completely bonkers and they will drive the rest of your team insane.
So what do we do to encourage (sane) women to join the ranks of development?
WELCOME THEM.
Don't tell them that they need to change the tides to get into the industry. Don't insist that they are going to be fighting an uphill battle their whole career. Don't give them a million reasons why they don't really want to join anyway. (Especially don't say that the industry needs them because they need to teach the boys how to have manners...)
Encourage their interest in creating stories, designing characters, solving puzzles... and investing those interests in one of the most creative (and financially viable) careers out there. Inspire them the same way everyone else in the industry has been inspired, without attaching all of the meaningless drama and desperation to it. We really need to change our campaign if this is a goal we really wish to achieve.
It'll happen if we welcome it to happen.
|
*Facepalm*
There is a large computer science department at my work (a college) and of that department it is pretty much 50-60% female. I've talked to some of them about what field they were planning on going into and maybe 2-3 seemed slightly interested in going into the gaming industry. When asked why so many of them were not going to pursue gaming almost everyone said that it just wasn't where "serious" programmers go. Maybe that is more the reason women, who are already a minority in the science field, along with a lot of men, aren't flocking to the industry. There is still this perception that the gaming industry is not a place for serious computer science; that they should be going to work for google or apple. I am sure a lot of people here don't agree but that is a perception I have noticed. Most alumni that are in the industry that I have talked to say that they fell into the industry more as an intermediate job than anything. Of course most of them ended up staying in the industry. There is a lot of PR that needs to be done to make people, not just designers, want to join the gaming industry.
Starcraft is what she plays the most often.
I gave her a free download of my game and walked out laughing.
"Equal pay isn't the whole story"
"Activism is dumb"
"If only there were more non-feminist women like you".
If I'd written this one, getting applause from men like this would raise every red flag that exists. It's like getting a fan letter from Mel Gibson.
I now give a dodgy answer to flat out lie when women ask me what I'm going to do with the college degree I'm getting.
I think that games aren't yet seen as a mature medium and so it isn't always treated as one by both men and women in within and outside of the development community. Games aren't demanded to be mature by any main-stream critical body. I think some developers don't have clear morals about the games they make and how they portray them (probably because they haven't taken the time to really think about it and not for any malicious reason; I mean they are some really busy, hard working people)
and don't worry all you anti-artsy nay-sayers, we have the Cannes film festival and the golden globes, but the porn industry is as big as ever and there are more commercials on tv then before; I'm sure the games industry will never be an art-only medium. you can also look at the music industry, or food industry or any industry that works with expression.
P.S. I snickered when Genna wrote "(sane) women". In my experience, while not all the women I met at my college were sane, none of them were a real bitch (like those girls rolling their eyes). but in film and music...
tl;dr
some women don't like games because they think they are immature.
If you want games to be more mature, decide that you will make games that are more mature.
not everyone is going to make mature, responsible games, no matter how much developers stress making mature games.
Not related to the article in every dot, but we all became interested in developing games years ago after we started playing and enjoying as well. The iPhone, Facebook, are all bringing a different cultural face for gaming. The basement nerd stereotype is what holds down women from gaming, not simply a matter of being mature or immature, but because women are more for social interaction and exposition.
Get any woman to try virtually any Kinect title at a public store showcase and they'll love it. In home, I always set up the X360 with a wall projector in the living room, and the women always get into the gaming, as long as there's enough people trying out. But unless I'm with a women that already likes videogames, I will always go for a movie if we're alone.
Movies are proven non-anti-social entertainment. What you watch is what you get. Games, you have to play them. Having everybody around having fun playing and talking about it (having fun playing) is a much welcoming environment for a woman.
As I said, not connected in every dot to the article, but I think it's still related to the case. There a post from this sake week here, http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/RobertBevill/20110708/7935/Video_Game_Tuto rials_a
nd_Getting_Others_Into_Games.php, and also in the Escapist, the Extra Credits series by James Portnow, talk a lot about this topic.
As I said, most of us here played videogames long before getting into development.
I'm going to stand by my position that the gender diversity in games is a result of the perception of who 'game-players' are in society. but I think that the perception of games and who plays them may change in as little as 5 years to be much more diverse.
however you did mention specifically that the first sign of maturity is not being afraid of appearing immature. I think games have made it to this step; but I'm kinda wondering about what the next step is.
curious to why that matters anyway Talking about morals usually deals with religions not entertainment .
(Don't see how a culture that glorifies reality TV , lady gaga , and Transformer has any nerve to call games immature) .American culture views any form of play as a form of mental retardation a hang over from are Christian founders , and working hard as a form of mental health building, thus games are immature because of christian mythology . Not to mention a subconscious fear of any kind of fantasy corrupting the minds of both kids and adults (Kinda how the mass media will look at video games any times there a school shooting happen , and completely ignore the fact the kid was socially abused ,gun nut culture ,and bullied and generally had a fucked up life). I can hear the countless rabid tabloid argument spreading fear about what games will do to your children and the down fall of society.
Not even gonna mention that most science stand by the idea that forms play is good for your healthy and mind .
It's a hijacked term and, at the risk of being declared "the enemy" I'd suggest that not everyone who has used the hijacked term is automatically misogynist (even if some of the posters actually are). The "right" in America are generally very good at creating labels and embuing them with negativity and what that means is they get people using the words their way You'll see it any time someone, especially a woman, says "I'm not a feminist but...". (There's also "I'm not a liberal but..." and "I'm not an environmentalist but..." and so on.)
Which would be funny if it weren't also frustrating.
If people want to join it, fine, but I hate it when there is a big push to "diversify" as if every person is just part of a demographic and not an individual. News flash: a white man and a black women could have more in common than two white males. Why? Because we're not robots!
As the OP said, welcome them [the women], but how about this: welcome everyone.
By the way, loved the article :)
I actually agree with you the diversity topic It irrelevant to game design .
There other Factors involved that have far more power than individual personality trait or cultural upbringing gender or race in game design .There exist People who take a very 1960s activist approach shouting for change and diversity tend to ignore that the gaming industry like Hollywood and TV is a soulless industrial machine . Somewhere they get a delusional idea that by magically placing woman into game developer seats that everything will change. As if millions of woman would come to games and the mythical girly games that get girls to play will come into existence . (We already have that it called the Wii and Face book)
What being made is a cut and dry supply and demand issue and has little to do with the individuals selected to the developers team (People tend to Extremely Overestimate the power the developer has to alter an established culture or media in general). Unlike maybe a community made project a Developers is a COGs in a machine. They are designed to fill a role with very minimal social input into what’s being made and what for sale . Every trait wither it be personality , Culture , Individual likes and dislikes are erased from the actual product . It is the difference between Homemade apple pie made with a specifically Southern made recipes in a small town in Louisiana vs McDonalds pie . One is a unique creation the other is Chemical formula that has been mass-produced to taste the same unless marketing demographic tell us to change it .
We’ve barely got Auteurs to be honest in the gaming industry outside of japan.You can export a game to Malaysia and it will come back American ,English Speaking and set in New york. These games do not reflect there respective demographic or developer or wider culture , they reflect the person funding them and the audience who want to “Buy that game”. and what sales (That reflect the long term social-cultural value of games as being disposable but this is reality ) .
So Yeah I mean long as there isn’t any specific real discrimination like ignoring woman application in favor of men ,it really is a non-issue. Welcome everyone Not just CIS-white heterosexual feminist woman who complain the loudest.
No, those are not the experiences of *all* women, but no one is claiming that they are. But they are definitely the experiences of *many* women, and those are real problems that genuinely do need to be addressed.
On the flip-side of that, men face their own set of issues. *Many* men are expected to be physically strong, "relatively" emotionally impervious, etc... And when they are anything "less" (which in itself is an insulting and degrading idea), they're ridiculed. When such things are brought to light most dismiss them as being lesser than the trials that women face, but just like the cases where husbands are beaten by their wives, ignoring it just makes it more prevalent.
Excuse me, I tend to go off on that issue . . . my point is that you can't just say "it's harder for women". Something that often seems to be forgotten in discussions about males and females is that being EQUAL doesn't mean being IDENTICAL. In it's current state, the video game industry is driven by violent games. Fun fact: males are generally more violent than females.
Wait, so are we STILL wondering why it doesn't attract more females??
Also, while it's clearly true that men have a set of social standards to live up to as well, it's not even remotely comparable to what women face, and anyone who pretends otherwise is just being foolish.
And to suggest that women have it /harder/ than men...? To suggest as much without any evidence is quite ridiculous. Just how difficult it is depends entirely on the individual's situation. That's not pretending: it's fact.
It may be hard for one person to deal with racist jokes, but they brush off of me as easily as water. The same could be true of a woman's experience. Or a man's. I would have to say you're blinded by your own personal experiences.
In Poland now, a lady I know worked in a rather sexist office, until she got fired. It was a mostly female office and everyone was mainly concerned with slacking around on the phone, manipulating each other and playing power games. A female manager decided she was The Enemy after she got pregnant and quickly got her fired. It was like if you asked a sexist man in the 1950s to describe what the workplace would be like with women and he described a dystopian vision.
Another lady I know here owns a language school.
Everyone gets a skewed perception of the Way Things Are by these experiences. So one has to be careful extrapolating.
As technology cease to be the driving force in games and connectivity, social design and content drives games, a different skill set will be needed..
A more meaningful comparison would be to using the same skills in another industry. I believe female programmers choose banking or electronics or defense or web coding over game development because the QoL in game development is much lower than those other industries. Throw in the immaturity of the co-workers and the instability of the jobs, and game development looks pretty bad. In short, women make more rational employment decisions.
The way to get more women into the biz is to improve the entire process for everyone.
And there are a lot of individuals who really aren't spirited, comfortable enough with risk and who think gamers are dolts. Regardless of gender, I see no reason to contort the industry to suit such individuals. (Even if the QoL ought to be improved for its own sake.)
EDIT: I should add why I bother to say this; the qualities described are not applicable to anyone who does decide to go into the game industry. I think it's be better not to talk in these terms because it implies that men in the game industry (as it is) are perfectly normal, valid and that women who want to participate are oddballs. It's a negative "social proof".
Thus I think expressing these ideas is counterproductive to welcoming female talent.
I really didn't think this was really a big deal, but I guess it's a sensitive subject for some reason. Perhaps the games industry is attractive to a male population who fear women. I could see that- long hours at work is a perfect crutch for avoiding social situations, reinforcing a disconnect from the non-industry world, making you a strange and unsightly beast. But this could only be a vocal minority right?
Or maybe I'm totally wrong and was totally justified into not going into psychology. At any rate, working with women is awesome, but I'm biased because I think bitches are the shit. (Ah-HA, the problem is found...)
For example, comparing temper tantrums of a director with that of a 3-year-old. Why are women specifically designated as caregivers here? Is there some reason for women to be more familiar with parenting than men, assuming that both have careers?
Also consider these 2 quotes: "some guys do not like the idea of working with women" and "there are a great deal more that are glad (or even thrilled) to be working with you." It's such a black and white portrayal of people's attitudes; men are either completely chauvinist or in desperate need of getting more women for some reason that's never really explained.
The article is advocating equality while ignoring the fact that the vast majority of humans beings (men or women) probably don't spend all day obsessing over gender with regard to making professional decisions, whether they be related to hiring or initiating projects. It's just not something that's on most people's minds.
Here's an idea: There aren't as many women in the gaming industry because it's not as appealing to them for whatever reason. Do we need to sit around wondering why there aren't as many female football players, or why there aren't as many male ballerinas, yoga instructors and kindergarten teachers?
And Mauricio, I would say this article has the same problems no matter who wrote it.
That child-rearing isn't strictly a woman's domain is fair and obvious - I have a friend who's a single father and my wife and I have a newborn and I'm certainly not dumping it all onto her - but it's irrelevant. It's an unfortunate topic to use as a rhetorical device (and analogies are always fighting words) but it isn't the point and expecting every comparison to line up in a literal way is the very definition of "over analyzed and pointless".
The point is that it's commonly alleged - and in fact Ernest Adams does this immediately above - that the difficulty (long hours, risk) of game development is bad for women but not men. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see why this might be a subtle insult toward women and statistically there is a much higher incidence of single mothers which, while not directly equivalent, is a rhetorical device that says "we can do hard things just fine".
Again, not defending its use as a good rhetorical device. But the very common statements she's upset about trip over many wires, too.
Greg writes,
"The article is advocating equality while ignoring the fact that ..."
It's not jumping out of nowhere to advocate equality. That equality is good is a given. It's just an annoyed rant about some equality advocacy already existing (and commonly seen here) that the bugs the author. She points out two themes in "how to welcome more women" posts that can be summed up as "women are magical leprechauns" and "women are delicate flowers that need the bar lowered for them".
The choice of an emotionally charged topic (child-rearing) as a rhetorical device obviously distracts. But the point of this is to dispute the notion that women will have a uniquely positive effective if only the bar is lowered enough for them by scrubbing away long hours and risk. (Obviously this ignores whether the work conditions ought to be improved for their own sake, if risk-averse people can thrive in an entertainment\culture industry and behavioral trait prevalence by gender and sex.)
She's bugged by the notion that women as a unique group are more scared of risky and difficult things, that and that regardless of gender prevalence of these traits, saying that they are is unwelcoming to women who find themselves perfectly suited to the game industry.
Or, to paraphrase Gomes, obviously she hates women.
If it was written by a man, everyone would say the author is a evil machist chauvinist that hates women.
All something rights proponents tend to say that you hate them, if you disagree.
I was called racist for disagreeing with black rights.
I was called homophobic for disagreeing with gay rights.
And I was called misogynist for disagreeing with women rights.
And I am not talking about those that want equality, I am talking about those that do things the author of this article is against, laws like: "10% of people in university must be black. 30% of people in your company must be women. Gays are to be allowed to kiss in your private but open to public building no matter the context."
Note that all those, exist in some place or other, and cause more problems than it fix.
This is going to offend – so stop reading now…
Sorry, I like the OP but hey - the reason for hiring anyone --- anyone - is to sell more games. I don’t care if the person is a green alien – if this is what I need to do to sell more – I am good. Game development is NOT a hobby.
The demographic is still highly favored toward human males. Now getting a person to help unlock the female wallet – that is interesting to me. I don’t care if it’s sexist, racist, or… I am after dollars. And the female audience spends money – cater to it.
(sorry this is one of my pet peeves)
...gene
You might be able to say with a straight face that a male director \ designer \ auteur \ whatever, person in charge of creative decisions is more likely to make something that resonates (and I'd disagree but won't go into it) but the vast, vast majority of individuals involved do not really have that influence.
If I take your line of thought at face value, I can (in principle) have a team that is 95% female and do A-OK.
There's a lot more to it but I just want to get that out there. Any statistical maleness of the audience will definitely affect who winds up inspired to go into the industry, but _while hiring_, it irrelevant at least 95% of the time (and arguably 100%).
Its dollars. Everything and anything that sells the game is good. Even controversy.
If I can get you to buy – I am good. Regardless of the reason. Pitiful but true.
I want females in the industry, so I can sell more. That is my point.
...gene
(and wow - nice fast answer)
(why do my edit keys not work)
...gene
(so why do my arrow key now work for this crap)
...gene
As game designers - I want all the money. If I can design a game that get the female and male audience to buy - wow - winner.
If only the female audience buys - cool - move it male.
If only the male audience buys - cool - move it female.
I want all the money.
...gene
At first I thought that you were making a case _for_ discrimination, based on money. Aside from disagreeing with it morally, I would make the case that it's naive, incorrect and seems like a business plan a child would come up with. But if you're not, you're not. It's just, "I don't care" is a boring talking point.
So after a long search she picked out Barbie: The Island Princess.
At first I was a little hesitant to let her get it, but I was like "hey, what the heck! Who am I to stop thousands of years of western culture childhood gender role conditioning?".
So I let her get it. I even played it with her a little bit.
Her brother by the way(my nephew age 7) got some x-men game.
After some fighting when we got home over who got to play which game first we flipped a coin and off we went to Barbie land. Within 15 minutes, she had become so bored with the insanely stupid and inane minigames that made up the entire Barbie game that she was soon begging to play her brothers x-men game. Luckily I was able to figure out the crappy wii menu for this x-men game and they were soon happily playing a campaign co-op mode.
Now, granted, this Barbie game was produced by a News corp subsidiary(which gives it a 90% chance of being complete crap) but, it seems like they didn't even try to make the game fun. In fact, it was like they were trying to steer young females AWAY from an interest in videogames.
I don't know who was involved in the production of this Barbie themed game. If it was mainly women, then we still have a long way to go. If it was mainly men, then I think we need to get some women involved in these kinds of games. And I also think we need to start getting our young girls to play games that are actually fun.
I will admit though, (and maybe this is just me being prejudiced) I have a strong feeling (based on the art in the game) that Barbie: THe Island Princess was designed by a bunch of asian dudes working in a basement. (in my mind thay are making fun of stupid americans, and mocking their afinity for large hamburgers) (also they are having samurai swordfights. . . but then again this could just be me being prejudiced.)
Why bother making a game fun if they're guaranteed sales just from having the Barbie brand on the shelf? The fact that you didn't research the game ahead of time is exactly what they were counting on.
This is about economics, not gender stereotypes. A Barbie game is going to sell at about the same rate regardless of its quality, so there's no business sense in spending extra resources to make it actually good if those resources are more expensive than their estimated return.
They keep themselves afloat (or they did anyway) but they don't do particularly well and one could argue they actually did a lot worse than they should have with their licenses, so I won't make the case that it's rational to intentionally make a pile of crap. I'll just say that it might be a good enough strategy to pay bills if you're a very de-spirited person who wants to feel safe.
Many licensed games, the bulk of which are geared towards boys, are made this way.
X-Men may differ because it's a comic book, and not a movie tie-in (which are made on short schedules) and, without stereotyping too much, I would bet comic book folks would be more scrutinizing in who they deal with.
(It's also the case that anything action-themed can draw on a lot of off-the-shelf game designs and even a very timid person can make one competently, while a Barbie game requires some novel work that the kind of people who are likely to make a Barbie game aren't likely to do.)
The fact that they were using the Barbie brand to sell a crappy game is obvious. (and the fact that this happens with alot of brands is not something I or anyone with half a brain will dispute). However, I agree with Joe. It is a pretty de-spirited person who can't put the minimal effort into a game to entertain a 5 year old. In other words, I think they could have made it alot better without sacrificing profits. //sarcasm on - And they might not have damaged the respectable and socially progressive Barbie name in the process. - sarcasm off// - Basically the point I was trying to make was that it is soo bad it almost seems like they were trying to make a piece of crap.
And I was trying to tie it in with how taking advantage of gender stereotypes to sell crappy games could possibly drive young females away from videogames.
Luckily her brother got the x-men superhero squad game because they both had a ball with that. And it could prevent her from becoming a gender stereotype and getting into girlie crap. So maybe it is a good thing.
I understand what you and Joe are saying, but I just don't think it has anything to do with gender stereotypes specifically. The root of the problem is that game publishers have identified a demographic of people who will buy a game no matter how bad it is because they're not going to research it ahead of time. (Or that demographic just doesn't care -- why did my friends and I have so many of those awful Tiger Electronics when we were kids?!)
Joe points out that movie tie-ins are often the same way. I used to work at a GameStop store, and it was very common to see parents come in and just buy games based on movies because they were familiar with the brand, but they had no idea whether the game was any good.
Fundamentally, that's the same as the Barbie game. If there's a demographic of people who are willing to spend money on a product that is potentially very cheap to produce, a supplier will rise to fill this demand, guaranteed -- this exists across all industries and demographics. If American tourists are willing to spend $50 on fake silver jewelry in Mexico without verifying its authenticity, you'll see suppliers rise up to meet that demand (super common in Puerto Vallarta, where my grandmother fell victim despite numerous warnings from tour guides).
It's very easy to sit back and say that it's bad to make bad games and that they should do a better job of it, but that's idealistic and ignoring the fundamental economic principles at play here -- when sales are relatively fixed, there's no business incentive to create a great product.
And let's be realistic here. The sales of Barbie games ARE essentially fixed. If the game is awful, not a lot of sales will be lost. If the game is great, not a lot of sales will be gained. The target audience is very narrow, and this audience overlaps heavily with people who aren't going to research game quality before making a purchase.
It's not like these companies are going to start attracting teenage male customers if they can make the gameplay of a Barbie game good enough. There's a very low ceiling on their potential success, which translates into a similar situation with their available resources.
Let me put it this way: If 5-year-old girls around the world suddenly developed a desire to play video games, they had the means to purchase them (or have the games purchased for them) AND they were discerning of the games' quality, I'd expect the production values of Barbie games to be on par with Call of Duty's.
In reference to this point:
"In other words, I think they could have made it alot better without sacrificing profits."
99% of the time, making something better costs more money, and here the return with sales is questionable. Why would anyone choose to make an inferior product if not for the fact that it costs less money?
TL;DR: Market forces are to blame, not gender stereotypes.
But I'm definitely also agreeing that it's nothing directly to do with gender except the comment about a Barbie game warranting more serious game design work than an equivalent for-boys action-oriented franchise game. (Which also really boils down to the market forces putting the least serious people onto the project...)
I founded my own game company VectorBloom because I want to make beautiful art and tell stories through games. And in order to grow a game company's brand has to be associated with fun, not politics. Anyway, you want to back a female developer, game artist and founder of a game company, back my game BigTopBallet on AppBackr.com ! It's going to be awesome multiplayer creativity game for girls, and it's gonna be fun ! You know why because I'm making it!
Normally I would agree with you but this Barbie game was just soooo bad. You should really try it.
Even the movie tie ins and generic x-men games I have played have gameplay that is better than watching paint dry. This Barbie game, idk it just kind of stole your motivation for consuming sustenance and dressing yourself.
It's unfortunate about the Barbie game, but generally speaking...
-As you've found, incidence of liking action games is non-zero in girls.
-There are actually a lot of games that are more popular (or decently popular) with female audience including women who don't self-identify as "gamers". The Sims and Farmville are famous examples. However these games aren't necessarily painted pink and labelled "for girls!"
-Less obvious are a lot of games that aren't exactly based around action mechanics. My wife plays a lot of Civilization, Prince of Persia, Sim City and RPGs that have a lot of widgets and doodads to collect. (And uhh, several shooters, but that's beside the point really.)
-Few serious games that actually do work well are going to paint themselves as "for girls" because they won't want to make men feel uncomfortable buying them with a "this isn't for you!" kind of packaging.
You actually might have gotten a little lucky with X-Men game. I also have one, for the SNES, that is excellent. But I do have to point you towards Batman Forever for the SNES, because it is pretty horrible. And if you look at any "worst games ever" lists, you'll find plenty of franchise games including ones definitely aimed at boys.
I'm not disagreeing with the assertion that the Barbie game is awful; I'm just sharing my thoughts for why this is the case.
Movie tie-ins have a much wider prospective audience that's a bit more discerning than 5-year-old girls, so I'd expect quality to be a larger factor in determining those games' success, even if the factor isn't has high as it is for non-movie-based games.
It's all just business economics.
Throw in some years of more men than women graduating with the industry related technical degrees, and it just amplifies the effect. I'd be surprised if we were up to 50-50 for tech degrees yet.
So now when you, as a hiring manager in the gaming industry, look to bring on new staff you tend to get a lower % of female applicants than men. For most managers, you're looking for skill and effectiveness (which has no gender component), so your hired female % just matches your applicant female %. That's where we are today.
Now I do think there's finally become a bit more awareness that the female demographic is just as equipped with disposable income and time for gaming, and as such, some more emphasis has been placed on making products that attract that demographic. This will lead to more women who enjoyed gaming later seeking jobs in the industry and help balance it out a bit more. Will that happen quickly? No, probably not. But I'd say we've clearly seen it happening over time and will likely continue to do so.
So anyways - basic theory - nothing hugely evil or oppressive keeping the female gaming industry workforce % low. Just some early social assumption that still needs time to finish overcoming.