What argument, I requested sources and got a link to an Entertainer's video instead of a list of sources. I haven't composed my argument yet.

Your argument that his evidence was not sufficient.

While you may think it's insufficient, your reasoning behind it is flawed.

Please enlighten me and teach me how to think for myself. What's my reasoning behind it? That a video game journalist and entertainer would not be biased towards the credibility of other video game journos or the industry as a whole, that he or she would acknowledge there's a possibility that some of their works can be exaggerated, or even based upon mere rumours from uncredited or confirmed sources. Or that they need readers and followers so they drum up the most eye catching titles and use the most persuasive and subtle tricks to force either their own or a certain outlook on the things they report? Or that they're all free lance selfless individuals who don't represent organisations or are employed by places such as Gawker or the escapist and that they're free from negative criticism from the truth and it won't affect them in anyway?

Opinion and secondary sources are not considered solid evidence, least last time I checked. It is at best circumstantial, therefore can be subject to bias or effected by personal opinion. It is a widely known fact of the stance Jim Sterling takes on the issues related to 'social justice' and in particular sexism in the games industry along with the position of big companies of women in video games. He has even admitted to it in recent times...

He has been noteworthy of sarcastically quibbling at times that there must be something wrong with someone if they actually liked his videos and actually took him seriously. You do know he is a shock jock right?

This is the kind of thing I was looking for. True enough.

I don't think we have much scholarship or sources on top-down control of female characters but I've been looking around for some basic papers on the subject. It's a growing area of scholarship

Dark-Knight, your argument was a logical fallacy. There is no debate. You said one video game journalist was not acceptable because other video game journalists have committed errors. That is a fallacy. Psyctooth provided a better rebuttal.

Here is one, although not the full paper. browsing through some more.
Another

The perception of unreliable journalism is in many ways just as important as any actual scandals. If the market audience does not trust in the objectivity of the source it's bad for business in any case. I doubt they'd allow any legitimate proof of developer/journalist relationships affecting game reviews and such, because those are the people in charge of releasing that kind of information. But swinging the ban hammer at any discussion of possibilities of corruption is not a way to promote trust, quite the opposite as we've seen, it stirs resentment grows the controversy. The cover up can be far worse than the crime.

And what I keep seeing from your sources is criticism on the development side. They don't think female leads sell, and that sex sells, which the latter is a view shared across the board in businesses. Placing the blame on the demographic will lead nowhere. And as for female leads not selling, perhaps. Men still remain the largest share of action gamers and such, and to many it's immersion breaking too play as a woman. They can compensate for this by making a great game, perhaps.

Excuse me... you took what I wrote out of context,

All this from a moderator...

Also I will screenshot this; Just in case you delete it.

Don't twist my words or misinterpret my intent!

My point is not whether the market research exists, it's that if that isn't what the customer base wants to buy, it's not like you can force them to like what you want them to. And it's game developers that must take the risks in implementations, they can add better crafted female characters at any time, they are just weary of the market risks. But what exactly is complaining that gamers as a market don't prefer female leads going to accomplish?

I have never placed the blame strictly in one source. This is a multi-faceted issue that spans far outside of video games alone.

And the amount of male players versus female players is not large enough to justify such a large gap. 30 or 40 percent of gamers are women, if I remember correctly. If it's so immersion breaking to play as women then why is over one third of the market forced to do so? This is the classic argument that shouldn't be acceptable. It bothers us guys to play as a woman but apparently it's fine that almost every major protagonist in the past 25 years has been male. And white. Women play games. a lot of them. You what games sell to both sexes? the ones that portray both accurately. Cover art is a big deal because that is visibility. It reaffirms what we see as "normal"

Psyctooth, I was supporting his post so I felt it necessary to point out the validity of your point.