"Sure, they don't mind a social discourse that causes bullying on social media in a setting that's known to drive transgendered persons to kill themselves, but they'd NEVER deliberately try to recreate patterns that trigger seizures!"
Again, not even necessarily likely, but it would not surprise me if they knew and just did not care to change it.
I would argue that making a case of causality from discourse on social media vs. someone seizing up as a direct result of a game are worlds apart when/if they are litigated.
Let's say they have the intention to harm in both cases (which, I would argue, is also much more likely in the case of transphobia than prejudice against people with epilepsy), it's way easier for them to get away with saying something that can be litigated away as free speech/political expression/misinterpreted/not the cause of their particular involvement in the discourse alone (which has multiple participants/life circumstances to consider) versus them
actively trying to trigger involuntary, potentially life-threatening physiological responses in people who have already paid for their product.
It's apples to oranges for me. Both rotten apples and oranges, mind you, but the latter seems way more likely and substantially to be of consequential harm to the CDPR's bottom line than the former (although, I think there's a long term argument for how the allegations of transphobia will hurt their brand in the future). That's before you get to this odd assumption that CDPR exists in the overlap between transphobic organizations and organizations who hate epileptic people. I'm going to be honest, this is the first I've even heard of or considered the possibility of hating epileptic people. It's a tinfoil mountain of assumptions to think if they hate X they MUST hate Y.
More likely than not, this is probably a downstream consequence of their exploitative labour practices coming back around to bite them in the ass.
