Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Study Debunks Gamer Stereotypes

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the five-more-minutes-ok-mom? dept.

Games 117

Ars Technica reports on a recent study by Ipsos MediaCT which evaluated gamers with respect to a large variety of social parameters. Among their findings: "55 percent of gamers polled were married, 48 percent have kids, and new gamers — those who have started playing videogames in the past two years — are 32 years old on average." Also, "In terms of hard dollars, the average gaming household income ($79,000) is notably higher than that of nongaming households ($54,000), but the value of the gamer as a marketing target can be seen in a variety of ways. 39 percent of gamers said that friends and family rely upon them to stay up-to-date about the latest technology." The press release for the study is available at IGN.

cancel ×

117 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

This honestly makes sense (5, Insightful)

Elros (735454) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493323)

Especially the household income note. While many of us may not see it that way, games are a luxury. They're more likely to be found in a higher income household.

Re:This honestly makes sense (4, Insightful)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493677)

Not the games as much as the equipment to play them on. PC games need a grand for the computer. Consoles want a HDTV. None of that comes cheap.

Re:This honestly makes sense (4, Interesting)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493879)

And the games cost over $50 a piece, that's a luxury to most people. I can take my wife out for dinner, or buy a video game, both for $65 or so but its at the expense of other luxuries.

Re:This honestly makes sense (5, Insightful)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 5 years ago | (#25494039)

Over $50 brand new, but if you can wait a bit most of the popular ones hit $20 or lower. Heck if you can wait longer the older systems can be had at a deal too. A used Gamecube costs like $30 or so. Plenty of (very good) sub-$20 games out there for it too. At those prices almost everyone can afford to play if they want. I think the problem though is that it takes an extreme interest (but very limited funds) already for one to go out and seek the affordable gaming items. You see it more often with low income families buying for their kids, but adults when playing themselves will see the obvious (and current generation) stuff, and if they can't afford it they'll generally just not generate that interest needed to go searching for bargains.

Re:This honestly makes sense (1)

theNetImp (190602) | more than 5 years ago | (#25494251)

Not to mention most video game stores also have plans where you can sell your games and get credit towards purchase of a new games, so some used games that cost $20 may only really cost you $10

Re:This honestly makes sense (3, Informative)

phanboy_iv (1006659) | more than 5 years ago | (#25494433)

I go back even farther. Genesis games can be had for peanuts. And they are far more complex than this Guitar Hero business that my roommates spend large quantities of money on.

Re:This honestly makes sense (2, Insightful)

Hotawa Hawk-eye (976755) | more than 5 years ago | (#25498087)

Be careful, complexity and fun aren't always positively correlated. For instance, Tetris and Solitaire are fairly simple games, but I don't want to guess how many person-centuries have been spent playing those since they came out on computers or game consoles [and I'm just looking at those two as electronic games; the amount of time spent increases significantly, probably to units of person-millenia if you include all the time people spend and spent playing Solitaire with cards.] On the other hand, the standard US tax form 1040 is fairly complex, and I don't think you'd find very many people who would call figuring out the right information to enter on the form fun.

Re:This honestly makes sense (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#25498281)

For that matter, Atari 2600 games are cheap and plentiful. Breakout on the 2600 is still the best of its kind some 30 years later. Pitfall!, Galaxian, Enduro, Missile Command, Warlords, all great games to this day.

Re:This honestly makes sense (1)

unreceivedpacket (1266578) | more than 5 years ago | (#25500771)

It makes me wonder about how the study defines gamers. Hopefully gamers are defined as "people who play games" and not "people who play with the most expensive technology." Why the assumption on the part of slashdotters that gamers must fall into the latter group?

Re:This honestly makes sense (3, Interesting)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 5 years ago | (#25495741)

Correct. I can only think of 3 times where I paid more than $20 to acquire a game. The mega-popular games like Final Fantasy eventually hit the $20 greatest hits mark, and game that are not popular eventually tumble to $10 or $15.

>>>the average gaming household income ($79,000) is notably higher than that of nongaming households ($54,000),

This is surprising to me, since games are supposed to have the most "bang for the buck". $20 nets you 40-50 hours of game. No other form of entertainment provides the same dollar-to-hour ratio. For example a $20 DVD only gives 2-3 hours of enjoyment. I would think games would be more popular with lower-income homes.

Re:This honestly makes sense (1)

adlucem (1158083) | more than 5 years ago | (#25495853)

>>No other form of entertainment provides the same dollar-to-hour ratio.

Save music.

Re:This honestly makes sense (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#25496621)

Pirated songs don't count.

Re:This honestly makes sense (2, Funny)

mmalove (919245) | more than 5 years ago | (#25499727)

I bought this chess board one time...

Actually in theory the game was free, but I had to buy the hardware.

Re:This honestly makes sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25500867)

Average cable television provides much more entertainment hours per dollar than a video game.

Re:This honestly makes sense (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#25497199)

And a nice dinner will last 1, maybe 2 hours. A good game will entertain you for 40-100 hours. Video gaming is the most economical entertainment around.

Re:This honestly makes sense (4, Insightful)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 5 years ago | (#25497535)

The dinner will make my wife happy.

Happy wife trumps hours of entertainment lol.

Re:This honestly makes sense (4, Funny)

Hotawa Hawk-eye (976755) | more than 5 years ago | (#25498161)

Happy wife trumps hours of entertainment lol.

If you're lucky, happy wife provides hours of entertainment.

Re:This honestly makes sense (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 5 years ago | (#25501343)

or 15 mins so I can get back to raiding.

Re:This honestly makes sense (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#25498225)

I'm fortunate to have a girl who'd rather stay home and play video games together. I can cook a great meal for a lot cheaper than any restaurant, and we can smoke all the pot we want while we're at it.

Re:This honestly makes sense (1)

Abreu (173023) | more than 5 years ago | (#25498655)

Yup, a few bucks worth of flowers are a good investment too... even if they last only a couple of days, they buy you some long-lasting marital goodwill

...unless your wife's reaction when you bring unexpected flowers is: "What the fsck did you do now!?"

Re:This honestly makes sense (1)

illumin8 (148082) | more than 5 years ago | (#25497971)

And the games cost over $50 a piece, that's a luxury to most people. I can take my wife out for dinner, or buy a video game, both for $65 or so but its at the expense of other luxuries.

Of course games have a large initial investment, but when you break down the entertainment cost per hour, it is very economical. For a $50 game, I might get 100 hours of enjoyment out of it. That equals 50 cents an hour. Taking my wife out to eat 100 times at $65 each would definitely cost a lot more.

Re:This honestly makes sense (1)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 5 years ago | (#25500699)

You don't know any people who struggle to pay the rent and feed their children too, do you?

The cost per hour of entertainment isn't relevant ... the straight cost is.

Re:This honestly makes sense (2, Insightful)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 5 years ago | (#25501453)

That breaks down to: "Why do the struggle to pay the rent and feed their children?"

I know I can live, pay rent, have a nice car, and a social life on around $10 an hour. I could cut some of that easily to pay for food for a kid. You can make more money that $10 an hour delivering pizza. Perhaps they should evaluate their lifestyle and adjust it to their income.

Sorry not everyone gets whisked off to be the fresh prince of Bel-Air. The sooner you accept your position in life the sooner you can work on improving it. Denying your position and living on credit cards, spending more than you make, and not working an real self improvement will insure a steadily declining lifestyle.

Re:This honestly makes sense (1)

7Prime (871679) | more than 5 years ago | (#25500431)

$65 for dinner for two is kinda on the high end. I can take my girlfriend out to a pretty nice italian place, or a fine Thai restaurant with good food and a good atmosphere... get an appetizer, dinner and wine or tea for not much more than $30 (I do this often). I find that smaller familly-owned ethnic restaraunts offer the best food and atmosphere anyway, are more interesting, and charge much less than big traditionally posh places.

Re:This honestly makes sense (1)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 5 years ago | (#25500811)

$10 a plate for decent dinner food = $20. $5 each for drinks = $30. Taxes + tip and you're already over the estimate you gave me.

No offense if you've actually got a local place that serves quality food and drink for less than $50 a couple, including tax and tip, out the door, but I haven't found any I'd want to eat at a second time.

Re:This honestly makes sense (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 5 years ago | (#25501523)

A local place we go quite often we can have a dinner at about $8-9 a plate (includes chips and 4 kinds of dip, as well as soppapias for dessert) and drinks around $2-3. If we don't drink much at the restaurant we can get out sometimes after tip around $26. And the food is really good New Mexico style Mexican food.

Re:This honestly makes sense (1)

donscarletti (569232) | more than 5 years ago | (#25496389)

Consoles want a HDTV

I have my PS3 hooked up to a cheap-arse Samsung LCD monitor. Previously I had it hooked up to a shitty PAL CRT TV. Either way it is playable and looks a whole lot better than the last generation ever did. I have no idea what person started the whole "you need an HDTV" thing, I mean, if you can see PC games on a monitor, you can certainly play console games with their simpler GUI and more streamlined graphics.

Re:This honestly makes sense (1)

pthor1231 (885423) | more than 5 years ago | (#25496965)

Some things really do need an HDTV if the game was programmed and designed with only an HDTV in mind. For example, Kingdom Under Fire: Circle of Doom is aboslutely HORRIBLE to play on a regular TV, the text was almost impossible to read.

Re:This honestly makes sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25495381)

Especially the household income note. While many of us may not see it that way, games are a luxury. They're more likely to be found in a higher income household.

Odd part about the income figure is the claimed stats on gaming piracy. Is it that they really can't afford them on an $~80K income or do they pirate for more of the "thrill" of it?

Re:This honestly makes sense (1)

Vagnaard (1366015) | more than 5 years ago | (#25500389)

You got it all backward.

These stats are for those who do buy games. Those who pirates are not counted in that survey.

This only serves to prove that those who buy games are those with a good income.

Re:This honestly makes sense (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 5 years ago | (#25495833)

This just in: Hobbies aren't cheap!

That's what gaming is... A hobby. Try buying the equipment for any sport and see if it's cheap. Well, you might get away with a few hundred for some of the really cheap ones... But then, you can do that for gaming, too. Buy a used Nintendo DS and used copies of the oldest games and you can get a lot for $200.

But move into 'core' gaming and you suddenly need an HDTV and a $400 console, plus a bunch of $50 games.

People can say 'it makes sense that only higher-income households are gaming' all they want, but -everyone- has hobbies. The higher-income houses might be more extravagant about it, but it doesn't actually stop everyone else from buying in.

Re:This honestly makes sense (1)

Abreu (173023) | more than 5 years ago | (#25498713)

Try buying the equipment for any sport and see if it's cheap. Well, you might get away with a few hundred for some of the really cheap ones...

That's why the rest of the world plays Football!
(real football, not american football)

Take any small round object (a ball is preferable, but not indispensable), put some stones a couple of meters apart on an alley and get some buddies...

Re:This honestly makes sense (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 5 years ago | (#25501565)

"Take any small round object (a ball is preferable, but not indispensable), put some stones a couple of meters apart on an alley and get some buddies..."

Those are freaking expensive!!!

Re:This honestly makes sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25497367)

BS. Those who cant afford games can just steal them. Cheep hardware can be used to run virtually anything at appropriate performance.

Back in the day I used to play q2 on software rendering (K5) with around 300 ping. Painful? Yes. Of course you take a little you give a little.

I think you are drawing a false cause.

Now... (2, Funny)

TehZorroness (1104427) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493327)

If only I could get laid...

Re:Now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25493459)

That sounds like a personal problem.

Re:Now... (5, Funny)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493671)

I guess you are one of the married ones... :)

Average household income... (1)

TobyWong (168498) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493359)

Average household income... does that include the basement as well or just the main floors?

Re:Average household income... (1)

corsec67 (627446) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493379)

Don't you mean, "does that include floors other than the basement?"

Re:Average household income... (1)

MrMista_B (891430) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493393)

Not sure if English is your first language or not, but I'm pretty sure that what was written, "does that include the basement as well or just the main floors?" is what was meant.

Re:Average household income... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25493435)

you know who else used proper grammar all the time... hitler

Re:Average household income... (1)

AceofSpades19 (1107875) | more than 5 years ago | (#25494181)

godwin's law

Re:Average household income... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25494867)

Actually this would be an example of reductio ad hitlerum :)

Re:Average household income... (1)

mollymoo (202721) | more than 5 years ago | (#25499717)

you know who else used proper grammar all the time... hitler

I didn't know that, but I don't find it surprising. He was a great orator too. Being evil doesn't mean everything you ever do is evil.

Re:Average household income... (1)

corsec67 (627446) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493457)

I was making a (rather poor, apparently) attempt at a joke based on the stereotype that gamers live in the basements of their parents house.

I know that the OP meant exactly what he wrote.

Yeah, English is my first language.

Re:Average household income... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25498879)

He was making the same joke; I think you're just assuming that the gamer is nevertheless making a bunch of money (enough to qualify for that bracket by themselves), while the OP is just asking if they're tipping households over the cutoff.

Re:Average household income... (1)

UberMorlock (1391949) | more than 5 years ago | (#25497333)

Actually, there is a significant difference between the two questions as worded. The original question "Does that include the basement as well or just the main floors?" indicates the main floors are used in the calculation by default AND the basement may be excluded from the calculation by default. The second question "Does that include floors other than the basement?" indicates the basement is used in the calculation by default AND that other floors may be exluded from the calculation by default. So, clearly corsec67 has a much better grasp of the English language than you do.

All Social parameters (0, Troll)

SheepLauncher (1025544) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493391)

This study does not mention a few alarming things: Of Gamers polled 60% did not own deodorant 20% did not know what soap was and wondered if it was some sort of DS accessory. 30% lived in their parents basements 50% have not gotten laid. and these numbers are probably made up. Did u know 87% percent of survey data is made up on the spot!?

Re:All Social parameters (1)

zoefff (61970) | more than 5 years ago | (#25494525)

sometimes gamers themselves create a slightly incorrect image of themselves like this warrior [youtube.com]

I dont believe it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25493463)

Fits my profile exactly!

This creates more questions (bad study) (1, Insightful)

Jack9 (11421) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493479)

What defines a gamer? (maybe it's supposed to be computer gamer?)

The majority of console/computer/card/board gamers are people under 30. This is not even worth refuting as you can simply ask any retail worker in any store. Anywhere.

Where's the data from?
How would you poll gamers who are the extreme antisocial type?
Why is this posted as news when it's obviously wrong? (based on the article claims)

// How many people are PC gamers? board gamers? console gamers? ccg gamers? what is this study even about?

Re:This creates more questions (bad study) (4, Insightful)

Free the Cowards (1280296) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493701)

Right, because retail workers know everything.

Hint: older console gamers may be ordering their stuff online. Or simply making quick in-and-out runs to the store instead of hanging out all the time because they have nothing better to do.

Re:This creates more questions (bad study) (1)

Jack9 (11421) | more than 5 years ago | (#25494189)

For the products there are numbers, the percentage of online sales is under 80% in all cases (that they aren't only available online). The vast majority of games are not available online only. The number of games bought FOR children is nearly impossible to determine except by firsthand knowledge. Retailers see higher numbers and have consistent experience. As per my comment.

Selective confirmation? (5, Insightful)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 5 years ago | (#25494943)

Actually, unless any of those retailers actually did a proper study, you're probably just seeing selective confirmation at work. Selective confirmation works like this: if you really want to believe something, you'll notice all the confirmation, and conveniently forget all the counter-examples.

One prime example of this is, well, all the "women can't drive" machos. Everyone of them can tell you a dozen anecdotes where some woman was driving only 60 in a 50 zone and "holding up the traffic". Everyone of the them is swift to hand-wave an excuse as to why it doesn't count or is just normal, if you point out a guy doing something even more stupid. But the funny thing is, last I saw a statistic from an insurance company (you know, the guys who tally up the accidents because they pay for them and have to adjust their premiums based on it), the average woman caused only _half_ as many accidents per mile driven as the average guy. Actually the absolute worst category isn't the women, it's the very young guys who drive like it proves their penis size. So that skewed perception doesn't actually match reality.

Which is why we do studies and polls, and don't rely on what Jack who works at GameStop remembers offhand.

Additionally, retailers... which retailers? Did you poll all of them? Or what?

Because for example the biggest games retailer in the USA is WallMart, not the mom-and-pop franchises that all the kiddies hang around. For every kid that hangs around EB Games all day and maybe buys a new game every two months, there'll be several moms and pops who get their stuff from WallMart and move on. And a bunch of other people get their games from electronics supermarkets like (at least here) Saturn, MediaMarkt, and the like. You won't see hordes of kids hanging around the aisles there. And I doubt that any given employee at such a big store has the time to hang around and see who takes what off the aisles.

So if you're using some games-only shop as your source, you're looking at a prime representation of the Biased Sample [wikipedia.org] fallacy. What you see is actually just saying what kind of people hang around their shop, not a random sample of gamers as a whole.

It's like having a poll on Slashdot and concluding that 90% of the population are computer-savy nerds, and 50% run linux on the desktop. Or like having a poll on Sony's site and concluding that 4 times more people have a PS3 than a Wii, and 5 times more have a PSP than a DS.

The number of games bought FOR children is nearly impossible to determine except by firsthand knowledge.

Actually that "firsthand knowledge" is skewed again. Especially during the peak of the "games are for children only, and women never play games" mentality, a lot of people and especially women pretended to buy their games for a non-existent kid. Just because that seemed like the more socially acceptable kind of thing.

So unless said employee actually followed that guy/gal home and saw who's playing the game, it is _not_ first hand knowledge of it. It's at best an pretentious ass trying to defend a stereotype.

Re:Selective confirmation? (1)

Jack9 (11421) | more than 5 years ago | (#25495237)

Actually that "firsthand knowledge" is skewed again.

I don't think you understand what firsthand knowledge means. There is no skew in firsthand knowledge since the buyer knows who it's for. Since every method of polling is inaccurate via the Bias Sample fallacy (which it is) why is it any more or less wrong? Where is the study?

So basically... (4, Insightful)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 5 years ago | (#25495357)

So, basically, you just told me that only the buyers know who they buy it for. Yet you insist that studies which actually asked the buyers are wrong, but the perception of some retail employee who didn't is better? Because you just used the latter as some kind of proof or at least hint that the former are BS. I'm not sure I follow that logic, then.

Re:So basically... (1)

Jack9 (11421) | more than 5 years ago | (#25495465)

Yet you insist that studies which actually asked the buyers are wrong

Did not say, much less insist that. You are inferring that is what has happened by the same article that is referencing data without sourcing.

but the perception of some retail employee who didn't is better?

I did say that they are a verifiable source (especially since you can probably find one who does ask). This "study" isn't to be found making it not verifiable. How do you know that the study doesnt consist of asking 1 or 2 retail clerks what they think?

P.S. I'm not sure what your definition of "better" is.

Re:So basically... (2, Insightful)

mr_gorkajuice (1347383) | more than 5 years ago | (#25495959)

Yet you insist that studies which actually asked the buyers are wrong

Did not say, much less insist that.

You didn't? What's this then...

The majority of console/computer/card/board gamers are people under 30. This is not even worth refuting as you can simply ask any retail worker in any store. Anywhere.

Re:So basically... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25497027)

You didn't? What's this then...

Pwned!

Re:Selective confirmation? (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 5 years ago | (#25496163)

There is no skew in firsthand knowledge since the buyer knows who it's for.

No skew, but a very small sample size.

Re:Selective confirmation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25495531)

Apart from all that, there is also a fairly obvious explication why the average game buyer is above 30. Pupils and students simply don't have the money to spend on expensive crap like nowadays games.

Re:This creates more questions (bad study) (5, Insightful)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493895)

The majority of console/computer/card/board gamers are people under 30. This is not even worth refuting as you can simply ask any retail worker in any store. Anywhere.

You have numbers to back that up? These studies show again and again that those presuppositions are NOT in fact true, that gaming is not any longer a pre-college thing so much as an adult pass-time.

Re:This creates more questions (bad study) (1)

Jack9 (11421) | more than 5 years ago | (#25494231)

My numbers are as real as theirs except ANYONE can get corraboration through any convenient outlet. As per my comment. Where's the actual study? Seeing the study should reveal the inherent bias/misinterpretation that leads to these _ridiculous_ claims.

Re:This creates more questions (bad study) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25495307)

Let me guess, you polled one worker at a retail store to reach your conclusion.

Yourself.

Re:This creates more questions (bad study) (1)

Etrias (1121031) | more than 5 years ago | (#25497321)

My numbers are as real as theirs except ANYONE can get corraboration through any convenient outlet.

What numbers are you talking about? You have no numbers. As far as I see, you have an opinion, backed up by no data or even your precious "firsthand knowledge". You're like the guy who keeps saying a falsehood over and over again in hopes that it will convince someone that it is, in fact, the truth.

The IGN article is not the actual study, but a press release about the study. Here's their methodology:

Research was conducted in two phases, a quantitative overview of gaming households among the U.S. online population, and a follow-up qualitative deep dive among the key segments in the gaming market.

The quantitative research was conducted in June 2008 by Ipsos MediaCT, the technology, media and entertainment division of Ipsos. Approximately 3,000 respondents completed the 25-minute online survey among an online representative population of 12- to 54-year-olds. Respondents qualified based on whether they owned a modern gaming console, handheld system, or a PC/Mac that is used to play games.

Follow-up qualitative research was conducted by Ipsos Understanding UnLtd. in August 2008. Three focus groups were carried out in Los Angeles, immediately followed by three in-home ethnographies to further assess how videogames are incorporated within the household.

If you want the actual study, why don't you contact Ipsos and get it. You clamor for firsthand knowledge...they conducted interviews with respondents in their own homes! How much more firsthand can you get?

If that's not enough for you, here's my firsthand information. I've been playing videogames since there were videogames, starting with Pong. In the MMO I play the most now, we took a poll in our forum of player age and the average age was in the low 40s. My last five game purchases were online. The last time I bought from somewhere like EB, it was a release day and everyone in line that day was around my age. Of my friends who play games, about half of them have got their significant others to play with them.

In my firsthand experience, even though there are friends of mine in their 20s who play games, there are greater numbers (not overwhelming, just greater) of gamers in their 30s. This is the generation who first grew up on games. I don't know why that number would sound so weird.

Re:This creates more questions (bad study) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25497699)

The majority of console/computer/card/board gamers are people under 30. This is not even worth refuting as you can simply ask any retail worker in any store. Anywhere.

You have numbers to back that up? These studies show again and again that those presuppositions are NOT in fact true, that gaming is not any longer a pre-college thing so much as an adult pass-time.

That's only because the pre-college kids kept aging, but many decided not to give up their gaming. I learned D&D from my Dad. True story, it's been around long enough that D&D nerds now have adult children (I'm in my late 20s). People should think about that for a second before they tout the "basement virgin" stereotype.

Re:This creates more questions (bad study) (5, Informative)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 5 years ago | (#25494197)

Where's the data from?

      Since my wife is the market research manager for Latin America for a 'Fortune 500' company, I am quite familiar with Ipsos [ipsos-na.com] . They do all sorts of market research, and are among the best in their field. Of course without seeing the actual design of the study neither she nor I can comment on how accurate the information is, but knowing how this company works I assume they are not pulling numbers out of their backsides. They usually don't, unlike other market research firms I could mention.

Re:This creates more questions (bad study) (2, Informative)

Drasil (580067) | more than 5 years ago | (#25494267)

I'm 35 and an avid (Linux) gamer. I don't go into game shops because: they don't sell Linux games, they don't sell the kinds of games I like, they try and sell me stuff I don't want, they are full of annoying kids (often that includes the staff). Come to think of it I don't think many of my game playing friends go into those shops either.

Re:This creates more questions (bad study) (1)

Jack9 (11421) | more than 5 years ago | (#25494535)

Here's some other "studies" that also have no data on how they came about their age demographic numbers:

http://www.e-strategyblog.com/2005/10/demographics_of.html [e-strategyblog.com] (35% under 18)
http://www.igame2.com/community/demographics/ [igame2.com] (40% under 18)

Re:This creates more questions (bad study) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25494873)

The ESA has now another study for 2008... and under 18 fell to 25%. Bye bye kids! (And if you asking yourself why this sudden drop, then look no further than the Wii. That console certainly brought a lot of adults to gaming.)

Re:This creates more questions (bad study) (4, Interesting)

jonaskoelker (922170) | more than 5 years ago | (#25495123)

This creates more questions (bad study)

Generating questions is not itself a sign of a bad study.

Generating questions about the study is (often) a bad thing; it means the article is unclear or lacks information.

Generating questions about reality is (often) a good thing; it means there's more science to be done because there's rich system of causality and "moving parts" beneath the surface. IOW, there is a "there" there.

[and if I had actually read more than the summary, I might have chimed in with my opinion on whether it is indeed a bad study].

-- Jonas K

Re:This creates more questions (bad study) (1)

Jack9 (11421) | more than 5 years ago | (#25495259)

Title was too short to include "(study is false on it's lack of face)". I'm still looking for the ACTUAL findings, instead of this glorified summary that may be completely made up for (insert alternate purpose).

Re:This creates more questions (bad study) (1)

mr_gorkajuice (1347383) | more than 5 years ago | (#25496077)

Ahhhh right, I get it now. You don't understand why we don't give your assumptions more credit than their summary. Well, why don't we indeed...

This is not even worth refuting as you can simply ask any retail worker in any store. Anywhere.

I'm still looking for the ACTUAL findings, instead of this glorified summary

Often wrong but never in doubt.

I personally like the last quote the best ;)

Re:This creates more questions (bad study) (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 5 years ago | (#25496189)

study is false on it's lack of face

I'd run that through babelfish, but I can't work out what language it's supposed to be.

Re:This creates more questions (bad study) (1)

Catil (1063380) | more than 5 years ago | (#25495225)

It might be accurate if the study was conducted in Florida.

Hardcore gamers insist that only they qualify. (1)

EWAdams (953502) | more than 5 years ago | (#25496417)

They don't like to hear that grandma at the nursing home who plays gin rummy on Yahoo is a gamer. But the opinions of hardcore gamers are getting to be less and less important as the market expands. Grandma is seeing the ads that pay for gin rummy, and that's what counts.

"Gamer" no longer refers to an elite group of nerds with too much time on their hands. It means anybody who plays computer and video games (and mobile phone games, and handheld games, and...), because that's where the money comes from.

Re:This creates more questions (bad study) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25496791)

See kids, this is what happens when you don't RTFA.

Ahem...the study was called, "The Changing Face of Videogamers" So obviously it was about people who play Cribbage. *insert eye-roll*

Why do you continue to post when you're obviously an idiot?

Re:This creates more questions (bad study) (1)

ucblockhead (63650) | more than 5 years ago | (#25499509)

I'm a forty-three year old who buys 2-3 games a month and rarely, if ever, goes to a retail establishment because they are full of snot-nosed kids and moronic employees. Why go to Gamestop when I can get them delivered to my house with Amazon, or through Steam?

Re:This creates more questions (bad study) (1)

mollymoo (202721) | more than 5 years ago | (#25500637)

The majority of console/computer/card/board gamers are people under 30. This is not even worth refuting as you can simply ask any retail worker in any store. Anywhere.

The only time I've ever actually queued for a game was for GTA4 on release day. Plenty of kids and 20-somethings in the shop, but the people in the queue - you know, the people actually buying something - were more mature. Younger people hang about in game shops and occasionally buy something, more mature people are far more likely to have better things to do, know exactly what they want and be in and out in three minutes.

I wouldn't classify people who only own a console. (4, Funny)

DragonTHC (208439) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493551)

those who only own one or two consoles wouldn't really qualify as a gamer in my book.

You would need to own at least two consoles and a handheld or just a PC to be a gamer in my book.

And that average income is way above mine. I've been a gamer for 27 years. I don't make that much money.

Re:I wouldn't classify people who only own a conso (4, Funny)

DragonTHC (208439) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493575)

and people who own just a wii are automatically disqualified.

Re:I wouldn't classify people who only own a conso (3, Funny)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 5 years ago | (#25493705)

and people who own just a wii are automatically disqualified.

Or at least embarrassed in the locker room...

Re:I wouldn't classify people who only own a conso (1)

theNetImp (190602) | more than 5 years ago | (#25494397)

ouch.....

Re:I wouldn't classify people who only own a conso (1)

mr_gorkajuice (1347383) | more than 5 years ago | (#25495977)

And people who thinks like you do need to stop thinking about gaming as a religion, and start thinking about it as a passtime.

Re:I wouldn't classify people who only own a conso (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#25496555)

Blasphemy!

Re:I wouldn't classify people who only own a conso (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25497473)

those who only own one or two consoles wouldn't really qualify as a gamer in my book.

You would need to own at least two consoles and a handheld or just a PC to be a gamer in my book.

And that average income is way above mine. I've been a gamer for 27 years. I don't make that much money.

Honestly, I don't consider myself to be a gamer. It's good to know the rest of the world doesn't, either. All I do is play Warhammer Online, occasionally random games on my iPod Touch and/or GBA (yes, that's GBA, not the cool dual-screen DS), and whatever the latest Final Fantasy happens to be. I only own ONE console, the PS2.

PS.. I'm 27 and my b/f is 30, we both make 6 figures (individually, not combined). So, the "average" income may be more accurate than you think, being as it's an average, and all.

!correlationisnotcausation (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25493833)

Everyone single person who tagged this article with "correlationisnotcausation" is irredeemably retarded, as nowhere in the article is any such implication made. These mouth-breathing losers were in such a rush to show Slashdot what intelligent critical thinkers they are that they couldn't be bothered to actually act intelligent or think critically.

And yes, you illiterate cretins, that IS the only possible reason you used that tag. You'll tell us and yourselves that it isn't, but literally everyone knows that you're lying. So go ahead and pretend that you're not shrieking at your monitors right now in petulant, impotent rage at having your stupidity exposed. You won't fool anyone, but go on and try anyway.

Re:!correlationisnotcausation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25494779)

It looks like you are angry. Have you tried masturbating recently?

Re:!correlationisnotcausation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25496339)

Clippy is that you?

Really? The stereotypes are gone? (2, Funny)

thesymbolicfrog (907527) | more than 5 years ago | (#25494213)

I don't think they'll ever truly be *gone* until a few more choose to, uh... "de-bunk" from parents' basements.

Oooh! Burn!

Who is the audience of this study? (4, Insightful)

davidfromoz (801492) | more than 5 years ago | (#25494625)

If you believe that gamers use games to stay up to date on new technology you'll believe anything.

The only thing a study that says gamers are wealthy and more likely to invest in new technology and movie tickets confirms is that IGN would like to attract advertisers.

Re:Who is the audience of this study? (1)

Etrias (1121031) | more than 5 years ago | (#25497545)

If you believe that gamers use games to stay up to date on new technology you'll believe anything.

There was some truth to this at one point. Not so many years ago, I'd know with precision which chipset was better than another because of how it performed the games I was playing at the time. This was also around the time I'd play with the MTU settings to get the most out of my connection.

But now, there's little real need. I tend to buy games on their promise of fun, not on their blistering requirements or "mind-blowing" visual effects (is it weird that it's always the visual component?). My PC is still home-brew, but I don't put in the time into knowing the specs like I did. The need to just isn't there anymore.

Games are "becoming" a social activity? (5, Interesting)

William Baric (256345) | more than 5 years ago | (#25494975)

"there's no question that gaming has very much become more a social activity than a solitary one"

I wonder how old is the guy who made that comment. When I was a kid, video games were mostly a social activity. I don't remember going much to the arcade alone and most console games were fun only when played against someone else or at least trying to beat his high score. With games like Baseball or Sea Battle for the Intellivision there was no single player mode at all!

Re:Games are "becoming" a social activity? (1)

edcheevy (1160545) | more than 5 years ago | (#25495405)

No, the games of our youth were social activities with other gamers, so that didn't count as real social activity. When they say "becoming social" they're referring to all the non-gamers who are playing these days. And who are now considered gamers...

*head explodes*

Re:Games are "becoming" a social activity? (5, Insightful)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 5 years ago | (#25496445)

Why do so many people keep arguing that gaming is not a real social activity unless non-gamers are involved? Are sports also disqualified as a social activity because non-sport fans dislike taking part or talking about sports? Talk about a double standard here.

Average Age? (1)

ocop (1132181) | more than 5 years ago | (#25497155)

I wonder if all of these wonderful statistics (more dates, more sports, more movies) could be confounded with the average age of gamers? If the demographic skews younger the correlation with gaming isn't necessarily causation.

Stay up to date on tech... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25497361)

... I think that has to do with the high internet usage of gamers. It starts as a place to get FAQS... then they find gaming news sites. Then tech news sites. Then the passwords to the FBI databases. Then they make a volcano lair and hold the world hostage with a single nuke. Then they get shot by James Bond. Then James bond makes a witty comment. Then the credits roll. Then the audience gets out of the theatre and stops at the bathroom...

You can see where I'm going with this. Please tell me.

Wii players != Gamers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25498015)

Wii players != Gamers

Where do they come from? (1)

KingAlanI (1270538) | more than 5 years ago | (#25498613)

Now, I wonder what *leads* to the gamer stereotypes: I'd guess *that* has something to do with the common herd's disdain for intellectuals

LIES! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25499903)

Quote:
If you believe that gamers use games to stay up to date on new technology you'll believe anything.
EndQuote.

oh really. really? you wanna play?

Well to play Crysis Warhead at about 40-50 Frames Per Second on my soon to be:

24 inch monitor with 2ms response time in 1900x1440 ill need a:
wicked video card like Nvidia's new 280 which was 650 bucks until ati came out with:
the 4870 x2 (550 bucks) which runs hotter (and takes 6 pin and 8 pin power) but has a 2GB proc (new record!), but it's ok because if you bump up the fan speed from 26-27 percent to around 60 you should be getting around 60C under load with air cooling, but to fit the thing in a case you might need:
an antec 1200 case that comes with 4 fans installed and 2 extra to replace possible faulty ones, but it will fit anything because it's an atx full tower and you'll be able to see my:
motherboard - im still deciding because evga comes out with some shady drivers and a lot of people prefer:
asus with their rampage x48 that has tons of room for cooling that hot card because their PCI express 2.0 slots are spaced really far apart.
2x velociraptor 150gb drives in raid 0 to run my GAMES super-fast with:
2x seagate 1.5tb drives in raid 1 (because losing that much data could make a dolphin cry, i hear), all this data will be processed by:
my intel Q9650 which i can get to 3.6 ghz with a Zalman aftermarket heatsink/fan or up to (rumor has it) 4.2 and up with water cooling. This is awesome because it has a E0 modifier instead of the C0 and with a FSB of 1333 mhz can keep up with my:
corsair (4x2gb) gddr3 1333 mhz ram. 8gigs FTW to install
windows ult 64 bit that's been tweaked with Vlite to be streamlined for my awesome awesome games.

what was my point? oh yes, you suck and if you want to GAME you have to research, overclock, driver updates, patches, installs, mods, forum hop, maps, strats, char builds, stat trees, release dates, reviews, previews ::foaming from the mouth with gamer joy::

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>