Madmonk12345 said:
runic knight said:
I am aware, I choose it because it seemed to be accepted and promoted by, well, lets just say social justice encourager. Furthermore it also mentioned the difference between "who plays most" as well as "who buys most" which would be the "core" gamer demographic. In both cases, his claim lead to people being in the 50's when you add 20 years though.
That seems like a recipe for accusations of cherry-picking. What I'm trying to say is that both statistics are flawed (if they are flawed at all) in similar ways. If one is true or false, then so is the other statistic,depending on whether or not "casuals" count as gamers for the discussion. If we contend that the "48% of women are gamers" stat to be true, however, statements of how the primarily male(? Know I swore I saw some GGer using that in an argument here.) GamerGate is primarily a pro-consumer movement instead of the misogynistic movement it's accused of being fall a little flat because it isn't gender balanced like the consumers it claims to represent.
Two key points in rebuttal.
First is that the info I gathered remains fairly consistent on the two stats I gathered. Be it either demographic size of the largest demographic, or demographic profitability by the most reoccuring customers, the largest group still is in their 30's, so my rebuttal to the group being 20 years younger the comic fans remains the same.
Secondly, it is a lot more gender balanced then you think. Hell, the very tag of #NotyouShield shows that there is a huge variety of people participating in gamergate. Now I have no data on the exact stats, and I don't imagine such data is possible to gather to any degree of fairness, but the movement itself is quite varied in stark contrast to the perpetual accusations that gamergate is just a bunch of misogynistic white males.
Also in rebuttal, the only stats relating to gender representation in gamergate itself was drawn from sites relevant to the topic. Sites like Kotaku, gamesutra and polygon, ones very heavily bias against gamergate, had a much much higher rate of males to females then sites like the escapist or even 4chan. This was actually used to try to combat the claims of misogyny before since it was obviously a bit unexpected that not only were the sites who claimed they represented the interest of women in attacking gamergate heavily males, but that even a site known as the cease-pool of the internet like 4chan, was more gender balanced then those sites.
furthermore, even if we go with your assumption of the general core demographic being younger males, then the representation of minority or female gamers within gamergate being less numerous then males would still be consistent with the gamer "average". Essentially like a state with state with 20% black population and 80% white electing a governor with a poll showing that the average voter support was about 25/75 black to white support. Still consistent to what the state has, though could very easily be misrepresented as being "racist" if someone unscrupulous enough wanted to spin it.
This was the statistical problem I was mentioning. Games are not of equal price. Most frequent games purchaser(NOT PLAYER, key problem here) != group spending most money buying games because self identified gamers tend to take consoles, pcs, etc. where games are significantly more expensive than games in the non-gamer market, on occasion limiting the number of games they can ultimately purchase in ways the supposed casual gamers simply aren't. This skews the demographic of the statistic mentioned towards an older more casual market, which is a relevant skewing when discussing the age of self identified, "core" gamers.
Alright, in the regard of games being of different prices, I will grant you that it is possible that the largest purchaser may not be the largest financial demographic. I will state that it is counter-intuitive a claim though and one that lacks any evidence to support really outside of just it existing as a possibility at the moment unless you have some more indepth stats to draw from. The data I provided is fairly uninvolved in regarding who is purchasing and what they are purchasing, so it does suggest the idea you bring up is certainly possible, I just don't think it is more likely then the greatest purchasers also being the most financially impactful group. Especially since the grou pin question is the same demographic that was targeted in the past, just "grown up" as time marches on, as well as having the money to actual make those purchases. After all ,you are essentially saying that older males are buying so many ap and "casual" (god I hate that term) games that they are skewing the data to a higher overall average while the "core" remains a younger demographic, as if the younger demographic itself, which would be much more accepting of the growing mobile technology that propagates those very same sort of "casual" games, would not. Just doesn't make sens to me that gamers from 10-20 years ago that grew up during the console wars grew out of it and into mobile and casual gaming while the younger generation that embraces the mobile devices and technology far more intimately, would actually be the smaller market for those games and the larger ones for the massively costly console/pc gaming market. I guess we can look into it and see what the data actually says when we scratch beneath the surface.
Ignoring that "casual" is a stupid term to begin with, how would you define a core demographic in a business sense?
Oh. I thought you actually took that term seriously when you brought up core gamers. Apologies. I take it for a stupid term to begin with myself.
As I was saying, if I *had* to provide a definition of core gamers for the sake of statistics, I would go by people who spent the most money on gaming. While that might include those supposed mythical "whales"(god I hate that term) those are much fewer in number and would have less sway on the statistics overall.
"Whales"?
If we are going solely on who spends the most money, then I would wager it being on the demographic with both the history of buying games and consoles and pc's as well as the actual income to spend on it, and the greater likelihood to resist the growing mobile platform market. Sorry, my conclusion would still have to be the average of around 30's that the stat data shows. At least until I see some more indepth evidence anyways. Just doesn't make a lot of sense to me otherwise, especially with the way games are marketed more to the adults then the kids for at least 2 of the 3 major consoles for the last several years. People grow up and grow older but still play games. Plus they have the money.
)
