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!

TV's Missing Men Still Flocking To Games?

simoniker posted more than 10 years ago | from the battle-of-the-mediums dept.

Television 94

Thanks to Ad Age for its article discussing the young male demographic's move away from television and towards videogames. The article notes: "Some 32 million 18- to 34-year-old males constitute the mother lode for a vast array of marketers. That's about one-quarter of the total U.S. male population", and goes on to quote an advertising executive as suggesting: "Games have bigger viewership numbers than The Sopranos." Also of note is a referenced Codemasters survey, which "...found that 32% of gamers were over 30 and 47% were in their 20s. It was the latest data to confirm that video gaming, once almost exclusively associated with teenagers, has become a mainstream interest that is dramatically altering the pattern of media consumption by men."

cancel ×


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

maybe now.. (2, Insightful)

JohnLi (85427) | more than 10 years ago | (#8021677)

journalists will understand "violent" video games a bit more. They are dealing with a mature demographic. Or, at least we know that companies trying to make a buck will continue to do so even with the protests.

Have Them Join Us (2, Insightful)

ajax0187 (615355) | more than 10 years ago | (#8021831)

What the journalists really need is to start playing the games themselves. I imagine the major news outlets will change their tune when their reporters start playing these games and find that they AREN'T turning into homocidal serial rapists, but instead that these games are [GASP] fun.

Of course, if all the reporters of The New York Post suddenly find themselves playing CounterStrike during their working hours, big loss ^_^.

Re:Have Them Join Us (4, Insightful)

Incoherent07 (695470) | more than 10 years ago | (#8022763)

I've noticed that the mass media in general has NO idea about anything concerning video games. They consider them a curiosity, a destabilizing element in our country's youth, or simply a pastime that's not worth reporting on. By and large, they're not much better with computer-related stories, unless it's on the business end.

Why is it that scientific stories generally have "science correspondents", weather reports are made by actual meteorologists, and even political stories are made by people who watch politics closely, but video gaming stories are reported by whatever clueless hack happens to be open at the moment?

Re:Have Them Join Us (1)

Teancom (13486) | more than 10 years ago | (#8023161)

Well, for most people, the weather and who is running the country is more relevant and important than a story about the latest video game. But you're right: video games, 4H, and after-school plays should all get dedicated reporters that do nothing but follow them.

Re:Have Them Join Us (1)

Incoherent07 (695470) | more than 10 years ago | (#8023705)

Cute. And I suppose movies and music are also more relevant and important. If video games are a form of entertainment, they're as relevant as other forms of entertainment.

Re:Have Them Join Us (1)

Teancom (13486) | more than 10 years ago | (#8024031)

And I suppose movies and music are also more relevant and important.

Um, yes? Because:

If video games are a form of entertainment, they're as relevant as other forms of entertainment.

is demonstratably untrue. Old people are entertained by feeding pidgeons at the park. My toddler is entertained by banging pots together. Some people are entertained by jumping out of perfectly-working airplanes. There are a lot of people entertained in a lot of different ways. Just because gaming is your favorite one doesn't mean that it's special.

I work in a programming group at a tech company: if anyone is going to have a preponderance of gamers, it'd be us, right? Except out of a group of 7 people, we have three that don't game at all, three that are very casual gamers (own consoles because of the kids, play a game or two a month), and one guy with no kids that owns an x-box and buys a few games a month.

Contrast that with movies/tv/music. We have an unofficial 'monday morning movie review' where we talk about what movies we saw over the weekend. A lot of our conversation during the week is regarding television shows that we watch. And we are constantly giving each other cd's to check out (by constantly, I mean about twice a week). I'm going to go out on a limb and hypothesize that in a non-geek group in a non-tech company, gaming would be of even less relevance.

Please note that I'm not knocking gaming as a pasttime. I used to be really into it (on the c64, and later on MUDs), and still enjoy a good game every once in a while. But there's simply no getting around the fact that for the majority of America, the latest gaming news is not as relevant as the weather, politics, the latest movies, or whats on T.V. That will change, within the next 10-20 years, as the nintendo generation continues to get older, but for now it's the truth.

Re:maybe now.. (2, Interesting)

bigman2003 (671309) | more than 10 years ago | (#8022015)

I haven't watched television in about a year. DVD's yes- TV, no. I don't miss it.

Yesterday I was playing tennis, and told everyone I had to leave by 11:00. They all asked "what's the hurry, the game doesn't come on until 12:00".

First, I had no idea what "the game" was. Second, I thought it was sad that they scheduled their day around the television schedule. The same group of guys changed our Monday tennis to Tuesday during football season, so they could watch Monday Night Football.

But I did tell them that "yeah- I gotta go home, and shower and stuff to be ready in time for the game". Sad, I *almost* thought I needed to know what the game was, just to fit in- but I really truly don't give a damn about whatever the hell they were talking about. On the other hand, no reason to stick out like a sore thumb, and get into the whole "I don't watch sports" discussion with 7 guys that are rabid fans.

But for me- it was because I was scheduled to play in a Links 2004 tournament on Xbox Live that started at 11:30. That's the 'game' I was talking about.

Hopefully I'll never go back to watching television. For me, I hate to see the same stupid projects on HGTV every Sunday morning- because sadly, that was about all I was interested in. And for my daughter, while I am definetly not an over-protective parent, I don't think that 5 hours a day of MTV is good for a 13 year old. My wife on the other hand loved things like Lifetime, and other stupid drama channels. She is probably the one most affected by not having TV- not surprising after reading the article regarding programming aimed at women.

Re:maybe now.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8022269)

Key words I noticed from above:
"group of guys"

Key words I noticed to be missing from above:

Shunning an entire form of media based just on the medium alone doesn't make you an enlightened elitist -- it makes you an ignorant asshole. Its fine that you don't follow popular culture, but its not as if you've risen to some higher plane dude .. you're still scheduling your day around a golf video game.

Re:maybe now.. (1)

bigman2003 (671309) | more than 10 years ago | (#8023022)

True- they are not my 'friends'. They are a group of guys that I play tennis with. They belong to the same tennis club that I do, and that is how we get together. Just because they have the same interest (tennis) and same schedule (Saturday and Sunday morning at 9:00 am) does not mean that we are friends. I do have a lot of friends, but I don't consider them friends merely because the coincidences that led up to our meeting. In fact, I really don't fit in with the group at all- as I mentioned, for one, they are into sports while I have no interest at all.

My comments were meant to be ironic. Here I was, somewhat judging them for their scheduling a day around sports on TV, while I have my pathetic little video game to play. I understand the irony, and hypocrisy in those two thoughts.

I think that people on Slashdot are very quick to judge- usually to point out how stupid other people are, and make themselves look smarter.

Re:maybe now.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8023061)

well, yes, Slashdotters are quick to judge.

Usually we only have a few written sentences to form an opinion of the poster, and a persons pre-concieved notions do come into play.

Re:maybe now.. (1)

Acidic_Diarrhea (641390) | more than 10 years ago | (#8022900)

"Second, I thought it was sad that they scheduled their day around the television schedule."
More or less sad than scheduling your life around an online golf tournament? People enjoy different forms of entertainment. Why be so pompous and act like yours is so much better than others?

Re:maybe now.. (0)

TechniMyoko (670009) | more than 10 years ago | (#8028513)

he wasnt scheduling his life around an online golf tournament, he scheduled his life for a day around a real life tennis game

Everytime I watch TV (1)

MNNM (685068) | more than 10 years ago | (#8026723)

which has been rarely of late, since I don't have one at home, I start itching for the forward button.

Zapping just doesn't cut it :(

SCO's Missing Men Still Flocking to Lunix? (-1, Offtopic)

Mr. Darl McBride (704524) | more than 10 years ago | (#8021747)

I sure hope not.

I surely hope not.

~ Darl

I'm not surprised (5, Insightful)

Quixotic Raindrop (443129) | more than 10 years ago | (#8021756)

It seems to me that the generation that is now in its 30s and late 20s is the generation that the phrase "video gaming, once almost exclusively associated with teenagers" used to describe. All that happened is that while the media wasn't paying any attention, the home console video game generation grew up. Or, at least, grew older. Does this really surprise anyone?

Re:I'm not surprised (3, Interesting)

*weasel (174362) | more than 10 years ago | (#8022321)

It surprises anyone who still clings to the idea that gaming is the domain of children. Those people would assume that players of the Atari and ColecoVision would have 'put away childish things' by now. The same way previous generations did with cartoons, action figures, puppets and comic books.

The truth is that gaming as a form of expression has largely matured with them.

Older gamers aren't playing Tron any more often than boomers catch a classic disney flick - mostly they are finding new games with content that appeals to their matured taste. The more complex stories and nuance that mature society has historically turned to theatre, and later film to find (that they didn't find in puppet-shows and cartoons) - are being made in modern computer games.

This could change of course, if the "won't anyone think of the children?" reactionaries successfully kill the idea of a legitimate M or AO game title.

Re:I'm not surprised (3, Interesting)

Captain Rotundo (165816) | more than 10 years ago | (#8022592)

The sad part is I feel I have matured far more than the games have. I have a very difficult time finding "good" games with strong mature sorylines.

Too ofter "mature" means sex and violence, and "story" just doesnt mean anything.

Even critically acclaimed games have yet to reach the consistancy of say Hollywood in the story department. You may hate Hollywood "re-tread" story lines but at least they are cohesive (maybe thats why they are re-used so often)

I recently played "Enternal Darkness" which was an OK game with a very mediocre story, but for crying out loud it felt like they just forgot about the end, at one point there is a random knock on the door and a package is left for you with an item you need! This doesnt even jive with the explaination of what happend to said item, and feels like the designers just said "fuck it I don't want to spend the time explaining where this is, lets jsut give it to them!" - it takes you out of the games illusion completely and leaves you asking "why?"

Lets not even get to the problem of games often feeling like they lead you around by the nose rather than you leading them. Isn't it an interactive media? I often get the feeling that the industry has mastered puzzle games, and button mashers the why the film industry had mastered sound, and black and white, but for some reason when it comes to color no one can figure out what to do with it.

Re:I'm not surprised (1)

ronfar (52216) | more than 10 years ago | (#8023050)

Recently, I was reading an article on the development of Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time. In the article, they explained that they had some of the stuff they cut out because they ran out of time. Fortunately, it seems to me that they managed to keep the story line intact.

However, I'll bet in the case of Eternal Darkness, which I haven't played that much, that the plot hole you ran into was because of something like this. Maybe originally there was a whole level you had to go through to get the object in question. Time got short, so they went with "Mysterious Delivery."

Re:I'm not surprised (1)

Ian_Bailey (469273) | more than 10 years ago | (#8023222)

This is actually exactly what happened. Dennis Dyack was interviewed awhile after ED came out, and he spoke of 2 or 3 'extra' chapters that bridges some of the gaps that were apparent in the last bit of the game. Specifically, there was originally a greater connection between the firefighter and Alex Roivas.

Re:I'm not surprised (1)

StocDred (691816) | more than 10 years ago | (#8024046)

Wasn't it from the firefighter? As I recall, the cutscene shows him with the package, and then knock, knock the package appears on your doorstep. Yeah, that's a bit rushed and obviously Silicon Knights intended a bit more, but it's certainly not a game-killer.

Re:I'm not surprised (1)

Golias (176380) | more than 10 years ago | (#8031868)

For all the controversy, the stories behind GTA3 and GTA-VC are very entertaining... better than a lot of crime movies I've seen in the last 10 years.

Re:I'm not surprised (1)

TwistedSquare (650445) | more than 10 years ago | (#8023346)

cartoons, action figures, puppets and comic books

Interestingly, two of those are art forms that, while generally considered childish, certainly have mature alternatives (e.g. The Simpsons). Maybe video games are similar, but with more mature than childish options?

Blatant Errors? (4, Interesting)

Ian_Bailey (469273) | more than 10 years ago | (#8021799)

hard-core players who prefer first-person-player games like Nintendo's "Final Fantasy" series which takes 100 hours to complete

Now, I can understand someone not understanding what a 'first-person' game is.

But thinking Nintendo makes Final Fantasy? That's either a testament to the strength of the Nintendo brand, the weakness of Square-Enix (in North America, anyways), the inability of the writer to look up a simple detail, or some combination of the three.

Re:Blatant Errors? (1)

k_187 (61692) | more than 10 years ago | (#8022574)

I'd say a little bit of all three, since Nintendo published the first Final Fantasy Game in America.

Re:Blatant Errors? (1)

AvantLegion (595806) | more than 10 years ago | (#8023182)

But the original Final Fantasy certainly didn't take 100 hours to complete. :)

Re:Blatant Errors? (1)

exick (513823) | more than 10 years ago | (#8024433)

Incidentally, what do you suppose he means by "first-person-player games"?

First-person (1)

Ian_Bailey (469273) | more than 10 years ago | (#8024768)

I think his mistake is he is thinking of narrative instead of visual.

In books, a 'first-person' narrative is inside the head of one of characters, seeing things as they see. This is what most writers (even article writers) know, and probably what he was thinking of. Most modern Final Fantasies have some kind of thoughts of the male hero displayed to the player. In that sense, he is correct.

However, many games with a narrative do this, putting the player in the role of the principle character. This is necessary to give the player the control over the character's actions they require. This is not entirely obvious to an 'outsider' who may be more used to traditional forms of narrative. A third-person narrative in a written story is much more common then it is in video games.

In gaming, 'first-person' usually refers to perspective, as in the screen shows what the character in the game would be seeing. This is compared to third-person perspectives, such as FF, where you can see the main character you are controlling. This jargon has no analogue in writing or acting and has different uses in film, so I can understand why a writer would use it in the narrative sense even though in gaming circles is typically refers to the perspective.

Re:First-person (1)

exick (513823) | more than 10 years ago | (#8025392)

Well, that part I understood. I knew he wasn't referring to the visual perspective of the game but rather to the narrative perspective. What I was wondering, though, is the bit about "-player". Most people can discern what first-person games means, but why "first-person-player"?

Hmm. (1)

prufrax (521403) | more than 10 years ago | (#8021800)

Nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of programmes that are on the telly during primetime then.

Re:Hmm. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8039386)

"programmes"? "telly"? mean that British TV is just as bad as what we get in the US?

That's it, we're all doomed.

Explains the shift towards female-oriented TV (4, Insightful)

redelm (54142) | more than 10 years ago | (#8021810)

If men are MIA, then TV writers and producers have to go after women to keep their eyeball score (ratings, share) in the profitable range.

I've noticed a shift towards programming to attract female audiences over the past ~10 years. There always has been some, just as there is some directed programming for males. But the shift is not just in female oriented networks (Lifetime), but also in mainstream broadcast programming. Some of this gets extreme. [] - pardon the commercial reference.

Re:Explains the shift towards female-oriented TV (3, Funny)

JohnLi (85427) | more than 10 years ago | (#8021904)

You sure you didn't just get a girlfriend who makes you watch the decorating shows? As far as i've read lately, tv execs are going after our lucrative young male audience.

Re:Explains the shift towards female-oriented TV (2, Interesting)

wizarddc (105860) | more than 10 years ago | (#8021950)

What you propose is actually kind of the opposite of the way I heard this situation described. It wasn't the case that since men were tuning out, they switched their programming lineups to more women oriented programming, but the constant portrayal of men as ignoramuses and mornons who couldn't function in society without their strong willed, intelligent wives wasn't copasetic with the idea of what men thought of themselves. More estrogen filled prime time tv, including shows about dating and marriage, only alienated the majority of the men that these major tv's execs were really going after. Somehow, somewhere, these television bosses decided to turn their attention towards women, probably because of some poll or research that showed tv was too male oriented. Now that the pendulum has swung the other way, they're panicing, and are trying to find where all the good ole boys went. Where we went wasn't away from tv, but away from shows that weren't even conceived for us to like or watch. If they simply made tv either for men or just not so feamle leaning, we would probably watch again. But changing the perception of guys who have already turned off the cable box and turned on the PS2 will be hard, no matter how much Spike TV (The FIRST network For Men) or the like get's shoved down our throats. I wonder how the vierwership of ESPN has gone over the same timespan they found us not watching Everyone Loves Raymond?

C.f. Christina Hoff Sommers, Peter R. Breggin, MD (1, Interesting)

mosel-saar-ruwer (732341) | more than 10 years ago | (#8022325)

Some of this gets extreme. - pardon the commercial reference.


Christina Hoff Sommers,

the work of Peter R. Breggin, MD [] [e.g. Talking Back to Ritalin]

While you're at it, you might also throw in a healthy dose of Barbara Dafoe Whitehead & Laura Schlessinger.

This past summer, I damn near got in a fist fight with one of these Stalinist university professors; we were at a dinner party, and I remarked that our society is becoming more tyrannical as it becomes more feminine, and then quickly corrected myself to say that, no, that's not entirely fair to women - it's becoming more tyrannical as it becomes more feminist. Apparently this offended his little lady friend so much that we almost came to blows over it. [As an aside, is there anything more oppressive than trying to coexist with people who spend their entire lives in a perpetual state of offendedness?]

There's some dude here at Slashdot who's sig is a Ennio Flaiano quote - "Fascists divide in two categories: the fascists and the anti-fascists." It's impossible to describe these people more accurately than that.

Re:Explains the shift towards female-oriented TV (2, Informative)

Lord_Dweomer (648696) | more than 10 years ago | (#8025372)

" I've noticed a shift towards programming to attract female audiences over the past ~10 years."

Actually, I saw a very interesting show on this very topic. It was the Donny Deutsch show. For those of you who don't know who Mr. Deutsch is, he owns the massive Deutsch ad agency. He's kind of thought of as a rockstar in the advertising industry.

On the show, they had very prominent speaks from TV Guide, and from other places talking about how studies have shown that women make most of the spending decisions in a relationship, and thus, woman as a majority have more spending power. So in response, networks are gearing their shows towards women in hopes of drawing in advertising dollars from people who want women to see their ads.

I also just read a fascinating (albeit brief) article in the New York Times Magazine about the success of Cartoon Network, especially with Aqua Teen Hunger Force. Apparently, the grass roots feel of it, and the type of humor appeals to the "missing demographic", and men 18-35 (as have I) have been flocking there in droves. What this is leading to is a further segmentation of demographics that are reachable with one message. So before, you could just advertise on Fox if you wanted that demographic. Now if you really want them, you're going to have to advertise on Cartoon Network, but then your other audience, of women 18-35 for example, would not be reached.

I work in advertising, and I feel that these things are all contributing. Games are a rising area for this demographic. So are magazines. But the overall trend is into more specific marketing segments.

Perhaps tv needs to realize we moved on. (4, Interesting)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 10 years ago | (#8021832)

I don't think there is anything really wrong with tv programs. There are enough shows I would want to watch except for two tiny little things.

One is to do with the tv schedule. The computer has changed the way I do my entertaining/time wasting. I want it when I want it. It is not really even a want. It is more like I see a program I might like to watch and then totally forget to turn the tv on in time. Of course it doesn't help that were once I had the tv on as background noise I now have to turn it off in disgust when their is some reality show before what I want to watch and even hearing it in the background irritates me. There is at the moment only 1 program that I watch and that is "have I got news for you" on the bbc. Nothing else. Not that I don't wanna watch but I simply forget.

I have been hearing since I was a little kid about on demand tv. First machines I seen used tapes to give you an idea how old it is. Yet it never happened. No demand the networks said. Nope people didn't demand it. I don't demand it. I simply don't watch your product anymore.

There is a group to whom I belong that tv just can't seem to reach anymore. I never liked programs like gameshows but when they where half-shows I could at least tolerate them. If in a group I would watch it with half an eye. Shows like Idols I can't stand. Wich means I have the tv off and won't watch the program I might be intrestted in afterwards since I am now doing something else.

So tv networks can do three things. Whine and die, aim at other groups, win us back. 1 is what they will do, 2 is what they should do, 3 is what they haven't got a chance in hell of doing.

Oh and cutting back on the number of ads wouldn't hurt either. Don't have 10x$1000 ads. Have 1x$100.000 ads. Same money less channel hopping.

Re:Perhaps tv needs to realize we moved on. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8021899)

Sounds like you need a Replay (or Tivo).

There are plenty of good shows out there, but who can be bothered with the History Channels scheduling of WW2 documentaries at 9 AM on Saturday mornings? (or any other show at any other time for that matter)

Since I've had my Replay, the number of TV shows that I watch has gone up, however the time that I spend in front of the boob tube has dropped. ITs been a Win-Win situation. (Even better since I dn't have to sit through mindless commercials every 8 minutes too)

Re:Perhaps tv needs to realize we moved on. (1)

Captain Rotundo (165816) | more than 10 years ago | (#8022504)

I would be in the same boat as the parent, but I got a TiVo. you know what? with the TiVo I find I am starting to burn out on TV. Last season I watched about 75% of the new shows (I think I still watch one, but maybe not) and this season I started watching 1.

When you have the availability any time you want you start realizing that there isn't a time for most the crap. Primarily I watch news type shows like the screensavers or the daily show and fast foward through the stuff I dont want to see (takes me about 10-15 minutes to "watch" a typical screensavers episode.

There are some shows I still watch, but increasingly I let the episodes pile up before bothering to watch them (last year I watched 24 in about 5 or 6 episode blocks throughout the season).

The TiVo seemed great (I still wouldn't watch TV without it, but I only pay the 5$ directv fee, 13$ or whatever it is now would probably be too much) But I think I spent the first few years adding season passes, and have steadily decreased them over the past 3/4 year. Its very easy for me to find one of a billion otehr "hobbies" that I enjoy more.

Re:Perhaps tv needs to realize we moved on. (1)

PainKilleR-CE (597083) | more than 10 years ago | (#8022878)

One is to do with the tv schedule.

I think this is probably one of the biggest things they are missing. There was recently a poll on where people learned the most about political candidates which showed a rise in the internet and cable news channels as the source rather than the networks. I listened to the people on the radio and cable news talk about this as if the networks were doing something wrong, and what it really comes down to, I believe, is that the internet and cable news channels are there when you want them to be. The cable news channels are going through the news 24/7, the networks have the news on a couple times a day for 1-2 hours at a time, when I'm probably watching something else or coming home, grocery shopping, washing dishes, doing laundry, etc. Internet sites have the information I want if I know how to look for it, and since I work with computers all day I think I can figure out how to get Google to spit something useful out every once in a while (if I can get the databases in this place to spit out what I'm looking for, Google should be a breeze).

Out of everything I want to watch on a weekly basis, there's only one show I actually make the time to watch, and it's on once a week, with 22 new episodes a year, which means that over half the year I don't care if I watch TV or not in any given week. My next project at home will be to put together a computer to perform TiVo-like functions as well as handle a few other things, and this will probably increase the number of shows I watch, but decrease both the amount of time spent watching TV and the number of commercials I watch.

That hits on your other point and something else I have a problem with. TV shows seem to be getting shorter, even though 1-hour formats seem to be more common (at least for what I watch, maybe it's just me shifting towards 1-hour shows). They seem to squeeze in more commercials and show them for a longer period of time, as if you're going to just sit there and watch until the show comes back, or they're hoping they can catch you when you come back from the bathroom or the kitchen. This, of course, has lead me to buy many of the shows I have watched over the years on DVD, and when a series regularly gets DVD releases I lose interest in watching at the scheduled time as the new seasons come along, as I know I'll just pick it up on DVD then and won't have to wait until their given time to watch it.

Re:Perhaps tv needs to realize we moved on. (1)

Lord Kano (13027) | more than 10 years ago | (#8029242)

We don't care about Ally McBeal. We don't care about Dharma and Greg. We're sick of all the metrosexual bullshit that they show us on TV.

In previous decades, if people didn't like what was on TV, what were the choices? Books? Radio? Movie theaters?

Sure all of them are valid, but they're nothing like video games.

In one hour I can switch from being a Florida Drug Kingpin (GTA:VC) to being the NSA's top agent (Splinter Cell).

How can "Queer Eye" compete with that?

Oh and cutting back on the number of ads wouldn't hurt either. Don't have 10x$1000 ads. Have 1x$100.000 ads. Same money less channel hopping.

This I seriously doubt. If there is one commercial to skip, it will be much easier to change the channel. I don't channel surf between commercials because I don't want to miss the beginning of the next segment. If I only needed to change the channel twice per hour, I'd be more likely to do it.


I have three words for men (1)

xutopia (469129) | more than 10 years ago | (#8021846)

Trailer Park Boys []

Bigger viewership than sopranos? (1)

Captain Rotundo (165816) | more than 10 years ago | (#8021886)

Yeah, and all Adult male TV viewser are a bigger group than Metal Gear Solid players... they make grand statements, and it sounds like a revolutionary advertisers shift, but the Sopranos is ONE show, and all gamers are users of many different products.... let's see the adman who reads that statement and then buys an ad for Big Rigs 2, claiming to his boss they will get more viewers than the Sopranos!

Most obvious reason? (1)

reality-bytes (119275) | more than 10 years ago | (#8021896)

"...found that 32% of gamers were over 30 and 47% were in their 20s. It was the latest data to confirm that video gaming, once almost exclusively associated with teenagers, has become a mainstream interest.."

It couldn't possibly be that the teenagers grew up since the last big survey and are now in their 20's and 30's?


EvilSporkMan (648878) | more than 10 years ago | (#8023550)


Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8025550)

I bet you are a traffic-warden in real life.

We interupt this First Person Shooter..... (4, Insightful)

orthogonal (588627) | more than 10 years ago | (#8021915)

"Games have bigger viewership numbers than The Sopranos."

Let me correct this statement: games have a larger number of players than "The Sopranos" has viewers.

In case you're an ad-man, or have an MBA, let me clearly state: gamers are not viewers.

Anyone remember the whole premise of cable-tv channels? That you'd pay for the channel upfront, and so avoid commercials?

Now this is only true for the so-called "premium" channels, so called because to view them you must pay an additional premium over and above what you pay for the basic cable service. Indeed it seems like most cable channels not only feature ads, but sell their entire late night time to infomercials. (Of course, I may be wrong; I only watch cable on vacation, because I won't buy lots of channels with lots of ads.)

So beware this discovery of games by Madison Avenue: prepare to find the games you've paid for to interrupt your play for commercials, or to sacrifice playability to product placements.

Re:We interupt this First Person Shooter..... (1)

dswensen (252552) | more than 10 years ago | (#8023090)

So beware this discovery of games by Madison Avenue: prepare to find the games you've paid for to interrupt your play for commercials, or to sacrifice playability to product placements.

I'm prepared. I'm also prepared to take such a game right back to the store, or put it in the trash bin, and never purchase another game from that company again, assuming I was deceived enough to purchase it in the first place.

I have no problem voting with my dollar where such things are concerned.

Re:We interupt this First Person Shooter..... (1)

ronfar (52216) | more than 10 years ago | (#8023272)

Well, games are going to be like movies. Some will be chock full of ads like any recent James Bond movie, and some will not, like LOTR. ("Imagine Gollum plugging Pepsi half way through the Two Towers. It'll be like printing money. Hey, why is this pit opening up beneath my feet, aieeee...")

So, you just have to hope that the game series you love aren't among the ones on the James Bond side of the equation.

I was kind of stunned to find that there is a game for Gamecube that is a fantasy game based on Skittles... []

Re:We interupt this First Person Shooter..... (1)

analog_line (465182) | more than 10 years ago | (#8030727)

So beware this discovery of games by Madison Avenue: prepare to find the games you've paid for to interrupt your play for commercials, or to sacrifice playability to product placements.

So I'll just wait for someone to pirate the game and tell me whether it's an ad game or not. ;)

Final Paragraph (2, Funny)

Boglin (517490) | more than 10 years ago | (#8021919)

...hard-core players who prefer first-person-player games like
Nintendo's "Final Fantasy" series... (emphasis mine),/i>
I was going to make some lame jokes about the journalists poor fact checking abilities, but it's honestly an easy mistake to make. I mean, he at least correctly associated the games with their primary console platform, assuming the article was written in 1994.


diesel_jackass (534880) | more than 10 years ago | (#8021922)

Adult Swim []
^^^ That's where they(we) are!
Besides the Daily Show, what else is there besides Adult Swim?

Wake up and smell the Meatwad. (Do what now?)

Re:4DUL7 5W1M!!!!!!11 (0)

Deraj DeZine (726641) | more than 10 years ago | (#8022619)

You too are a tomato

I believe it... (1)

Spoing (152917) | more than 10 years ago | (#8021951)

(shameless plug for current addiction follows)

With the release of Savage 2.0 yesterday [] , I plan on wasting all my "TV time" playing [] .

This one is almost as time consuming as previous [] addictions [] , and shares many of the same traits of both!

If you get slaughtered by a rabbit or a penguin, you've probably 'seen' me!

This doesn't surprise me (4, Interesting)

dobber (160548) | more than 10 years ago | (#8021954)

Reality shows just don't cut it for a lot of men. I am sick of hearing about them, and I would rather see higher quality fiction on television. Instead, shows like Firefly, John Doe, Mr. Sterling, and The Lyon's Den get canned. All for 'lack of ratings'... sometimes a show takes awhile to get a following, but this short-sighted nature will kill a lot of good tv.

I have Tivo, so the time a show is on doesn't really matter much to me. I get to watch the shows I'm interested in, when I want to. Unfortunatly, television schedules still work on the prime-time model, and that needs to change. If there are three shows on at the same time that I want to watch, I'll usually only pick one. If they show one in another time slot, then I can get that one as well. Fortunatly this isn't much of a problem now, as the networks are hell-bent on cramming every form of reality show into as many spots as they can.

Until then, the computer is a better use of my time anyway. Maybe the execs will get it, maybe they won't.

Re:This doesn't surprise me (1)

HotNeedleOfInquiry (598897) | more than 10 years ago | (#8022114)

To a lot of men, myself included, I find the "fuck your teammate" concept of reality shows obnoxious and disturbing. There's nothing wrong with competition. Indeed, I like Jeopardy, pro football, and an occasional Nascar race.

I think it's the concept of not being able to trust a teammate that makes reality shows disturbing to me. I don't watch them.

Re:This doesn't surprise me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8023426)

For me, it's just the opposite, reality shows are only at the almost there point. Sure, people are willing to screw each other over, but they'll still only go so far. I'm still waiting for them to reach their ultimate evolution....

I mean, why watch reality TV when I can play Manhunt?

I'm just kidding, of course, I don't even own a PS2.

Re:This doesn't surprise me (1)

JFMulder (59706) | more than 10 years ago | (#8028228)

have Tivo, so the time a show is on doesn't really matter much to me
I always found odd that people who have TiVo say this. It's not as is tape recorders didn't let you record TV shows for 25 years now. They're more complicated, but sicne I got my PVR, I haven't been taping more TV shows. Well, to be honest, I have, but then I realise that I wouldn't be watching all this crap so I delete it anyway and focus on what I watch each week (24, Alias, Angel, Smallville, That 70's Show and Tru Calling).

Re:This doesn't surprise me (1)

dobber (160548) | more than 10 years ago | (#8031530)

The ability to record and watch a show at the same time has dramatically increased the usefulness of the PVR over the VCR to me. Combine that with the built-in TV guide and searching, and that is what made the shift for me.

Yes, the tape recorder allowed me to record shows, but it didn't dramatically shift my habits. Now, I ONLY watch shows that I record. I will set Tivo to record things that I'm interested in, and watch those. I don't worry about recording extra things, because I can easily delete them and I don't have to worry too much about running out of space (like a 6 or 8 hour tape would).

Re:This doesn't surprise me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8029636)

I pretty much abhore the reality crap. But those shows on the discover channel or whatever it is, Monster Garage, American chopper, etc. Now that I can get behind. I don't watch as much history channel any more. :)

Reality TV at its best (1)

Itsik (191227) | more than 10 years ago | (#8021964)

Since TV is becoming more and more "Reality" oriented. I believe that video games are "Reality TV" at its best. Since just like TV it is a different reality than the "yours" with the added benifit of actively controling it. As opposed to the TV one where you're just a passive viewer.

Give away quality games... (1)

HotNeedleOfInquiry (598897) | more than 10 years ago | (#8022026)

With commercials and product placements inside.

I can't believe they haven't tried it yet.

Re:Give away quality games... (1)

Spoing (152917) | more than 10 years ago | (#8022168)

There have been give-away games with products in them. In a way, America's Army (put out by the US millitary) is a very high-level add. (Some hate the idea, I think they are damn smart...runs on Linux too!)

Re:Give away quality games... (2, Insightful)

shadowcabbit (466253) | more than 10 years ago | (#8025994)

A game that has commercials and product placements is not, can not be, and will never be a quality game.

Say what you will but I seriously doubt that Nobunaga's Ambition goes better with Coke.

Re:Give away quality games... (1)

MNNM (685068) | more than 10 years ago | (#8026460)

Games aren't really comparable to TV (with the exception of MMORPGs, maybe), they're more like movies. So I wouldn't expect commercials, but product placement - why not? If it's feasable, it might lead to a preference of certain settings. Less fantasy and sci-fi, more contemporary stuff where you can squeeze your product in.

Who would have thought... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8022248)

...that we can get rid of the worst anti-social devices by playing.

I welcome the death of TV and all those shitloads of crap, CRAP and !%&%$"&$ that comes with it.

No more TV (3, Interesting)

Apreche (239272) | more than 10 years ago | (#8022341)

Freshman year I paid for cable. That was a mistake. I barely used any of it, my roomate used it all the time. I had to pay half. Oh well. I never paid for cable again. It's my 4th year of college now, and TV is dead to me. I only watch it in two ways. Way 1, when I go home for a break or something I'll watch some sports and some cartoons to kill the time. Way 2, download shows like family guy, or get DVDs of tv shows and watch them. Tivo isn't even worth it. Heck a home brewed linux tivo isn't worth it.

TV is dead to me. I get all my information from the internet and I get all my video entertainment from DVDs and the internet. It's not just video games. It's push vs. pull technology. I just wont use anything that is push anymore.

Fuck you TV networks you lose.

Re:No more TV (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8025276)

Really, there's only about 4 cable networks I watch. I wish there was a way to only get those channels I wanted and to ditch the rest of the garbage.

Re:No more TV (1)

microTodd (240390) | more than 10 years ago | (#8032389)

A few problems with no TV at all...

- Sports. I love watching college ball. Solution: Go to a sports bar.

- News. Its kinda cool to watch the "State of the Union" speech live.

- History Channel. Discovery Channel. Animal Planet. Good shows still exist out there.

My reasons (1)

Leroy_Brown242 (683141) | more than 10 years ago | (#8022582)

In my mind there is an ever growing gap in TV. TV Shows like CSI, Without a trace, Law and Order, or all sorts of stuf fon the informational channels engages my brain. It's not so much mindless garbage, but usually has somehting to get my brain moving a tad.

Video games and general computer usage for geeks like us always moves our brains to action. programming, games, web design, or screaming and ranting on /. always is more entertaining than some stupid sitcom with the same plot we've seen a thousand times.

It's All About The Money (1)

shadowcabbit (466253) | more than 10 years ago | (#8026244)

In my mind there is an ever growing gap in TV. TV Shows like CSI, Without a trace, Law and Order, or all sorts of stuf fon the informational channels engages my brain. It's not so much mindless garbage, but usually has somehting to get my brain moving a tad.

I agree with you completely here. CSI is probably the only reason I still subscribe to cable (reception is crappy here... but I'll be moving soon anyway). The problem is, despite the popularity of these shows, they are damn expensive to make. CSI requires a significantly larger writing budget for fact-checkers and script consultants. Without a Trace, Law and Order, and Cold Case, a little less so, but to get a story that has enough basis behind it to really engage and hook viewers, you have to spend a little more.

Now imagine you're a TV exec. (I'm just Mr. Hypothetical of late, aren't I?) You have fifteen slots available to you for next season, and thirty shows that are in the running. Fifteen of them are really good but expensive, ten of them are sort-of OK with average costs, and the other five are total crap, but cheap. (This is unusually optimistic, of course, but it's for demonstrative purposes only. In a more cynical mood I'd probably reverse the numbers.) You could just put all fifteen of the good shows in the slots and be guaranteed total dominance of the airwaves, but it would be a tremendous up-front cost-- a cost that would have to be absorbed by advertisers; advertisers who are probably not going to have as much faith in these shows as you do. So, you cut it down to ten great shows and five so-so ones. You still have high costs, and advertisers are still leery, but you lose some of the ratings share. It works out OK, but there will still be some undeserving shows that get the axe next season due to artificially "poor ratings" (ie the advertisers didn't want to front the cash for season 2 because the great show they sponsored didn't pick up in popularity until January). So, to ensure that everybody's happy, you pick five great shows, five OK shows, and the five cheap garbage shows. This way you balance out the costs of the expensive shows with the throwaways, which probably won't last until November anyway. Advertising costs stay level, people buy ads, they get watched by the masses; everybody's happy. Well, except for the 15 people whose shows got canned before they were even aired.

It's not because the "public" still likes mass-produced junkvision. It's because crap TV is cheap to produce and the networks have to put SOMETHING new in those timeslots each fall. I'd love to see more CSI-like shows on TV, but until good writing becomes cheaper it's just not going to happen.

Reality TV and romance shows (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8022731)

Are responsible. I like Survivor and the apprentice but the rest of the gooey gah girly crap should be flushed down the toilet where it came from. Average Joe, Joe millionaire, the bachlor/batchlorette etc are ALL garbage girl shows and I'd rather play video games than watch them. I get over 100 channels of digital cable and during primetime the selection is FOR CHIX ONLY. When tv becomes more gender neutral and less metrosexual/feminine then I might start watching again. kthxby

TV sucks (1)

superpulpsicle (533373) | more than 10 years ago | (#8022796)

I realize nowadays that I watch only the follow...

1.) sports
2.) news
3.) discovery channel

I can't watch anything else because I don't have HBOs and skinemax. I can't watch any regular citcoms and shows cause they are all so lame. Not to mention all shows are off the air in 3 days anyways. You know there's a problem when reruns of "married with children" is funnier than 95% of the shows on TV.

Give me cartoon network, TLC/Discovery, and Sci-fi (4, Interesting)

moebius206 (692162) | more than 10 years ago | (#8023149)

The only reason I, as a gamer in his 20's, don't watch much TV these days is because the majority of the tv and especially its primetime (I assume that's the time tv execs want us watching the most) lineup are geared toward mindless comedy, trite drama, and the much over-played shock-value.

It seems to me that all of the tv that I find interesting has some aspect of it that hasn't been ran through the politically-correct/marketing machine. Things like reality tv are only intriguing (and sometimes funny) because they hint at showing everyday life, filled with obsceneties, moodiness, and everyone's unique perspective/opinions on life. Sitcoms and drama's just don't have that, even a fictional state. They try so desparately to keep their hands clean that its no wonder people tuned in everywhere when Southpark uttered "Shit" almost 200 times in 30 minutes.

Its not that people want filthy tv filled with sex, violence, and cursing... rather, perhaps they want something that doesn't make them feel like they're children and have to cover their eyes all of the time.

Besides the movie channels, I really only watch Cartoon Network (honestly, only Adult Swim/Toonami and a few others like Samurai Jack, occasionally Justice League, etc), Discovery/TLC, and SciFi. I'm sure I'm not alone, either. And if you think about the programming you watch on those channels, I would bet that they all just don't pay much attention to what the other channels are doing, and instead just focus on what they do best: anime, documentaries, and science fiction with lots of cheesy effects.

If you want me to watch your station, don't hold my hand like I'm a freakin' 2 year old. Just spit out the real truth behind what you're trying to tell (if there is some), and for God's sake quit trying to market to every demographic possible!

Oh, and it might help to come up with something original instead of just repackaging the leading channel's ideas. Just a hint.

Sorry for the rant.

Re:Give me cartoon network, TLC/Discovery, and Sci (1)

MNNM (685068) | more than 10 years ago | (#8026683)

The only reason I, as a gamer in his 20's, don't watch much TV these days is because the majority of the tv and especially its primetime (I assume that's the time tv execs want us watching the most) lineup are geared toward mindless comedy, trite drama, and the much over-played shock-value.
TV execs don't specifically want you to watch on prime time. Rather, it's prime time because that's when most people watch TV, viewing habits being mostly determined by habit and daily schedule. So that's the slots advertisers are going to pay the most for. It's just when the spoils are greatest.

So the number of people watching is more or less fixed (less, probably, since sporting events and stuff like that will have an impact), but in effect it's about who gets the biggest slice of the demographic. And as a TV exec, you'll run what you think is most effective... same effect, different reason.

Doesn't really detract from your argument, though ;-)

Re:Give me cartoon network, TLC/Discovery, and Sci (1)

moebius206 (692162) | more than 10 years ago | (#8028190)

True, true. That didn't really occur to me.

It's all about control (1)

BigBir3d (454486) | more than 10 years ago | (#8023227)

A few months back my roommate bought a TiVo. Before that, I watched very little TV anymore. It was too hard to keep up with all the schedule changes, new shows, cancelling of old/new shows, etc. My primary interest was SPEED and FoodNetwork. Now, I get to watch more of the good stuff (Monster Garage or Stargate SG-1 or Alias or whatnot) without missing an episode here or there. TiVo has put me back in control. That is something the networks can't do.

TV not competitive... (2, Insightful)

ronfar (52216) | more than 10 years ago | (#8023330)

When stuff comes on TV that is aimed at me, it is either:

A. On the cartoon network. (Or kids WB, etc.)

B. Short lived.

I get tired of watching science fiction series X to have it cancelled, just as I am getting into the characters. (Besides the fact that there is a lot of bad, dumb or both science fiction on TV.)

Video games, on the other hand help me to use up hours and hours of my life without boring me to tears. I can't say that about reality show Y or Friends.

If they want the people who play video games to watch TV they should pay attention to what kinds of video games sell.

Hey, it worked for Peter Jackson.

Oh, and another thing, what is with the ads? How much show versus AD content is there these days? It seems like the AD content is steadily increasing, to the point where all shows are will be like the occaisionally entertaining "60 second radio hour" that they play on community radio around here, except with lots of ads interrupting every ten seconds.

I have bad news for advertisers... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8023659)

One of the main reasons that young males move away from TV to videogames is...

1. They are tired of being assaulted by your mindnumbingly irritating advertising every five minutes.

2. Violent video games are a great release for the pent up frustration of having to watch commercials every five minutes.

I just called up my cable company... (1)

FeetOfStinky (669511) | more than 10 years ago | (#8024021)

...and downgraded from Standard cable (just about everything except premium channels) to Basic cable (local channels). The only things I ever watch are college football, The Simpsons, and occasionally Seinfeld. Since football season is over, why pay the extra $35 a month? That just about pays for a new game - which, carefully selected, I'll enjoy a lot more anyway.

My wife isn't as thrilled about it - she's an avid HGTV and TLC fan, mostly for the home improvement shows - but we just couldn't justify paying so much for channels we never actually watched. If we could get selected channels a la carte, we'd probably pay for them, but cable companies don't seem to be going down that route anytime soon.

Instead of TV, I'll just be content to play Morrowind GotY this month, which I picked recently for cheap. It's not for everybody, but lots of fun for me, and best of all - no frickin advertisements!

Re:I just called up my cable company... (1)

ElleyKitten (715519) | more than 10 years ago | (#8028552)

downgraded from Standard cable (just about everything except premium channels) to Basic cable (local channels)

I don't know much about cable (don't watch TV) but aren't local channels the channels you get without cable? Thus defeating the purpose of having cable? Just curious.

TV missing the boat (1)

Quill_28 (553921) | more than 10 years ago | (#8024225)

TV has become too racy for alot of folks, and not racy enough for the others. I made the the mistake of watching a prime time comedy with my children in the room, they learned all kinds of great words that I deem unacceptable. So the TV goes off.

About the only things that get watched are history, tlc and espn.
And about once a month Law & Order.

anatomically correct? (1)

trix_e (202696) | more than 10 years ago | (#8024824)

Some 32 million 18- to 34-year-old males constitute the mother lode for a vast array of marketers

wouldn't that be the *father* lode???

I Don't Watch (1)

J3M (546439) | more than 10 years ago | (#8025714)

Because I'm tired of men being portrayed as idiots. I also can't stand "reality TV" shows, and since there appears to be hours of it on every single channel every night of the week, I'm not tuning in. Rather, I'm watching The History Channel, The Discovery Channel, The Learning Channel, Cartoon Network, Spike TV, and yes, a lot of ESPN and ESPN2. As this article indicates though, I also play the GameCube a lot during prime time. Oh, and I'm 33 with two kids, and I probably play the Cube almost as much as my 11 and 8 year olds do.

why would you want to watch endless shit? (1)

PaganRitual (551879) | more than 10 years ago | (#8025931)

in australia, if you dont pay for your tv, you have the choice of 5 free to air stations. out the main three commercial stations, about 90% of their programming is a mix of game shows, current affairs shows*, fucking awful reality tv, and endless shitty drama shows, with everything from cop drama to law drama to hospital drama. and then half a dozen rapmovies each week.

i watch maybe 2-3 hours of tv a week, mainly whatever sport is currently in season. if my tv is on, then 99% of the time its because im playing on a console. although, at the ripe old age of 26, youd think i would be over such childish pursuits by now.

im suprised that tv stations get any ratings at all. then i remember i live in australia. dont let anything youve heard fool you folks, australia is full of sheep-like morons that embrace censorship, and need to be told what to think because they cant do it for themselves. anyone who told you it is a smart or lucky country was having you on.

australia is probably different because we dont have a million channels, but surely another point to make is that computer/gaming nerds probably have a much different appetite when it comes to television shows, maybe taking a more sci-fi, documentary preference when it comes to watching stuff. the 90% fluff that gets put on tv, which is just stuff to mindlessly watch, not actually get involved in (except for talking about the latest fucking crap reality tv show the next day at work) isnt worth wasting time on.

* by which i mean 'see tonight how bob got ripped off by his car dealer OMG NO!, not world news or anything, just sensationalised local shit

Re:why would you want to watch endless shit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8032479)

I'm not surprised men aren't tuning in, I'm a 35-year-old woman, and I don't watch TV much anymore either: I'll watch maybe 2 hours of TV a week, and then only because my husband has turned it on. Even when I do watch, I never watch live TV, only Tivo'ed, so I can skip the ads. I will watch "CSI" (the original show, not the "Miami" one), and I miss "Firefly." Once every few weeks, I'll watch a movie or old show on DVD, and I saw "24" only on DVD.

99% of everything on television is useless and boring, and the constant advertisements are extremely annoying. If I have to watch ads, I won't watch at all unless I'm watching live coverage of some local event. I wouldn't watch a "reality" show like Joe Millionaire if you paid me, and the ones like "Monster Garage" and "Queer Eye" are one-trick ponies.

Instead of TV, for anti-social activities I read books & magazines, play computer games, work on craft projects, and read and post things on the Internet. I also use the time freed up by not watching TV to go out with friends, go to concerts, go to public lectures, volunteer at the local historical museum, etc.

Remember, TV is not there to entertain or enlighten you. It is there to deliver a product to those who have paid for it. That product is you, watching a commercial paid for by an advertiser.

Re:why would you want to watch endless shit? (1)

shawb (16347) | more than 10 years ago | (#8063495)

Amen to that last statement.

Of course this means that the TV execs want to deliver the best possible product. Now, the best possible product is the kind of person who is actually swayed by advertising. Producing intelligent, captivating, mind stimulating shows would actually be an IRRESPONSIBLE move for execs looking out for the company's best interests.

Just something I've been thinking about for a bit...

I'm out of sync again (1)

Kris_J (10111) | more than 10 years ago | (#8026003)

I'm in that demgraphic and I walked away from prime-time TV and moved to games years ago. However, I find myself drifting away from games now towards DVDs. Given that I'm regularly ahead of the trend (scarily so), I suggest that TV, movie and advertising exectives leapfrog games and direct their attention directly at DVDs. Make "TV series" for sale as DVDs rather than for broadcast. Simultaneously release movies to cinemas and DVD. Nothing wrong with "direct to DVD".

Oh, and advertising companies, give up -- DVDs can make more than enough money to pay for themselves without needing ads, while ads will reduce demand. If I was an advertising comapny I'd specialise on releasing demos, previews, trailers, shareware, "lite" versions on P2P networks. Or possibly coupons -- "Ads" need to contain some sort of value to the person exposed to them or they will be considered to devalue whatever they're attached to.

Re:I'm out of sync again (1)

Colazar (707548) | more than 10 years ago | (#8026913)

Well exactly. Broadcast runs of shows are now just advertisements for the packaged DVD of the series.

If you're an optimist, you can believe that that will increase the quality of shows, since the idea would be to make them good enough to pay for.

If you're a pessimist, you can believe that that just means they'll try to appeal even more to the lowest common denominator.

Even the "good stuff" isn't worth the bother! (1)

Cybrex (156654) | more than 10 years ago | (#8040956)

I so agree with you!

As a kid, I was a TV addict. My parents were concerned that I'd waste my life being a couch potato. Now I'm 34, and recently talked with my wife about shutting off the cable TV, as we couldn't recall watching cable at all in about 2 months.

The last program I made a point of watching was the Battlestar Galactica miniseries on Sci-Fi. The last series I watched regularly was Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which ended some time ago. There are a lot of programs which look like they'd be fun, but my life is too busy for a regular committment of time to something non-interactive.

We have an extensive DVD collection that we like to watch, and we go to the movies pretty regularly, but both of these are usually done with groups of friends as social events. If I'm alone I'll opt for a computer game over passive TV/DVD viewing every time.

TV just bugs me. Most programs are mindless and boring, the news infuriates me with how shallow the coverage of real news is (Michael Jackson coming home from the courthouse was carried live in its entirety, while the President's address on the future of NASA was reduced to a 10 second sound byte? C'mon, guys!), and even good programs are generally ruined by the oversaturation of advertising (ironic, since I majored in advertising).

The net is, across the board, superior. I can research topics to far greater depth than most TV programs would dream of (the odd TLC or Discovery program notwithstanding), news can be obtained from all sides, and having a chat client running in the background lets me interact with friends, family, etc at the same time.

Oh, and the pR0n on the net blows away anything you can get on pay channels! :-)


They should show more violence like this video... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8027444)

They should show more violence like this video of our tax dollars at work.

I blame reality shows (0)

TechniMyoko (670009) | more than 10 years ago | (#8028495)

Maybe if theyd stop giving ppl all those reality shows men would watch tv

WTF did they think would happen? (1)

Lord Kano (13027) | more than 10 years ago | (#8029196)

It was the latest data to confirm that video gaming, once almost exclusively associated with teenagers, has become a mainstream interest that is dramatically altering the pattern of media consumption by men.

DUH! We grew up!

It was people of my generation that popularized the atari2600, NES, Sega Master System, Genesis, SNES and the rest. Did they think we'd stay the same age forever?

We aged into our 20s and 30s. That was going to happen. DUH!


Add my crap to the chorus (1)

analog_line (465182) | more than 10 years ago | (#8030857)

Bunch of people already saying the same thing, but I might as well raise the decibel level a notch.

I don't even watch TV shows I want to see anymore. I love Iron Chef, Adult Swim, a lot of what's on public television, and as much as I'd like to see them, I frankly can't be bothered with it. Too many ads. Even on PBS, the first and last 5 minutes of any particular show are merely thinly veiled advertising, it seems. Not to mention the month long pledge drives and TV auctions.

I used to be glued to the TV, and now it's a worthless adfest. I go over to friends' houses and they turn the TV off because the constant ad barrage puts me visibly in a bad mood. Nothing I asked them to do, they just do it themselves, most of them inveterate TV watchers. Every so often I'll have PBS on when I'm sick of whatever video game I'm playing, or can't think of a DVD I'd like to watch, but my network television watching is strictly limited to important sports events (Go Pats!) but even then, I mute the commercials, and sometimes miss large sections of the game because I didn't realize the TV was still on.

My father is paying for the cable TV subscription coming into my apartment against my fervent protestation that I'd never use it, and I haven't. The odd Iron Chef episode when I remember to turn it on. Adult Swim when I remember it exists, which isn't often. PBS, because in the Greater boston area, PBS just doesn't come in over rabbit ears unless it's the one from New Hampshire, but it can't be worth the approx $45/month my father is paying for it. However he stubbornly believes that he's doing me a favor. *shrugs* Whatever.

from TV to games (1)

602 (652745) | more than 10 years ago | (#8035176)

I got Halo and Final Fantasy XI a couple of weeks ago and have since stopped watching TV entirely.
Check for New 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>