Core Gamers Mostly Male, Casual Gamers Mostly Female, Says NPD

[Kungfu_Teddybear]

5 or more hours per week is considered heavy core? I play 5 hours or more a day.

 

[Strazdas]

so basically confirmed what was already done more expensively by other researchers. well, more and newer data is always welcome, though NPD methods are highly questionable as they always were. at least this time they didnt lump all gamers together. small steps....

What you're getting it is saying that the type of game is defined by how it is played. If that be the case, then people that play "core" games, but only do so casually, should be termed casual gamers. And people that play silly puzzle games for hours at a time should be classified as "hardcore."

erm, sim is definatelly a core genre. simulation is as hardcore as you can get if done properly. whne you think about sims dont think about farm simualtor or surgery simulator. think about X3, Hearts of Iron, Europa Universalis, Racing simulators, Euro Truck simulator, ect.

Oh and i have met hardcore puzzlers. damn they are good at it too.

What's weird is, as far as I can tell, you don't see this kind of divide in nearly any other kind of "nerdy" hobby. You like tabletop? Cool. The worst you'll see are people condemning certain systems because they don't like the rules, not because the audience doesn't have any less passion for the hobby than they do. How about comic books? Marvel/DC rivalries are like console rivalries: irrelevant and not a real issue. Beyond that, I don't really see any kind of line in the sand drawn between "real" and "fake" comic book readers.

I wonder why that is... :/

Sports. there is clear divide between hardcore hooligans fans and just a casual viewer.
Cars. There is a big difference between car enthusiaasts rebulding thier cars and a guy that just drives it to work.

Oh and those two are very nerdy hobies. Its just that they are old enough to become "normal".

5 or more hours per week counts as "heavy core" these days? Pfft. Pitiful. I spend at least 12 hours a week just raiding in WoW let alone more leisurely play.

No, before people freak out I don't think that makes me better or "more" or a gamer than anyone else. Just that 5 hours seems piddly to me.

ech, you should have seen their last survey. played a game for 30 minutes during last month? your a gamer!

there is. we call them "summer blockbusters".

not to mention that people tend to forget at one time ALL games were "casual". from space invaders to pac-man and missile command. despite what people claim a specific game isnt hardcore its the obsession of the person involved, hence why missile command record breakers still make the news

ID argue that missile attack, the first videogame created, was never casual. in fact just weeks after its inception it was banned in all research labs because technicians played it too much during work and wasnt doing the job (back then only lab computers could run it so it was the only way to play it). it was also the first game to create a gaming tournamen - before home consoles even existed. These people were seriuos about it.

maybe its the result of sexual dimorphism, and girls naturally are less willing to commit to this kind of hobby and be less competitive

A survey done on priorities during free time between sexes a couple years back shown similar results. essentialy for most males gaming was either first or second on the importance scale, whereas for females it was closer to 4-6 place after other things. So basically what this shown is that females just have different priorities and gaming isnt as high as for males, thus they often devote less time to gaming.

 

[giles]

.... where are the actual numbers? Did I miss the link to the results on the npd.com page? What the hell is "mostly" supposed to mean? "Heavy Core" means over 5 hours a week, but how many actual hours are spent on gaming by the "Heavy Core"?

What's the point of this press release? Either give us the results or don't, those half-baked articles are how rumors and myths get started.

 

[Verlander]

...does this mean I'm female? Wow. I never knew.

Just FYI, In order to qualify as a core gamer for the survey, respondents had to currently play Action/Adventure, Fighting, Flight, Massively Multi-Player (MMO), Racing, Real Time Strategy, Role-Playing, Shooter, or Sport games on a PC/Mac.

Interesting that they consider the PC a core platform over console or mobile device. I'd imagine the inclusion of these platforms would alter the results pretty drastically.

 

[veloper]

5 or more hours per week is considered heavy core? I play 5 hours or more a day.

They might as well not have made the distinction between "light core" and "heavy core" at all here, since both categories of gamers play the same games in this survey.

It doesn't make any difference if I buy Blobs and play it every evening, or just for a couple hours and put it on the shelf forever. It's still one game sale.

Which demographics buy what and for how much, is the only thing that matters, to people who make or market games.

 

[Karadalis]

Quoting both of you since you're making pretty similar points. I agree that publishers shifting focus to appeal to a wider audience is usually a bad thing, but I fail to see how this means they are trying to appeal to casual gamers. The definition of "casual" we are using in this context refers to those that play phone games every now and don't engage themselves with the community in any meaningful way. I see a lot of people lambaste the Madden/CoD gamers as the source of the problem, but I think it's fair to say that a lot of those people are very passionate about their hobby. They may not be as invested as we are, but some of them still pump hours upon hours into the games they play and talk about them on social media and with friends all the time. When the discussion of "being a gamer" comes up, many of them may identify themselves as such and even I would feel a little uncomfortable with that, as regrettable as that is to admit.

I don't think you two are pointing any fingers, but I think the focus needs to be shifted from the "casual" gamers themselves to the publishers that are failing to connect with their core audience. In the end, it's those companies that are failing us, not the frat boy playing Madden or the stay-at-home mom playing Farmville.

The problem is that publishers AREN'T actually trying to appeal to "casual" gamers. They keep pushing these big spectacle-fests and bragging about how much money they've pumped into them. If anything they seem to treat the "casual" scene with contempt and don't really have any interest in expanding their audience. They just keep pandering to the same, steadily-shrinking audience they've catered to for decades.

On the other hand they are also not catering to the hardcore gamers, cause most of these spectecal fests are piss easy shallow experiences.

So the question is: Who are the latest spunkgargleweewee titles aimed at?

Sometimes the tripple A industry seems to me like the most expensive fast food industry. Massive expenses, no replayability, and games that last less then 8 hours.

 

[Kahani]

A few interesting patterns were discerned about PC gamers spending habits too. 46% of respondents had visited a digital storefront to buy games in the last year

I find this part quite surprising. Less than half of PC gamers visit digital stores at all, let alone do the majority of their shopping their? I'd expect that to be very close to 100%.

The real question is, with all of the many casual games, and all of the casual gamers playing them, why do we still lean on this crutch of refering to this other class of games as the "core?"

Money. As the article makes clear, people in the "core" category don't just spend more time playing, they spend more money. Far from being a "crutch", the distinction between casual and core gamers is incredibly important to developers and publishers, and consequently to the rest of us.

 

[CardinalPiggles]

The real question is, with all of the many casual games, and all of the casual gamers playing them, why do we still lean on this crutch of refering to this other class of games as the "core?"

Seriously, it would be like a guy from Mississippi walking around Kenya talking about how it's amazing there are so many "minorities" there...

I find 'Casual' to be a useful tag when looking at games on Steam.

Personally I don't generally like the kind of games you just jump into quickly for 5 minutes and drop at a moments notice, I like to get involved and invested.

I don't see it as being a derogatory term, I see it as being informative, in the same way I find RPG informative.

 

[iniudan]

No, before people freak out I don't think that makes me better or "more" or a gamer than anyone else. Just that 5 hours seems piddly to me.

Also seem piddly to me, I can't even remember the last time I spent less then 5 hours a week playing video games, since I was 7 years old (when I finally got my own NES for completing first grade), except for the Great Ice Storm in 1998 and living in the middle of one of the most heavily affected area, we were without power for a month. At least some members of the extended family still had wood-burning stove, so didn't have to live in the public shelter.

 

[Something Amyss]

It's funny, I've been reading on here for years people complaining about the declining relevance of NPD. But now that this survey shows women are a minority, I bet NPD is gospel truth again.

If begs the question though... why are some gamers scared that their identities will be swallowed up by casual gamers? As far as I can tell they have no interest in actually calling themselves gamers, and if they do maybe we're giving them less of a chance than they deserve.

But Fappy, you charismatic stallion, this is war! They deserve no quarter! No mercy! For the glory of hardcoria! They must not be allowed to get weapons of media definition!

 

[Trishbot]

Like all surveys and data, this is pretty skewed (especially if the criteria is ONLY PC/Mac).

A vast number of female gamers play portable games, for instance, with a nearly 50% split in RPGs like Pokemon between boys and girls. Are they not considered "core" gamers despite the hundreds of hours of playing one of the most hardcore genres?

So it's a weird and narrow survey, insightful though it may be.

Though, honestly, I find the "problem" two-fold. The first is that continued need to be exclusionary towards other forms of gamers other than "core". It's a strange term, just like telling people who watch and enjoy movies they aren't "core" movie watchers if they only watch a movie a month instead of a movie a day, or people who enjoy TV shows instead of film, or people who watch on Netflix instead of the theater. The criteria is strangely limiting in that regard, just like picking only one platform to survey on.

And the second thing is that, yeah, "core" gaming is still universally marketing to boys, so even female gamers that enjoy gaming are just not important as as marketing demographic (despite the fact my love life was forged in the 90's in the arcades by impressing folks in Mortal Kombat...).

I mean, I know I'm biased because I play a HUGE variety of games (everything from platformers to puzzles to strategy to survival horror to adventure to RPG to shooters to fighting to everything), and yet I've often been said I'm not a "core" gamer because I don't play Call of Duty on Xbox... which, to ME, is the most casual game this side of Farmville, Minecraft, and Angry Birds.

There are people out there who ONLY buy Call of Duty or Madden, and nothing else, and they are considered "core" gamers while someone like me, who due to the realities of life and jobs has limited time to game, but plays and enjoys games like Okami, ICO, Shadow of the Colossus, Bioshock, Xenoblade, Zelda, Blazblue, Silent Hill, Psychonauts, etc., is often excluded from the surveys and demographics because I don't like or enjoy THE most popular and mainstream FPS on the market.

Ultimately, it's semantics, but my final thought is that, for an industry that so often self-implodes, budgets go out of control, and they water "core" games down so often to reach a wider audience, the fact that including women in the discussion or playable releases (hello Assassin's Creed Unity) isn't a priority for the vast majority of developers, despite being a thriving, growing, passionate demographic, is shocking to me.

For all the crap I give Capcom for their terrible business decisions, I can still look at a popular game like Street Fighter IV and see men, women, young, old, black, Asian, Native American, big, small, spiritual, rich, poor, gay, straight, even hermaphrodite characters in the game... and, shockingly, people seemed okay with this and the game is still the most successful fighting game in the genre last console generation.

I would kill to see that same variety in a shooter.

 

[KingDragonlord]

The real question is, with all of the many casual games, and all of the casual gamers playing them, why do we still lean on this crutch of refering to this other class of games as the "core?"

Seriously, it would be like a guy from Mississippi walking around Kenya talking about how it's amazing there are so many "minorities" there...

You will rue the day that Yahoo Dominoes is considered a "core" game.

Denial doth not an argument make. If most of the people playing (and paying) are casual, that's the new core. If most of the folks in this country voted for Ron Jeremy for president, he'd be president. Doesn't matter if the wizened few think it's a dumb idea.

Now, me? I don't think casual games are some awful thing. Clearly, their existence isn't removing classically "core" games from existence. And I play a handful of goofy games on my phone, which I enjoy greatly. There's just this weird idea that even though MOST gamers play these casual games (which includes but is not limited to stuff like Yahoo Dominoes), the other section of games are still the "real" thing.

The real reason casual games do so well, in addition to being convenient, is that they have broader appeal. Candy Crush, the bajillion versions of Yahtzee and Boggle, Hay Day, you know something they all DON'T have in common? The same old gravelly-voiced white male protagonist.

If you read the study, it makes it clear. The people who play those core games spend at least twice as much time playing and twice as much money. The people who play those games are more committed or "hardcore" about their hobby on average. Thats a fair enough basis for distinction.

 

[Fappy]

Also this, I'm not sure why we're so fascinated with dividing ourselves, especially down gender lines.
Seems a little weird to me.

The video game community is not unlike your average schoolyard. Just, you know, with more death threats.

 

[KingDragonlord]

Why is it I get the feeling at least one person is going to use this as justification as to why we shouldn't care about women in gaming.

Because people already are is my guess. The real question would be how fast it'll show up -here-.

I would stand with you if the conclusion people try to reach is "women must be disregarded."

On the contrary, at least some consideration must be paid because 20% of your customers can still make or break a game.

But I've been wanting to see numbers like this because I knew the "50% women" statistic is misleading when the sexism debate has mostly centered around core titles (I knew because after hearing anecdotes, I went out to scrape together what little research I could find on the topic and it did suggests this skew but not in as concrete a manner). Game developers would look horribly stupidly sexist if they were ignoring 50% of their potential consumers but it makes more sense when they're trying to hold onto their 80 percent without pissing off the 20% too much.

Incidentally, I think these numbers show a potential route to more sales. From what I can recall of the studies I saw (which were done with gamers below the age of 18) if game companies made a reasonable effort to appeal more to women (without undermining anything core to the genres in question) they could expect women to represent closer to 30% of their sales probably without losing a significant number of male gamers (you'll lose some simply because change always does that).

To me this means trying to offer more playable female options where you can. If you're not really committed to writing a strong character (i.e. you want a blank slate for the player), go ahead and offer a female option please. If you have a strong character concept, maybe make that character something other than a thirty something white male more often. It clearly doesn't have to be 50/50 on gender both because women are only 20 percent on core titles and because they're already playing. But right now I don't think we're above maybe 5% on protagonists so we could stand to grow. Men will clearly buy games with a female character or else Lara Croft 2013 wouldn't have been profitable (which it was despite not meeting their projections).

As for sexuality, I think this is an area where we can safely ignore the critics for the most part. There is the truly ridiculous like this (from X-Blades):
http://th08.deviantart.net/fs71/PRE/i/2011/169/d/0/x_blades_ayumi_by_roosterteethfan-d3j813z.png

That we could stand to have less of but this:
http://hd.wallpaperswide.com/thumbs/lara_croft_2013-t2.jpg

And this (FemShep and Miranda):
http://www.wallpapermay.com/thumbnails/detail/20120626/miranda%20lawson%20mass%20effect%203%20femshep%20commander%20shepard%201920x1080%20wallpaper_www.wallpapermay.com_34.jpg

And occasionally even this (Bayonetta):
http://assets1.ignimgs.com/vid/thumbnails/user/2014/06/27/20823568_bayo.jpg

Are fine (maybe Bayonetta is stripperific but at least the instances of her getting naked during battle have some kind of an explanation because of her powers. The XBlades example is just ridiculous pandering with no logic behind it. Why wouldn't she wear shorts, even tight butt grabbing under her holsters? Why wouldn't she try to keep her hair under control as an archaeologist or treasure hunter or whatever?)

 

[Under_your_bed]

I'm surprised they didn't include "age" as well, as that would be a fairly important factor in what kind of games people played.

 

[Weaver]

The only thing I don't like about the study is you had to play on a PC or Mac to count as a 'core gamer'.

 

[Something Amyss]

Labels are stupid. All this is doing is further cementing the wrong ideas in the minds of easily excited individuals.

At least movie snobs only turn their nose up at the quality of movie watched, not the quantity.

I can't imagine only watching 16 hours of video in a week. Pffft. Noob.

A study is only valid when it confirms my bias, after all.

Exactly. And I'm sure that people will ignore that this is a PC survey, roughly half the PC gamers were women, and go on to talk about how playing Candy Crush on your smartphone doesn't make you a real gamer, anyway. Because that's from the old, unreliable portion of NPD. Not this new, vibrant portion that speaks to what I want to hear the truth.

The video game community is not unlike your average schoolyard. Just, you know, with more death threats.

Something had to replace claims of cooties, damn it.

 

[Vigormortis]

The PC numbers don't surprise me at all. There are a lot of women on MMO's, which holds a huge marketshare of the PC scene. The only genre I can think of where they are in the extreme minority is MOBA's because, well... their communities, I imagine.

And yet, from my own experience, I'd wager at least a third of the people I routinely, or occasionally, play Dota 2 with are female. And by that I don't mean a small group of a few players, but rather a fairly large group of dozens upon dozens.

I'd also like to add that, outside of League of Legends, most other games in the genre do not have overly toxic communities. Certainly no more than any other genre.[footnote]And almost assuredly no where near as toxic as many fighting game communities or the COD communities.[/footnote]

 

[Ariseishirou]

Why is it I get the feeling at least one person is going to use this as justification as to why we shouldn't care about women in gaming.

Because people already are is my guess. The real question would be how fast it'll show up -here-.

I would stand with you if the conclusion people try to reach is "women must be disregarded."

On the contrary, at least some consideration must be paid because 20% of your customers can still make or break a game.

But I've been wanting to see numbers like this because I knew the "50% women" statistic is misleading when the sexism debate has mostly centered around core titles (I knew because after hearing anecdotes, I went out to scrape together what little research I could find on the topic and it did suggests this skew but not in as concrete a manner). Game developers would look horribly stupidly sexist if they were ignoring 50% of their potential consumers but it makes more sense when they're trying to hold onto their 80 percent without pissing off the 20% too much.

Incidentally, I think these numbers show a potential route to more sales. From what I can recall of the studies I saw (which were done with gamers below the age of 18) if game companies made a reasonable effort to appeal more to women (without undermining anything core to the genres in question) they could expect women to represent closer to 30% of their sales probably without losing a significant number of male gamers (you'll lose some simply because change always does that).

To me this means trying to offer more playable female options where you can. If you're not really committed to writing a strong character (i.e. you want a blank slate for the player), go ahead and offer a female option please. If you have a strong character concept, maybe make that character something other than a thirty something white male more often. It clearly doesn't have to be 50/50 on gender both because women are only 20 percent on core titles and because they're already playing. But right now I don't think we're above maybe 5% on protagonists so we could stand to grow. Men will clearly buy games with a female character or else Lara Croft 2013 wouldn't have been profitable (which it was despite not meeting their projections).

As for sexuality, I think this is an area where we can safely ignore the critics for the most part. There is the truly ridiculous like this (from X-Blades):
http://th08.deviantart.net/fs71/PRE/i/2011/169/d/0/x_blades_ayumi_by_roosterteethfan-d3j813z.png

That we could stand to have less of but this:
http://hd.wallpaperswide.com/thumbs/lara_croft_2013-t2.jpg

And this (FemShep and Miranda):
http://www.wallpapermay.com/thumbnails/detail/20120626/miranda%20lawson%20mass%20effect%203%20femshep%20commander%20shepard%201920x1080%20wallpaper_www.wallpapermay.com_34.jpg

And occasionally even this (Bayonetta):
http://assets1.ignimgs.com/vid/thumbnails/user/2014/06/27/20823568_bayo.jpg

Are fine (maybe Bayonetta is stripperific but at least the instances of her getting naked during battle have some kind of an explanation because of her powers. The XBlades example is just ridiculous pandering with no logic behind it. Why wouldn't she wear shorts, even tight butt grabbing under her holsters? Why wouldn't she try to keep her hair under control as an archaeologist or treasure hunter or whatever?)

I think you're onto something here. I'm a woman and I'm decidedly in the "heavy core" category, but I'm also markedly more likely to play a game if it gives me a female option, and markedly less likely to play a game if all of the female characters are stripperific. It's not a moral judgement, it's just what appeals to me versus what doesn't. Sexy is fine, equal opportunity sexy is even better, but downright degrading and ludicrous isn't okay (like X-blades chick). I doubt my single sale counts for much, but I've noticed my female friends in the heavy/light core categories feel similarly, and as you say, together we could make or break someone's profitability margin.