"Because of social justice activism and outside pressure from a society that sees gaming as grotesque, awareness about how exclusionary games are is at critical mass and the industry is scrambling to answer. It has no fucking clue how to market to and include minority members of their community and in the world at large. So when Farmville, Peggle, Candy Crush Saga, and Flappy Bird appeal to this mysterious audience big budget and scrappy indies can’t seem to tap, it’s foul play. They are exploitative and unfair."
Mattie Brice addresses the gaming community's synchronized revulsion to Flappy Bird in her blog, where she observes a link between the tiny one-person project and massive free-to-play empires. I'd add that the fear and loathing "hardcore" gamers feel for "casual" games springs in part from how transparently capitalist those games are, not just for their success in appealing to a broader audience. Their developers directly monetize parts of the experience instead of charging money up front. To people who are used to paying once and playing forever, this feels dishonest and manipulative.
Know what else is dishonest and manipulative? Most trailers. It's unfortunate that the gaming community chooses to hate one method while blithely accepting the other, and Brice attributes much of this to xenophobia - the same xenophobia that sparked a million gatekeeping arguments about what is or is not a game. Anyway, this was a bit of a tangent on the one thing I feel qualified to address here; Brice makes many more keen observations about games' place in society, so, uh, read.