Um...YES! If you steal something you are by definition a thief! If you gambled, you are a gamblier. If you looked at someone naked (Intentionally that is) you are a pervert. If you lied, you are a liar. You can drop the habit, just like you can drop gaming, but that's it.Savagezion said:
Men: Now a Minority in PC Gaming.
- Thread starter The Lunatic
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I keep reading statistics like this, and I'm sorry, but I never see the evidence. The way its phrased, one would imagine female gamers are everywhere, all the time, playing their games. In the almost 30 years I've been alive, I've met 1 female gamer. Yes yes, anecdotal, blah blah. But my question is this: where are they? Are they too ashamed to admit they're gamers? Do they all just live in Austin or Tokyo or congregate in a single place? Do all female gamers just agree to never admit to liking games and live lives of quiet desperation, denying what they love, simply...'cause? Is it like a Bible thing where if they deny being gamers three times, Half Life 3 comes out?
Also not sure how fair it is to post mobile games in the studies.
Also not sure how fair it is to post mobile games in the studies.
Starting to see why you only got an average grade for that survey. After demonstrating ignorance of the subject, and of the statistical analysis, and complaining that the sample size is too small (without good justification), you jump straight to defending your blatant misrepresentation of surveying with pre-school responses?mad825 said:
If you got "The survey is valid" from that Zachary, you're either mistaken or lying. Questioning the methodology involves actual claims, and actual testing. Like, is their sample size big enough to make certain claims with the data, or is their sampling biased, or were their questions poorly worded. Complaining that the sample is "small" relative to nothing says nothing. Additionally, checking the original joystiq report, the results are the accumulation of several surveys with a minimum sample size of 1000.
Someone came up with the figure of 3-4% margin of error. If that's the case, I'm pretty sure .5 is included in the 95% CI, so I'm not sure that we can conclude that significantly more or less women or men play games. I'm not 100% on that, since I don't have the full data, or a complete breakdown of useful data, but I'm not going to dig around for someone else's analysis to teach someone first year hypothesis testing.
Crying about rude remarks while bragging about your apparent experience in surveys, yet making basic errors in understanding them, and trying to play the SCIENCE card (Mistakenly), and outright accusing people of lying about their experience, when they demonstrate more knowledge than you. That's pathetic, and another to the end of a series of ad hominem, straight up bullshit and invective.
And then that makes someone an SJW. Pathetic. And as to how pointing out that the sample size complaint isn't so grounded as the ignorant think it is dishonest or ignorant, I'll leave to the more imaginative. I'll have to let the statisticians, mathematicians, scientists, and people participating in surveys that they're SJWs. It's good to see this though. I remember when people disagreed with each other in my first tutorial on hypothesis testing. Everyone decided that everyone was biased, or a Social Justice Warrior, or that they were lying, and they shouted at each other, and science prevailed. Oh wait. The exact opposite. There was a unified method to follow, with rules, and people could check each other's working and see how they came to their conclusions or what their errors were. You can see exactly where people's work differs and who is right according to protocol, based on well understood mathematics. Would be nice if the working was shown here, or if the working is just "SCIENCE" and "I did a survey once".
im not particulary convinced, the study seems to have included brwoser games, ok technically are games, but are not the kind of games most of use play on a regular basis
JediMB said:
You're not wrong.Zachary Amaranth said:
It's just that it feels kinda desperate to start saying "YOU'RE ALL MINORITIES NOW!" over a 0.2% lead. Not to mention this is based solely in America so it's kinda misinforming people with a title like that. You'd think with such bold claims it'll at least be a study done in at least 3 countries.
But don't let me stop you or anything.
This is all IMO, but if I had to venture a guess it goes like this:The Lunatic said:
1: How the RPG genre evolved in the first place.
Basically in the West when the adventure genre died down, a lot of the developers in that genre moved into RPGs, because it was essentially moving from one narrative based genre to another. Now the thing with the adventure genre is one of the most influential voices in it at the time was Roberta Williams, so it always had a more female friendly face (this is also why hidden object games tend to target women as a market.
Now what that means is that there were certain things taken as "this is what works" from that genre into WRPGs which made them more female friendly in terms of narrative, the traditional knowledge that was carried through helped.
In Japan, much the same thing happened with visual novels and dating sims. A lot of those are porn, but there are also a lot of games that target a female audience - and you see this reflected in how the individual developers approach stories because they pick up things that work in games specifically designed for women, and carry them over to their RPGs, which target a more general audience.
This is why I actually think the solution to gaming's current issues is actually to encourage more niche titles approaching more niche audiences - using smaller budgets to attract smaller potential markets, so as to allow developers more of a chance to experiment and learn now tricks, expanding the overall market and improving the quality of the AAA titles they then go on to develop later.
2: FPS didn't take a lot of developers from the fall of adventure gaming, because while there are some games in it with stunning narratives (EG Heretic 2) it was never the main focus of the genre. So it didn't quite get the same habits passing over.
3: No. Okay I have a bit of a problem with the idea of casual games - in that they are basically stripped down core titles.
Half of them wouldn't be out of place in an arcade, which was the original core gaming demographic. Pretty much the entire catalog of King games fits into that type of gaming.
Then you've got the hidden object game genre - which when you look at it, is really just point and click adventure gaming which for a long time was a highly respected and even dominant feature of narrative driven gaming.
You have what Total Biscuit calls the cow clicker - which is basically stripped down city sims.
And you have a long list of what amounts to very basic management games.
So the trouble is, as these games develop and become more complex, the line between them and "core gaming" is going to get blurred and the distinction is going to become lost because it isn't of substance, but rather degree.
I said what i said because the interaction between the people who play and people who make games is negligible . Most of the games are made not for the sake for a experience but to pass the time . I may sound a bit biased or may i am (i dont know) as i believe these casual games are to the industry what cancer is to the body . I believe that the term Gamer means a hard core gamer , for whom gaming is a hobby or like what you said , a die-hard gear-head . This was the reasons , a new term was made to differentiate the other category , Casual gamers . Our points are similar , its just the perspective that is a bit different. I believe rather than saying that 50% of the gamers are female , it should be said that most of the casual gamers are female and most core gamers are male . This accurately differentiates the two categories and tells us about what type of communities they interact with and what part of the industry are they link to , etc . This leads to not making threads like 'Men: Now a Minority in PC Gaming' and also adds more meaning when people say , turning 'Women should get into gaming' into 'Women should get into core gaming'.Vigormortis said:
You seem to be inferring meaning that isn't there. All this means to me, personally, is that the oft-used argument that women are a small minority (especially among RPG players), and should therefore not be prioritized, now holds even less water.Keoul said:
First off let me state that I think every person on the planet should be able to enjoy a hobby like computer gaming, be it Farmville, Diablo III, CoD or some weird hentai JRPG - without being prejudiced or harassed.
That having been said, I believe there are only 2 genuinely valid ways to define the term "gamer":
1. The only definition the industry is interested in: how much money do you spend on gaming (including hardware, ad revenue for browser-based games etc.)?
2. The vague definition we as "gamers" like to use - which games you play, which platform you use, how often and long you play, how serious/passionate/competitive you are, and so on.
I am 100% certain that by using either of these definitions, the vast majority of gamers are still males. VAST majority.
If anyone else can think of another relevant definition of "gamer", i'd certainly love to hear it...
That having been said, I believe there are only 2 genuinely valid ways to define the term "gamer":
1. The only definition the industry is interested in: how much money do you spend on gaming (including hardware, ad revenue for browser-based games etc.)?
2. The vague definition we as "gamers" like to use - which games you play, which platform you use, how often and long you play, how serious/passionate/competitive you are, and so on.
I am 100% certain that by using either of these definitions, the vast majority of gamers are still males. VAST majority.
If anyone else can think of another relevant definition of "gamer", i'd certainly love to hear it...
Well then this thread is filled with nothing but lying, perverted gamers cause I know you have all done both of those, be you man or woman. We're just a bunch of lying perverts. I wouldn't call someone who gambled 2 years ago, a gambler. I wouldn't even call someone who bets $20 on the super bowl every year a gambler. I wouldn't call someone who played a game 2 years ago, a gamer. I wouldn't call someone who once told a lie (or even lies on an average of once every 5 years at that) a liar. If you think looking at someone naked makes you a pervert, art colleges must be a really creepy place for you. Has someone who has been sober for 2 years still an alcoholic in your eyes?erttheking said:
I get wanting to be inclusive but if we are to be inclusive we need to categorize gamers because people have different gaming habits. The community spewed vile all over the first attempts at categorizing with "hardcore" and "casual". "Everyone who plays games is a gamer" they said with contempt for the idea. Well, they got their way and now 'studies' like this don't mean shit because the field is too ambiguous by its own nature. Casuals are not separated even though they spend far less money and time on the industry. Someone like me that spends hundreds of dollars every year on games from all genres except fighters and sidescrollers is no different than someone who only plays free apps on their phone and facebook titles. I have only allowed myself a $300 budget on gaming this year and I feel constrained as hell. Especially, with the next gen out. But it isn't like that information is important to anyone out there. We're trying to include every last person we can like a bunch of desperate hopefuls about... feminism, I guess. It's not like this information could be used to find out who is spending money on the hobby and actually supporting it or anything.
Did you miss the part where I said that you can drop the habit? Because I did say that. Wait, you were saying that we called a person who played a game once and then never again a gamer? I'm pretty sure that isn't where we were going with this.Savagezion said:
No, I saw it and acknowledged it but it only served to steer around that specific hyperbolic scenario. If you drop the habit you are not a gamer anymore. If someone no longer lies all the time would you go around calling them a liar because they used to be? Ditto with all the other scenarios? Dropping the habit IS dropping the title. "I used to be" a gamer is way more accurate. I am currently starting a new DnD campaign. I mentioned it to my buddy who is going to play about it and his wife heard us. Her exact words were "I used to be a big DnD nerd when I was younger" and proceeded to tell me about all the stuff she had and how much she played. However, I wouldn't tell someone that she IS a DnD nerd.erttheking said:
EDIT: For the record I tried getting her to play as well because of this which she resisted showing zero interest in playing. Hence, why she said "I used to be".
"You can drop the habit, but that's it" is saying "you can stop playing, but we're still gonna count you as the same as someone who still plays" It reeks of desperation.
A) When did GGers post this and claim that (at least I didn't see it here)?Gethsemani said:
B) If you actually READ the comments people here seem to be saying that it's false as well.
So unless you're reading a different forum/stuff than I am I have no idea where your comment came from.
How do you know? Do you regularly ask all of your colleagues, your neighbours, your doctor and dentist and dog-walker?Silentpony said:
Because this kind of claim always strikes me as bizarre - you've probably met a variety of female gamers and just didn't know.
Sure, one can guess sometimes. The people in line at a game shop*, or the people who pull out their Vita or DS on the train, or (as I saw this morning) the woman wearing the Dragon Age shirt at the dog park - those are fair guesses. But you have no idea about anyone else - those people reading on the train or playing (gasp!) mobile games on their phone may be heavy gamers too, but you have no way of knowing.
*And I don't think shops are particularly representative in any case, especially now that everything is available online - a lot of them are clearly catering to specific subcultures and can be uncomfortable (if not hostile) to a whole host of people (not just women) who don't appear to be their in-group. There's an independent game shop in my old neighbourhood that (in theory) I'd love to be able to support, but they're unwelcoming and snobby - and what's worse is that I don't think they even recognize themselves as such.
A study on gamer population is met with disdain on the escapist because it includes games they don't like. How surprising. I get that there are a whole lot of issues with the study, but I think the main point it is trying to get across is that the gaming industry, while still very fragmented in terms of population mix, is becoming more diverse. That's a good thing guys! Some of that 50% who play farmville WILL end up trying out a couple of so-called "core" games a result of their time in Farmville. That's not a bad thing!
I submit that we should stop looking at people who play games on a binary yes/no identity check box, and more on a scale/quadrant of "how much do you play" and "what do you play". Because at the end of the day, the only reason such a segmentation scheme would exist is to figure out what what the consumer will want / play.
To me, it is abundantly clear that the single spectrum of "how much of a gamer are you" is no longer sufficient, since the population of people who play games have become far more diverse and far more complicated in consumption behavior. If you MUST categorize a consumer's behavior as a game player in a general sense, you are really asking two questions:
1. how much knowledge / convention of games do you have? (be it depth or variety, this question tests your consumption of things that relate to but are nominally outside of playing the game itself)
2. how much do you actually play?
I agree with this sentiment, though not the specifics. As far as companies go, while the term "gamer" makes for a good tag to a market segment, is really ineffective. The main reason is that gaming as a past time has become mainstream enough that you can't be looking at it strictly from a "these people are gamers, and these people are not." The moment you get into that kind of thinking, you end up making definitions on thin air as to what constitutes a "real" gamer and what doesn't, which often ends with people saying things like "this is not a real gamer" vis-a-vis another person's gaming habits. If any of the executives listened to what some of the people here considered "real" gamers as their barometer for making business decisions, the industry would be a lot smaller and you'd see a lot less content being made, since you'd have less money invested into it, and less companies would crop up to make new content.rhubarb_j said:
I submit that we should stop looking at people who play games on a binary yes/no identity check box, and more on a scale/quadrant of "how much do you play" and "what do you play". Because at the end of the day, the only reason such a segmentation scheme would exist is to figure out what what the consumer will want / play.
To me, it is abundantly clear that the single spectrum of "how much of a gamer are you" is no longer sufficient, since the population of people who play games have become far more diverse and far more complicated in consumption behavior. If you MUST categorize a consumer's behavior as a game player in a general sense, you are really asking two questions:
1. how much knowledge / convention of games do you have? (be it depth or variety, this question tests your consumption of things that relate to but are nominally outside of playing the game itself)
2. how much do you actually play?
Why is this thread making people so angry? Why are so many people going "ya, but Farmville!" and glosssing over the RPGs statistics. Whether or not the sample makes the statistics valid or not is a reasonable thing to debate, but in all seriousness, why are people so angry about this?
Also, if you don't care, and don't think it's important, why post in the thread? I swear, a lot of the attitudes in this thread make it sound like people don't want more women to be gamers.
Anyway, here's my attempt at answering the OP's questions:
1. Because they're more hardcore than us. As far as I'm concerned, you're more of a hardcore gamer for playing RPGs that you are for playing CoD.
Okay, joking aside, I really don't know. I'm a guy and I've always preferred RPGs to shooters (unless the shooter has a lot of roleplaying elements). Maybe it's because shooters typically are played online and women don't really want to interact with some jackass making sexist remarks to them constantly. You might be saying "oh please, you're exaggerating." I'm not. Back when I used to play CoD, my sister wanted to play a match. As soon as she confirmed that she was not a 10 year old boy and in fact was a teenage girl, she immediately had some graphic, sexual remarks made to her by two different people. Maybe she was just unlucky, but I all I know is, I've never had someone tell me that they wanted to "fuck me in the ass" while I was playing a game and yet this was leveled at my sister on her very fist gaming experience. It was really quite sickening.
Yes there's a mute button, but if you have to use it more often than not, there's something very wrong with the situation.
2. Again, this is just speculation, but maybe we like the competitive nature. I'm not saying that women don't like competition, just that maybe men like it more. Again, just speculation, I could be completely wrong.
3. I don't count them. Judging from the percentages, if we stopped counting these kinds of games, men would be the majority again but still, I think the RPG statistics shows that female gamers are only going to become more prevalent. As far as I'm concerned, that's a good thing.
Edit: I had an extra "3." at the end of my post. Must be tired...
Also, if you don't care, and don't think it's important, why post in the thread? I swear, a lot of the attitudes in this thread make it sound like people don't want more women to be gamers.
Anyway, here's my attempt at answering the OP's questions:
1. Because they're more hardcore than us. As far as I'm concerned, you're more of a hardcore gamer for playing RPGs that you are for playing CoD.
Okay, joking aside, I really don't know. I'm a guy and I've always preferred RPGs to shooters (unless the shooter has a lot of roleplaying elements). Maybe it's because shooters typically are played online and women don't really want to interact with some jackass making sexist remarks to them constantly. You might be saying "oh please, you're exaggerating." I'm not. Back when I used to play CoD, my sister wanted to play a match. As soon as she confirmed that she was not a 10 year old boy and in fact was a teenage girl, she immediately had some graphic, sexual remarks made to her by two different people. Maybe she was just unlucky, but I all I know is, I've never had someone tell me that they wanted to "fuck me in the ass" while I was playing a game and yet this was leveled at my sister on her very fist gaming experience. It was really quite sickening.
Yes there's a mute button, but if you have to use it more often than not, there's something very wrong with the situation.
2. Again, this is just speculation, but maybe we like the competitive nature. I'm not saying that women don't like competition, just that maybe men like it more. Again, just speculation, I could be completely wrong.
3. I don't count them. Judging from the percentages, if we stopped counting these kinds of games, men would be the majority again but still, I think the RPG statistics shows that female gamers are only going to become more prevalent. As far as I'm concerned, that's a good thing.
Edit: I had an extra "3." at the end of my post. Must be tired...
i think it's general disdain/fear of the current trend pushing for social justice (excuse the term, can't think of anything better / more neutral at the moment) in games. heavily skewed statistics like this make the situation look in a way that it quiet isn't and can be used for justification of pushing more "serious" non-social games gaming (again, sub-optimal term, but i can't think of something better) into a direction that many (myself, as a girl, included) is harmful to the quality of games.RedDeadFred said:
Good God I'm so sick of the intellectually dishonest bullshit of SJWs. Does anyone, anyone actually believe that in real gaming and not this mobile puzzle "game" crap men are a minority?
This is like saying that 20% of movies are pranks because you classify youtube clips as movies. And if these "games" are just as important as core games why do SJWs always obsess over core games?
This is like saying that 20% of movies are pranks because you classify youtube clips as movies. And if these "games" are just as important as core games why do SJWs always obsess over core games?