if you take that number of photos in a rather short time span, it kinda makes it your hobbyEri said:
47% of Australian Gamers Are Female
- Thread starter Steven Bogos
- Start date
I was basically just about to post this.BoogieManFL said:
I don't think two categories of gamers exists any longer. It should be:
Casual
Mainstream
Hardcore
That's a spectrum that is way more agreeable that simply having the first and the last. Now you can label those who play purely the mobile and casual stuff, those who play mostly popular franchises like COD or madden yet still dabble here and there in other titles, and the core crowd who's always been and always will be the core crowd.
Well that's just, like, your opinion man.iseko said:
Angry Birds is every bit a goddamn game. People who play Angry Birds and other such smartphone games with enough regularity have every right to call themselves 'gamers'. People who play games that are not AAA have every right to call themselves gamers. I don't know why you thought you were granted custodian of the title of 'gamer', but you aren't.
Page 16 is the one on the report you want to read to debunk the wider claims.
Men persistently play longer hour sessions more times per week. The group who play the longest sessions are men aged 16-25, who play in 2.5 hour sessions on average. The group who play the most frequently are boys aged 11-15, who play once every 1.7(ish) days, in 2.2(ish) hour sessions.
By contrast? Women 16-25? Play in 1.6 hour sessions every 2.4 days (again, ish) while girls aged 11-15 play about every 2.3(ish) days, only in sessions of 1.25ish hours.
The Digital Australia report is, as it stands, a puff piece aimed at attempting to improve videogame legislation in Australia by defying stereotypes of gamers. The problem is that it's true lies, damn lies and statistics. And y'know what? Until this year, I got that. We had no R18+ rating. And hell, even now the R18+ rating remains awfully instituted. But it's time to stop with the puff pieces, because they let the industry off the hook.
Y'want the proof that the games industry skews the market to boys? The proof is in the lowest age brackets, where play time is most controlled and before the most socialization can kick in.
Males 6-11 and female 6-11 both play frequently, because they both want to and their parents let them. The result is a dead on even 1.9(ish) days between sessions. But the boys play for 1.75 hours. The girls stop after just over half an hour.
1-5? A lot longer between sessions (parents) at roughly 2.5 days between sessions. But now, where the games made are much less gendered? (Think Sesame Street, etc?) The gap all but vanished in play time. Boys just over half an hours, girls just under. It's radically, markedly different.
To me, those numbers are proof the industry does have a problem with marketing to women. It needs to fix it.
(Fixed my numbers there. Males 6-11 and Females 6-11 were listed as 1-6 in both cases.)
Men persistently play longer hour sessions more times per week. The group who play the longest sessions are men aged 16-25, who play in 2.5 hour sessions on average. The group who play the most frequently are boys aged 11-15, who play once every 1.7(ish) days, in 2.2(ish) hour sessions.
By contrast? Women 16-25? Play in 1.6 hour sessions every 2.4 days (again, ish) while girls aged 11-15 play about every 2.3(ish) days, only in sessions of 1.25ish hours.
The Digital Australia report is, as it stands, a puff piece aimed at attempting to improve videogame legislation in Australia by defying stereotypes of gamers. The problem is that it's true lies, damn lies and statistics. And y'know what? Until this year, I got that. We had no R18+ rating. And hell, even now the R18+ rating remains awfully instituted. But it's time to stop with the puff pieces, because they let the industry off the hook.
Y'want the proof that the games industry skews the market to boys? The proof is in the lowest age brackets, where play time is most controlled and before the most socialization can kick in.
Males 6-11 and female 6-11 both play frequently, because they both want to and their parents let them. The result is a dead on even 1.9(ish) days between sessions. But the boys play for 1.75 hours. The girls stop after just over half an hour.
1-5? A lot longer between sessions (parents) at roughly 2.5 days between sessions. But now, where the games made are much less gendered? (Think Sesame Street, etc?) The gap all but vanished in play time. Boys just over half an hours, girls just under. It's radically, markedly different.
To me, those numbers are proof the industry does have a problem with marketing to women. It needs to fix it.
(Fixed my numbers there. Males 6-11 and Females 6-11 were listed as 1-6 in both cases.)
Speaking as a 37 year old Australian male gamer, where the hell are all these female gamers? Whenever I play something online it is an absolute sausage fest (which is what they're probably avoiding anyway). I've noticed lately that when I play Battlefield 4 online that it is more 30 something guys yelling obscenities, rather than pre-pubescent teens screeching.
well if you play games regularly you are a "gamer" in my bookmarurder said:
hell why is video games the only form of entertainment with this stupid label? where are the "moviers" and the "bookers"?
sure theres people who only play casual games or madden and call of duty, just like there are people who only watch action flicks or simple movies and ignores the rest, more thoughtful movies
Is football not a game? I guess anyone who plays football is a gamer.Jenvas1306 said:
The problem with the label "gamer" is that it's become so diluted it no longer has any agreed upon meaning, like "hipster" or "troll".
"Oh yeah I'm a massive Gamer! I love Angry Birds, Candy Crush and Flappy Bird" comes to mind.
It all depends what your definition of a "Gamer" is. Mine would probably be someone who spends quite a bit of time playing games, plays a wide number of games, owns a console or a gaming PC and is willing to try a wide variety of games.
Not someone who plays on their mobile device when they have five minutes spare.
It all depends what your definition of a "Gamer" is. Mine would probably be someone who spends quite a bit of time playing games, plays a wide number of games, owns a console or a gaming PC and is willing to try a wide variety of games.
Not someone who plays on their mobile device when they have five minutes spare.
I think you just excluded everyone on the planet from being "true PC gamers" mate.Tentaquil said:
There is a distinction. Hence my genus/species example. Think of it as lions (hardcore gamers) and tigers (casual gamers). Both are of the family Felidae, genus Panthera. The Lion's species is is P. leo and the Tiger is P. tigris. This minor biology lesson was meant to demonstrate that the two are related, but very different. This model can also be applied to us as gamers. We are all gamers, but the difference is lions to tigers.hazydawn said:
Sorry, but these things are pretty arbitrary because someone considering themselves a "gamer" is just a title that anyone can bestow upon themselves if they play anything that can be considered an electronic game.
By the definition here, my mom is a gamer because she plays Scrabble with friends on her IPad, but if you ask her if what she's looking forward to more: the release of Dark Souls 2 or Lords of Shadow 2, you'll pretty quickly figure out just how meaningless the title really is.
By the definition here, my mom is a gamer because she plays Scrabble with friends on her IPad, but if you ask her if what she's looking forward to more: the release of Dark Souls 2 or Lords of Shadow 2, you'll pretty quickly figure out just how meaningless the title really is.
Based on the general tone of responses in this thread, I'm starting to think hardcore gamers need their own 'Do you even lift' meme.
'Do you even grind', 'Do you even quickscope', 'Do you even make your own PC' all come to mind.
'Do you even grind', 'Do you even quickscope', 'Do you even make your own PC' all come to mind.
I do think surveys like these lets the AAA market think it can rest easy; "oh 47% are women, well then we shouldn't change a thing because it's doing fine already. Now back to our grizzled 30 something white male protagonist that shoots things."
Whilst the term is completely arbitrary, I would only consider myself a gamer because I make them for a living, it is a fully consuming passion. It's like a mom calling herself a driver because she drives her kids around, every-bodies a fucking driver now, there's no need for a distinction. Games have penetrated society to the same degree as books and films; it's just that not everybody plays the AAA stuff because they have to wrap their head around controls. My sister doesn't like games where you have to control the camera, she can't hack it, I can because I've been playing them my whole life, it's second nature.
So whilst I don't think people should look down on 'gamers' who play games on Facebook or on their phones/tablet, these surveys don't account for much unless they organize the information, rather than giving industry big wigs an excuse not to experiment with different markets.
Whilst the term is completely arbitrary, I would only consider myself a gamer because I make them for a living, it is a fully consuming passion. It's like a mom calling herself a driver because she drives her kids around, every-bodies a fucking driver now, there's no need for a distinction. Games have penetrated society to the same degree as books and films; it's just that not everybody plays the AAA stuff because they have to wrap their head around controls. My sister doesn't like games where you have to control the camera, she can't hack it, I can because I've been playing them my whole life, it's second nature.
So whilst I don't think people should look down on 'gamers' who play games on Facebook or on their phones/tablet, these surveys don't account for much unless they organize the information, rather than giving industry big wigs an excuse not to experiment with different markets.
The smaller numbers make it easier for them to sit around in a basement and circle jerk. Seriously, why can't people just enjoy games for what they are and not what they're on?MrFalconfly said:
Basically this exact thread happened a while ago with another study. I said what you would expect me to say. While it's fine for anyone to call themselves whatever they want, it isn't useful information if you're going to bundle people who play casual/social games with people who play games as a hobby. It just isn't the same market. I'm glad there are more females gaming than I expected. It's just I don't know how many of the kind that are interested in gaming beyond passing the time, and I can't discern anything like that from the full page.
I'm willing to believe that statistic, because now thanks to the casual/mobile/social games markets, more people are playing games than ever. However, I do believe that this might not have much bearing on the Triple A or "hardcore" areas of gaming in the market. Anyone who plays a game is a gamer, but the people keeping the AAA market going are ones who I'd refer to as video game enthusiasts, as in people who game for a hobby, not just on the bus to work. People need to realize that a statistic about a medium as a whole does not reflect every subset of that medium. Just because 47% of gamers are women doesn't mean that same number applies to the people who bought Dead Island. A stay at home mom playing Bejeweled isn't really going to be playing a couple of matches of Call of Duty in the evening. And this isn't only exclusive to the gaming market. Moviegoers are about 50-50 in terms of gender, but do you think there was an even amount of men and women going to see The Sex and the City movies? No, I guarantee you that a large majority was female. Now, if game developers try to cater to "female" tastes or try to make games in general more inclusive in the AAA market it may bring the number up there, but considering how some games like Call of Duty and GTA V perform, there might not be much incentive.
The way these results are trotted out is deliberately misleading.
I don't think anyone is complaining or arguing about women's representation/involvement with social games like farmville.
Pretty much the entire focus of the big internet fight is on triple A (Or similarly budgeted titles) with some believing that women have been slanted by what this market offers despite being an integral part of its audience and others believing this industry simply panders to its fan base and that games that have ventured outside this integral core haven't been successful, scaring off new entrepreneurial developers.
tl;dr
nobody cares who's playing farmville, they care about who's playing the latest triple A titles
I don't think anyone is complaining or arguing about women's representation/involvement with social games like farmville.
Pretty much the entire focus of the big internet fight is on triple A (Or similarly budgeted titles) with some believing that women have been slanted by what this market offers despite being an integral part of its audience and others believing this industry simply panders to its fan base and that games that have ventured outside this integral core haven't been successful, scaring off new entrepreneurial developers.
tl;dr
nobody cares who's playing farmville, they care about who's playing the latest triple A titles
