Absolutely. I'm not saying that games should just try to tick boxes in terms of inclusion. But let's face it, hasn't gaming almost always been trying to appease a pretty specific group (outside of games with more abstract characters/mascots etc)?
What evidence do you have that "gaming has almost always been trying to appease a pretty specific group"? Even in the heyday of 90s radical teenage-boy advertising, tens of millions of women were playing videogames and at the arcades.
Don't see in any way how more variety, which can draw more crowds into gaming, is a bad thing
The argument isn't that it would be a "bad thing".
I find it interesting how you implicitly state that "more variety" can only be drawn in when they are portrayed on the screen. Bigotry of soft expectations.
Lets look at this from a different angle. Gaming as an industry and the businesses that comprise it are encouraged to attempt to grow the medium because they like money. It turns out, that roughly half the population is female, and there is a growing diversity of humanity in the form of different skin colors and sexual preferences not just in the U.S but the entire world. Would it not behoove these businesses and their shareholders to attempt to grow the base of consumers that purchase their products by attempting to be inclusive of individuals that are not young heterosexual white males? We have historically been the base of the medium, but for the medium to grow and continue to expand it needs to find new markets; especially as games and the industry mature and get more expensive to make.
TLDR : It's not just us boys from the 70s and 80s playing anymore and developers are under no obligation to cater to us. You don't have to like it, but it's not wrong for them to try to expand the market.
It's amusing to see the same ol' argument repeated by two different people with different wording but the same underlying assumptions.
The videogame market is fundamentally an entertainment medium. It is already reaching out to the demographics you are citing. Are you claiming that videogames haven't sold to men, women, boys, girls, and people of all sexual orientations and skincolors since they were invented?
What aspects of Pac Man prevented women from playing it, and therefore was NAMCO right to pander with Mrs Pac Man? What aspects of Sonic prevent a vagina-wielding college student from picking up a Genesis controller and enjoying the game?
The underlying assumption here is that [underrepresented group] is somehow unable to enjoy the medium unless the medium -- as a whole -- exceeds a certain minimum % of representation. And in what way is this not corporate tokenism anyway? Does a black person need to see a black NPC in order to pick up Puyo Puyo and fall in love with its simplicity? Does a gay woman need to see a lesbian protagonist in order to finally dive into Minecraft and spend 100s of hours in it?
A person with [skincolor] skin should be able to play whatever games are available without being pandered to based on their immutable traits.
Heck, in the name of "inclusion", why not just make more of the videogames that women, minorities, etc play? We have hard data on how women play a lot more puzzle games, MMOs, and simulation genre games compared to fighting games and online shooters. If the goal is to "include" more races and genders and sexual orientations, can we skip the pandering and just make more of the games in the genres they enjoy? Then you're treating them like real people with real tastes and preferences.
Instead of this sensible idea, some devs have been holding up caricatures on popsical sticks and going "I'm gay like you. I'm a hero. Buy this game" and patting themselves on the back. Not only patting themselves on the back, but shrieking at anyone who interrupts their virtue signaling.
That's why this political stuff gets annoying. it's not SJWs versus GamerGate, it's SJWs versus Average Consumer Who Just Wants To Enjoy Escapism.
I don't assume that the negative response to political intrusion is fundamentally due to someone being against those political stances.
If someone doesn't like anti-capitalist messaging in their videogame, it doesn't imply they are pro-capitalist. It doesn't imply they even have a strong opinion. It is entirely possible they simply do not like that kind of messaging in their videogame. People are annoyed by ads, too.
And if someone loves something in their videogames, it doesn't mean they can be lumped into broad categories, allowing other conclusions to be drawn about their character or personality. Loving anime tiddies doesn't make one a Trump detractor, for instance.
If someone loves anti-capitalist messaging in their videogames, it doesn't mean they are communists or an SJW or an alt-right troll. Loving anime tiddies doesn't make one a Trump supporter, for instance.
I think most people are generally annoyed by preaching in their entertainment. It is a complaint that transcends videogames and applies to other mediums as well, so it's not just "boys club behavior trying to keep strong empowered women out of the videogame market" or whatever. Some people don't even consider "representation" to be an important factor when picking a game. Why can't entertainment include pandering and fanservice and sarcasm and self-deprecation alongside the serious moralizing and scolding? There's freedom for all kinds of stories but certain groups think certain things should be omitted from games.
It would be like censoring the written word because holy books were written using that same medium.
"Sorry but the DaVinci Code can't be published in the USA. Books are the medium that the Bible uses, you know that right? I'll let you off this time because I noticed you included at least 10 positive messages about PoC (Persons of Christianity) and referenced at least 5 different denominations."