Issue 26 - Mainstream Shopping, Mainstream Gaming

[The Escapist Staff]

Original Comment by: BacksideNine
http://www.boardroom.com
Right on Mark, right on...
and just when the crap are we gonna get some vexels up in here? Jive? Handheld gaming has been indie elsewhere for awhile now as i think was mentioned with the 32 whatever handheld. Handheld gaming is still prooving to be the most entertaining form of the sport i have been privvy too in ages. Call me old fashioned, but ever since GBA, its been a rollercoaster ride. Something about the amount of controllers i broke playing halo2 online doesnt sit well with me. Finding the 80 billion someoddth whatever crap thing you HAVE to find in GTA:SA killed my buzz. GBA, if im not a half a bubble off, has a pretty decent undaground scene with gba flash cards that you can load homebrew and released game roms. Never dabbled maself.
Great article beeteedubya. I like how everyone is bickering about wheather or not gaming is mainstream. There are a few social indicators, like the fact that my undawear has mario on it. Or that at one point you could eat a zelda themed breakfast cereal. Hit song based on pac man? All i know is the "Rock and Roll Racing"s and the "Battletoads"s are fewer and further between. Thank god nintendo is still kicking HARD. Havent they been fine tuning their networking/internets for ... since the SNES was still hot gravy?
I have no idea where i was going with this.

 

[The Escapist Staff]

Original Comment by: Tortanick

In reply to Bonnie:

I'd agree that saying on the 3rd of gune, year of the lobster, games became mainstreem is practically impossible. However saying today that games are or are not mainstreem is possible. So far I've got evidence to support my thorey that it is:
* games are advertised on prime time TV
* the existance of people who play games but don't know enough about them to avoid bad, AAA licenses.
* the size of the game industry is in the same league as films and music.

While the evidence against it so far:
* the games industry is GROWING by 7% a year, and thats just population. How growth is usefull evaids me but its evidence.
* A huge block of statistics from Slarterbartfast, I won't even try to decypher them, eitehr you only post relivent information or zip it ;p

More importantly though you havn't awnsered my other points and these are far more important than the debate about mainstreem or not:

1) gamer culture is not dieing or threatened, gamer run shops and bedroom coders find it hard to compeat with corporations and calling yourself a gamer has less meaning but we just moved online, called ourselves hardcore gamers and the culture reamins unchanged

2) Hardcore gamers don't feel threatened by casual gamers, we attack them because they have a tendency to say the most stupid things and like any human some of us get annoyed by stupditiy.

3) Your useage of the term inde culture. Going for a game because its inde is as bad as going for a game because it has good graphics. So why on earth did you say thats tomorrow's culture.

 

[The Escapist Staff]

Original Comment by: Slartibartfast

Tortanick:

I am not going to be bothered anymore. You can't be bothered to read statistics that prove exactly what I was saying, (let alone spell my name right when it's right in front of you) then you can live in your fantasies. I think you would be better off in the IGN or GameFaq forums with the other 13 year olds.

If you can't be bothered to read posted, "relevant" information, zip it.

 

[The Escapist Staff]

Original Comment by: Tortanick

Ooh, ad-hoc, contradicting yourself, jumping to bizarre conclusions. You really have given up.
(You said earlier that this debate was improvable, as for bizarre conclusions, you think I?m 13 with no evidence, and its wrong)

After that I decided to see just how relevant that actually was, thus proving that personal attacks work, damm. Anyway, my instincts were right, most of it wasn?t relevant. Copy and Paste really isn?t a good debating tool. For starters stats don?t mean anything. Serously. Take that stat from your list one in three households owns a console. I?d say that?s pretty mainstream. You?d obviously say its not. (Pity there isn?t an actual way to prove this one way or another)

However most of that was how the gaming market is doing, mainstream is defined by the oxford dictionary as
noun normal or conventional ideas, attitudes, or activities.
If a third of the population dose something its not exactly abnormal. Anyway witch of the following stats from your list are relevant to determining that something is or isn?t a conventional activity?

* American console adoption flatlined since the 80?s (nope could flatline at 100%)
* American console adoption is between 31-32% (yes)
*The always forthcoming ESA claims that US revenues increased from $3.7 billion in 1996 to $7.3 billion in 2004. (yes)
*In 1982, he tells us, there were 44 million arcade gamers. Today, there are 18 million.? (no, it says 44 million was world wide and 18 million was USA but arcade gamers alone is a useless figure.)
*Then we have, one, two, three useless paragraphs about the fact predictions were to high and the new predictions
* Four paragraphs about the size of the sales slump. 3 years out of date, a single line saying what the size of the market is would be more useful.
* Two editorial paragraphs
* and the final eight paragraphs are about the success rate of new games Totally irrelevant.

You?re the one arguing that games are not mainstream. Perhaps you should be the one to read this and decide if I need to read about the success rate of new games or not because I can?t see why I should read something that you obviously didn?t (and if you think that?s an insult think of the alternative), remove all the irrelevant bits (you even left in the editorials), decide on the many possible interpretations and pick the ones that support you.

So to summarize you posted a mass of statistics, then you posted a personal attack saying that if I can?t see your right from a mass of statistics I?m an idiot and I?m stupid because I spell bad.
Well my responses are:
1) Stats stats and bloody lies, I love that quote
2) Some people spell bad, get over it.
3) Can we get back to a reasonable debate?
4) would you mind if I show this around?

 

[The Escapist Staff]

Original Comment by: Slartibartfast

You may do well to note that I posted the article because the original website was down (besides, maybe somebody out there was interested). I also provided the link at the bottom if you were interested. I didn't edit it at all because I'm at work trying to do numerous things simulatenously. Sorry you had to read the extra 1000 words or so. Besides, I felt the extra information was relevant because you seemed to be arguing that the industry was healthy and growing, but all of those statistics show that things are not running so smoothly. You were talking about increased revenues when the facts show the opposite. The success rate of new games is horrible, because when so few games are successful publishers take less risks and we get more crap sequels. There may be a lot of money being made in videogames, but compared to other media industries I think that gaming is in a pretty big hole right now.

Ok, so anyways, 30% (or so) of American households have a gaming console. Does that make gaming mainstream?

As usual, it's more complicated than that. Unfortunately, we do not know how many people per household actually make use of said machine. Between my house and my friend's houses growing up, it could be anywhere from 3/5 of the house playing, to 1/5. So to make a horribly rough calculation, if 2/5 of 30% of the population plays games, now we have 12%. It's probably higher but not much, I would guess maybe 20% tops. That's one fifth of the population. But that's assuming it's all middle class white households with 3 - 5 people in them. It's easy to imagine households where only 1/6 people play the games console, as well as ones where 100% of the people play. There's also my friend's fiance's house, where they own a Playstation for some reason, but nobody (0/3 people) ever uses it. So that 30-32% is the theoretical maximum amount of the population that plays games, but in reality it's significantly lower. The problem is there isn't really a Nielson-esque rating system for games right now.

So to say that the percentage of households with gaming systems has not really increased in twenty years is a pretty big deal, because it shows a pretty stagnant market. If 30% of households owning a console makes gaming mainstream, I guess it was mainstream in 1985.

Ask your average 45 year old to identify Brittany Spears or Eminem and they probably can. Ask them to identify Mario or Sonic and maybe. Ask them to identify Master Chief, Ken and Ryu, or Samus Aran and more than likely they cannot. My point is that, in my opinion, games are not full-out "mainstream," but they are approaching it. Things like TV commercials and MTV spots indicate that gaming is mainstream, but you forget that half the population or more is too old to give a crap. In a few generations I have no doubt gaming will be mainstream because by then everybody between the ages of 0 and 65 will have grown up on games. I don't think you can reasonably call a cultural phenomenon "mainstream" until it reaches beyond the target demographic. I also think that gamers are quick to say it's mainstream because gaming is getting more press coverage than ever before, and frankly all of us would like to be able to talk about games in public without getting weird looks.

Growth is important to me because it shows that the industry is maturing. The fact that it is not growing very much means that videogames still just appeal mostly to the 15-25 male demographic, which I personally find depressing because I think that their potential as a medium is far from realized.

If "showing this around" makes you feel better about yourself, knock yourself out.

 

[The Escapist Staff]

Original Comment by: Bonnie Ruberg
http://www.heroine-sheik.com
Tortanick and Slartibartfast, I don't mean to intrude on your conversation. I just wanted to point out that one of the great things about The Escapist is how it provides a civil, respectful venue for discussion.

Tortanick, in reply to your reply: On the mainstream/not mainstream point, we may need to agree to disagree. You see mainstreamization as having already taken place, and I think your stats do support that. On the other hand, my purpose is to point out how mainstreamization is still taking place, still growing -- how video games' mainstream status has not yet levelled off.

Your point 1): I'm not quite sure I understand what you're saying here, perhaps that gamer culture hasn't really changed, only moved online? If so, I would argue that that in and of itself reflects a change in the community.

Your point 2): I think the comment you're making about casual gamer stupidity represents two things: a hostility that could well come from feeling threatened - though the explanation on an individual level can always differ - as well as an eliticism that is born of separating yourself (in this case, the hardcore culture) from the mainstream, maybe for the purpose of preserving yourself from such "stupidity."

Your point 3): First of all, why go for indie games? Because, as has been mentioned by others above, indie games put creativity before money, and, in my opinion, this is bound to produce a better game. Second,why is this the culture of tomorrow? It's not THE culture of tomorrow, it's A culture of tomorrow -- the same way that there are many types of movie scenes now, and the indie scene is only one. For me, as someone who's part of and very interested by gamer culture, I think this will be the scene that most meaningfully carries over unique gamer identities into the future.

Sorry, I hadn't meant to ignore these points before, but I admit I was a bit lost in your back and forth with Slartibartfast. Hope these responses are more pertinent. Thanks.

 

[The Escapist Staff]

Original Comment by: Stevie P

Tortanick, if you honestly don't think that gaming is dying, you will be eating your own crow in a few years. Not only is it in an extreme creative slump, but growth is almost flatlined in terms of actual owners of consoles. Of course profits go up, as prices and inflation, along with multi-console houses go up... but growth in the last 25 years hasn't gone much past 2%. And that's dangerous. In fact, if Nintendo doesn't save gaming with the DS and the Revolution, it will very much be the story of current day hollywood, almost guaranteed.

 

[The Escapist Staff]

Original Comment by: Tortanick

Bonnie, your more than welcome to extend it to a three way conversation if you wish although Slartibartfast said that he didn't want to continue. So perfect timeing

ok my replies:

1) Where did you get that idea, your a human who happened to write an article on the manstremisation of games. You don't have a sacred duty to spread that view. And at least try to keep an open mind

2) Moving online is a change, but I'd aruge not a big one. Were still doing the same things as a subculture: namely playing games togeather, descussing games and game theory, talking about high scores etc. Its become more multinational but on the whole not much has changed. I wasn't around during the early days of gameing so I this is actally just an external viewpoint and I can't really argue it except theoretically.

3) I still think you've missunderstood it. I think that hardcore gamers banded togeather because no one else could disscuss detailed game theory or compare Half Life 2 to marathon etc. What you call a preventative first strike is in my view us simply thinking were smarter than anyone who buys bad games with good graphics and not being afraid to say so.

4) Well I don't think creativity is a magic formular for a good game. Plenty of games have intresting ideas but suffer from poor implimentation. Or just creative ideas that simply are bad ideas.
However I really REALLY don't think its a good idea to judge a game buy its creators, Spore is more creative than 100 indie games. Supreem commander isn't that creative, it takes the useual RTS and makes it 100 times bigger and better. so 1) find any indie game more creative than spore. 2) find any indie RTS game thats got better gameplay than supreem commander will have 3) give me one good reason why I shouldn't play the gmaes you've mentioned AND the ones I've mentioned. (assume I have the money)

And if I'm playing both good indie games and good non-indie games why should I call myself an indie gamer?

Finally Stevie P:
Games will never die so long as mankind dosn't blast itself back to the stone age. The reason being that people love games. If someone will make a freeware game today, they'll probobly make one tomorrow even after consoles fade into the dust. Although I agree that the current system of publishing the same stuff over and over can't last will end eventually. My prediction is that when it fails we'll have a rush of creativity then thats defined into new styles and generas that are milked to death. Repeat. (That is how the film indusrty went right?)

 

[The Escapist Staff]

Original Comment by: Aujang Abadi

This is an interesting discussion going on. I'm going to throw in Slartibartfast--the games industry may be making more money but it has not succeeded yet in penetrating any new demographics. By default it will do so once the gaming generation reaches their 50s and 60s, but to say that gaming is mainstream inherently implies that any given person should know something about gaming. I am willing to bet any person off the street can name two musical artists, two recent movies, two cell phone providers, etc., but how many could point to two popular games that aren't Grand Theft Auto? How many could name two different systems?

Also, I think it's grossly unfair to call Microsoft out for this phenomenon. If anything, Sony and Nintendo are responsible for the massive push towards mainstream, and Microsoft just realized there was money to be made.

 

[The Escapist Staff]

Original Comment by: Bonnie Ruberg
http://www.heroine-sheik.com
Hi again, Tortanick...

Your response #1: And you're another human being with another view. Welcome to the world of intellectual discussion

Your response #2: One of the biggest changes, one that you haven't considered but is important to the article, is the way that we've changed as consumers. True, we're creating communities online, but those communities are no longer based on purchasing; we purchase with the mainstream.

Your response #3: Here again I think we might have to agree to disagree. First off, every person and every group of hardcore gamers differ. Secondly, things look different from the inside and the outside. From inside hardcore culture, you see things one way. From outside, I see it another. I really think we're describing the same thing, but from different angles of vision.

Your response #4: My point isn't that indie games, by being indie games, are automatically better, it's that indie games on the whole have a better formula for artistic success. That's not to say that all "creative" games are good, or that all mainstream games are not creative. Also, does playing indie games make you an indie gamer? Only if you define yourself that way. That's something of a different issue though.

I wanted to let you, and anyone else interested in talking directly to me, know that I'm headed out of the country for a bit, and unfortunately won't be able to keep up with this discussion at the pace it deserves. But if you'd like to contact me, you can reach me at bonnie [at] heroine-sheik [dot] com; I'll be sure to get back to you. Thanks!

 

[The Escapist Staff]

Original Comment by: Tortanick

Your right, you should be sorry, There were 1114 words there, I?d agree that only 114 were useful and expecting someone to find them among the 1000 useless ones is terrible debating technique, the entire point of debating is to make it so easy for someone to see your point of view they can?t not see it even when they don?t want to.
Then of course you need to interpret the statistics or I will, and I?ll see them a different way than you.

Anyway this is unprovable, now I?m giving up but it was fun. And for future reference how the non-players feel about games is as important as the numbers who play.

Cya all.

P.S. I'm not showing this around, I just started a similar debate on another forum to get more viewpoints, I wantede permission incase someone asked.

 

[The Escapist Staff]

Original Comment by: Funky J
http://www.funkyj.com
Stevie P:
The only reason gaming is in a slump is because it's in a transitional stage. The PS2 and Game Cube are about to be replaced. People are waiting to buy the next gen consoles.

Bonnie Ruberg:
I disagree that indie games put 'creativity' before profit. There are far too many breakout and tetris clones to support that notion. If indie games were truely about creativity, every game would be different, when in fact most indie games simply try to emulate the best sellers. Sure, there are a few standout games, but these are really few and far between, just like the so-called 'mainstream' games.

I also disagree that "this is bound to produce a better game". Again, I point the the massive amounts of Tetris and Breakout clones. I ask 'better than what'? Because for every good indie game you mention, I can mention a hundred bad ones. Exactly like the 'mainstream' games industry.

 

[The Escapist Staff]

Original Comment by: Paul Jenkins

When the people in your office are talking about their WoW characters instead of last night's episode of Lost, games are mainstream. When radio ShockJocks are playing Halo sound bytes and receive overwhelming feedback from listeners, games are mainstream. When you are stuck between a person using their cell phone and a person playing Nintendogs at the grocery store, games are mainstream. When you are driving behind someone and notice their kids are playing Pokemon on monitors installed in the minivan, Games are mainstream. When your 60 year old mother calls you at work to tell you she needs help fixing her internet because Pogo won't work, or asks you to beat the horsey part of Zelda for her, games are mainstream.

Mainstreamization is not an aspect of economics, but of cultural identity. Work as a pizza delivery person sometime, and you'll realize with that unique opportunity to see into people's homes that at least as many people play games as order pizza... with about the same social relevance attached.

The argument above is about apples and oranges. One person is arguing that games are everywhere (they are) and another is arguing that most games are crap (they are). Some people are saying that games lack innovation (they do) while another argues that everyone buys games (they do).

The problem with mainstreamization is on two levels. One, as Bonnie correctly points out, is that we lose a part of ourself when that thing which makes us unique is not unique any longer. It's hard to play WoW for me, because everyone and their cousin feels that playing that game addictively gives them a sense of entitlement or understanding about MMOGs. I used to play MUCKs and MUDs way before UO... but that is meaningless now. My history was swallowed up by the mass market.

The other level I think is more important as a gamer. The average consumer will buy anything if it's mainstream. That's why DVD sales of high budget crap are high, it's why Top Forty stations play the same six bad songs over and over. There is no incentive to produce quality, when the mass market cannot recognize it and reward the creator (with money).

So, as a gamer, if you prize quality over marketing, you have to dig. You have to invest more and more time into finding that precious jewel of a game that will keep you going. Sometimes it runs paralell to the mass market. Sometimes, no one's ever heard of it. But the good games keep getting harder to find for those who truly prize artistic vision.

On both sides of the coins there's a little light and little dark. In some ways, games need to be the mainstream... But for those of us stuck looking at the shelves in EB packed with sports clones and the latest Need for Speed, wondering what became of Katamari Damacy and Planesape: Torment... for those of us typing "/leave 1" every time we log into WoW and wondering whatever happened to the 126 friends building a world in text pre-web... This is a painful transition.