Men: Now a Minority in PC Gaming.

[Something Amyss]

I am curious why people are so busy hating on people playing browser games. They're more advanced than the NES games people grew up with, but I don't see people running in circles declaring that 8 bit gaming is "Not true gaming".

Browser games are a subset of "games I don't play." Therefore, they get limped into the set of "not real games."

 

[Phasmal]

Well, in fairness, men are never, ever casual gamers, right?

It's true, we don't seem to have to rush into any discussion concering male gamers and add `But! but! - CASUALS` like we apparently have to when talking about female gamers.
Maybe what we need is some sort of international service so that these people who apparently haven't met any female gamers can meet one. They pay us some money, we show up and say hi to them once and then disappear forever and they can no longer use it as a complaint on the internet.

 

[Vigormortis]

That's because that's not what any of us mean when we use the term PC gamer. When people identify themselves or others as PC gamers, the last thing on their mind is a person who plays social games.

Perhaps not, but that doesn't necessarily negate the use of the term for those who game on a PC but don't routinely play "core" games.

We can argue, until we're both blue in the face, over what differentiates a "true" video game from a "fake" one, but I'd like to think that we can both agree that anyone using a PC to play video games (on a regular basis) is, by definition, a PC gamer.

If we can't agree, that's fine. It just means we have differing opinions on the definition.

 

[LittleJoeRambler]

It seems like it's a problem moreso with the terminology than whether or not Farmville-type games are "real games." The term "gamer" for most of its life has had an "enthusiast" implication that doesn't really apply any more. Nowadays, "gamer" simply means "one who plays games" and has largely lost the enthusiast connotation as games started coming on less and less dedicated platforms.

The best analogy I can think of would be for cars. Much like "gamer," you could use the term "driver" for anyone that drives a car. However, there's a distinct difference between me and, say, my brother, who could reasonably be called a gearhead. I own a car and drive it everyday; to me, cars are a tool to solve a problem and little more. To my brother, they are fascinating pieces of engineering, technology, and even works of art. He tinkers with them, he's rebuilt or helped rebuild several of them, has several magazine subscriptions for car magazines, and does his own mechanic work. Sure, we're both "drivers," but he's also a gearhead, and it's oversimplification to simply refer to him as a driver. We're not on the same level of time, money and passion investment; not even close.

Likewise for games, there are what we've termed "casual gamers" and "hardcore gamers," but the term "gamer" itself is still a little muddy. If I'm waiting in the doctor's office, I'm way more likely to play Hay Day on my phone than to read some magazine from 1998, and so is my wife; we'll both use games as a tool to pass the time while we wait for something else. The difference between us is that when I get home, I'll fire up my $1200+ gaming PC and play Battlefield/Skyrim/Minecraft/Starcraft II, whereas she'll queue up a show on Netflix on her laptop. I'll also come onto a game forum to talk about it, watch Let's Plays, Extra Credits, Zero Punctuation and Errant Signal; I seek out articles on new gaming tech or game analysis. I care about games as a teaching medium and as a form of artistic expression, one that uniquely allows for interaction with the art; my wife uses them as a time passer. You're not wrong to call us both "gamers," but there's a huge difference in our time, money and passion investment, so it's oversimplification, just like "driver" and "gearhead."

What we need is for the term "gamer" to become ubiquitous, and to get a more distinct term for "gaming enthusiast," 'cause that just doesn't roll off the tongue well.

 

[Savagezion]

Well, in fairness, men are never, ever casual gamers, right?

It's true, we don't seem to have to rush into any discussion concering male gamers and add `But! but! - CASUALS` like we apparently have to when talking about female gamers.
Maybe what we need is some sort of international service so that these people who apparently haven't met any female gamers can meet one. They pay us some money, we show up and say hi to them once and then disappear forever and they can no longer use it as a complaint on the internet.

Nah, I would say we did exactly that when CoD got big and every publisher under the sun was trying to cater to the CoD audience. (Who is mostly male. Everyone considers a CoD gamer a casual here. We all know there are people who strictly play it and maybe another shooter on the side like Destiny or Titanfall. But CoD holds a fanbase that has zero interest in anything that isn't CoD or CoD-like in nature. The phrase "Go back to CoD" means we will do exactly that to other men. Especially considering CoD's fanbase are primarily guys in their mid 20s.

 

[Loonyyy]

Your heard that right folks, men are now a minority in PC gaming. According to a study by SuperData Research, 50.2% of all PC gamers are women.

That number spikes up to 53.6% for RPGs and 57.8% for Mobile games.

On the flip side, 66% of all FPS and MMO players are men.

Studies that don't report the Margin of Error, or sampling methodologies can't, and shouldn't be trusted.

What was reported when you follow the link trail to the original article is that it's several different studies that generate those figures.

With a minimum of 1000 sample size your Margin of Error is at least +-3%, if not higher, so the females ratio being at 50.2% means nothing because the MOE overlaps so solidly that women being ahead could easily be a measurement error.

Mobile could be a sampling issue which is why methodology, and selection process are important. If it is anything it probably has a bit to do with Facebook clicker games being so dominant on the mobile platform. Those games are made to appeal to women because facebook has a lop sided male to female ratio in favor of women. So when the games move from Facebook to Mobile their audience moves with them.

For First Person Shooters I'd just point out the very simple real world statistic that Men are 4 times more likely to buy a gun than a women. I'd expect games about guns to have the same, or similar lop sided value. However, I'd still question their sampling methodology even though it meets my expectations.

RPG's could be nothing more that MOE, or Sampling issue, but if it were something then I'd say it may have a bit to do with RPG's vanishing from most platforms. Bravely default was one of the latest to try and breath life back into the genre, but since it wasn't release everywhere so it's going to reflect the population of Nintendo's audience more than the population at large.

Also RPG is a vague term. There are Western RPG's, JRPG's, Action RPG's, CRPG, Turn Based RPG, Strategy RPG, and so on. Women might not make that distinction since a lot of that is married to the past when male gamers made up a much larger population. Does the guy who likes Turn Based Strategy JRPS's say he likes RPG's, or does it answer Strategy instead? This is why disclosing methodology is important. We'd know if they took this into account, or not if they had.

If you look up the company reported to have done the study, they detail all (And it's a flood, because they have the methodology and terminology for every sort of study they do) of their methodology on their website. The actual study isn't reproduced there, I'm not sure where you'd actually get your hands on it, and as usual, journalists, bloggers, and "news" sources seem to be reporting from an abstract or press release, and don't link to the study in question, or include useful data. *Sigh*. People's reporting of science sucks.

 

[Something Amyss]

It's true, we don't seem to have to rush into any discussion concering male gamers and add `But! but! - CASUALS` like we apparently have to when talking about female gamers.

Well, you don't expect a single standard, do you? That would be unfair, don't ya think?

 

[Doom972]

That's because that's not what any of us mean when we use the term PC gamer. When people identify themselves or others as PC gamers, the last thing on their mind is a person who plays social games.

Perhaps not, but that doesn't necessarily negate the use of the term for those who game on a PC but don't routinely play "core" games.

We can argue, until we're both blue in the face, over what differentiates a "true" video game from a "fake" one, but I'd like to think that we can both agree that anyone using a PC to play video games (on a regular basis) is, by definition, a PC gamer.

If we can't agree, that's fine. It just means we have differing opinions on the definition.

Then we can't agree. Farmville isn't a PC game. Feel free to dismiss it as an opinion if you want. I just gave you an honest answer.

 

[Leoofmoon]

yeah this data collection is very flawed in more ways then one, they don't really list things right and they arn't saying ow many of them are Facebook games or phone game. Hell they put console into one.

 

[Verlander]

Games are games, regardless of how "casual" they are.

Anyway, it's hardly a minority. Having near identical representation is not the same thing as being a minority.

I don't know about this. If we were talking about the prevelance of women in tabletop games like DandD or Warhammer and the data included people who play Candyland you probably wouldn't think they were comparable.

Well, that's kinda your problem right there - "comparable". The survey never said that the games were comparable, just that they fit into the definition of computer game. I think that's for the best too... you can play browser versions of Street Fighter 2 or Altered Beast nowadays, and some of the microtransaction facebook games are more complex than the original God games. And sure, people are playing Candy Crush, which is annoying, but Tetris is just another puzzle game like that. There's no strong distinction of what is a so-called "real game" or "casual" game at the moment, beyond those that play them.

No it isn't. If I cook a Pot Noodle am I a Chef? If I go to see 3 films in a year am I a film buff? If I check my Farmville once a week for 10 minutes am I a gamer. No.
But even by the logic that they are, it still makes NO sense why this survey would matter. After all people who just play Facebook games and Kongregate are playing a completely different type of game, since they're Free to Play they are not bringing any money into the industry or helping it's growth because most of them don't CARE about the gaming industry. The audience for big triple A releases and Facebook Games are clearly different, so why are they being grouped together like this? This is like grouping together Rugby League and Rugby Union players just because both games have, "Rugby", in the title.

I feel the need to mention I don't care if someone likes to play Facebook games, I really don't care what people do with their free time. However a person who occasionally puts 10 minutes into Farmville isn't a gamer. With that also said I should acknowledge that there is a growing number of Female gamers, I'm good friends with a few, however that doesn't mean that when someone pushes a survey so obviously flawed as this I won't insult it.

Well, for a start I never claimed what a "gamer" is, just that games are games... a Pot Noodle is food and a film is a film. My personal definition of gamer tends to be someone who willingly chooses to play games as a leisure activity, in which case the "casuals" ARE gamers. If you go by the logic that a gamer is someone who is an enthusiast, and follows the industry outside of simply playing games, then you have a point. It's an opinion either way, is what I'm saying.

As for the money thing... I'm sorry dude, but you're wrong. Casual games, even F2P games rake in a metric fuckton of cash. That's where the industry lean towards micro-transactions comes from, it's a direct impact on high end titles that began life in casual games. You don't have to like them, I sure don't, but regardless of our opinions the playing habits of these women (and men) is incredibly important to the growth of the industry. Is it more important to growth than AAA gaming? No, but that doesn't mean it's worthless.

 

[Erttheking]

Snip

You misunderstand. I don't consider someone who played a game two years ago once to be a gamer. I consider someone who plays games on any regular basis, even if it's just once a week, to be a gamer. Even if it's just farmvile.

My argument got all mixed up, that's the only point I was trying to make.

 

[Something Amyss]

I don't know about this. If we were talking about the prevelance of women in tabletop games like DandD or Warhammer and the data included people who play Candyland you probably wouldn't think they were comparable.

And you'd have the same problem if you were to talk about FPS and included data about Street Fighter players. But that's sort of redefining the terms.

Let's ignore, for a moment, that we then put some sort of undemonstrated weight on whether there's an actual gender bias in browser/Facebook/whatever games. Let's focus solely on the terminology. The problem here is we're talking games. Not "games like X and Y," but games in general.

Is this what people are so pissed off about? They see a study based on tabletop games and are upset that D&D isn't fairly focused on?

Well...so what?

No, I'm being serious here. I don't get it. The market is widening. It seems like only yesterday we were bemoaning the focus on "dudebro shooters," and statistically it probably was only yesterday. We collectively get pissed off when your Roger Eberts come along and insist games can never be art because he didn't factor in X or Y or Z, but then, what do we do?

We do the equivalent of excluding a good chunk of the market because....what?

When you say "tabletop game," you're talking about a broad term that encompasses traditional board games, modern RPGs, card games of both the traditional and trading-card varieties, and so on. If we're talking about board games, and someone says this doesn't reflect D&D or Warhammer, well so what?

 

[SilverUchiha]

1. Why do you think more women play RPGs than men?

Most likely because general female audiences prefer games with stories and the ability to modify their characters in some way (ala Skyrim) to look like whoever or whatever they want. They're not in it solely for the empowerment fantasies that FPS games generally go for. And I'm very much in that same boat (as a male) because stories in RPGs tend to be more interesting than anything else. Arguably, RPGs also last longer than an average FPS and perhaps general female audiences prefer sticking to one game and playing through that as long as possible to enjoy the experience to the fullest rather than jumping from twitch-reactionary game of 4-6 hours to another trigger-happy-shooty-fest lasting another 4-6 hours.

2. Why do you think more men FPSs than women?

I don't really know. My guess is because men have been in gaming longer (generally speaking) and they are used to reaction-based game mechanics all the way since the NES days. So these are games just building off the gameplay they've already grown accustomed to and other games like RPGs are just a tad slower for their enjoyment. I like how I "their" enjoyment like I'm not part of the male demographic even though I totally am. But I actually don't enjoy FPS games more than RPGs in most cases. In fact, most of them I just get bored with because they all have basically the same feel to them and it gets old after a while.

3. Mobile, Social or "Casual" games are included in these numbers, do you think they should be discounted, if so, why?

No. They're still technically games. And "casual" is such a broad term because some people will imply that Mario is "casual" but Mario is a classic game series with entries that people will struggle to get through in comparison to the latest Call of Duty that you can finish in just a handful of hours. And how can you argue that Call of Duty isn't a social game with the poisonous toxic filth that is the online-gaming community? It isn't a Facebook social game, but it is a game that does put emphasis on the social-aspect of its game by encouraging others players to play together. As such, the above terms to refer to games as lesser games is silly and stupid.

What I'm more interested to know are demographics for platformers, fighting games, action games, horror games, puzzle games, and other games that aren't listed because apparently researchers only care about two demographics.


[/quote]

 

[Savagezion]

Snip

You misunderstand. I don't consider someone who played a game two years ago once to be a gamer. I consider someone who plays games on any regular basis, even if it's just once a week, to be a gamer. Even if it's just farmvile.

My argument got all mixed up, that's the only point I was trying to make.

I can agree with that. I don't think farmville players arent gamers. Shit, I actually think many of them are more hardcore about it than I am in terms of time dedication. However, the most I have personally seen someone spend on farmville is $20. I know whales exist, but none populate my habitat. It's all about F2P for life around me. Meanwhile, I am spending hundreds of dollars every year on the industry supporting multiple titles on multiple platforms. I am interested in game development design choices, why a game is popular vs. one that is not, customer dev relations, etc. Not just making sure I hop online and harvest my strawberries at 3:15 and having no opinion on that other 'nerdy' stuff. It is a little irritating to hear someone say myself and those gamers are the same.

It isn't because I think I am better than them, it is because I am not so naive as to think we are the same at all. There is a vast amount of diversity in gaming today. And I ain't talking about race/gender stuff. I mean there is a vast amount of diversity in GAMING. What people play, why they play it, how they play it, etc. That is the main reason Minecraft got so popular, it could cater to so many people's gaming style. PvP, builder games, achievement junkies, etc. (Not through actual achievements but like being able to say "I got full diamond everything and a house made out of diamond and blah, blah, blah. You got mods adding in even more to that playstyle diversity. You got graphic modpacks that range from retro to cartoony to photo realism. The way people play games is so diverse now, lumping anyone who plays games together and going "gamer trends" doesn't work. We are now adding apps to the list, why not board games? Sports? tabletop rpgs? fantasy football? etc. Why stop there? We could make everyone a "gamer" tomorrow. So long as they play a game of some kind and want to call themselves a gamer, what's the difference, right? We want to be inclusive after all.

 

[nevarran]

1. Why do you think more women play RPGs than men?
2. Why do you think more men FPSs than women?

I guess women are more into immersion and details, while men are happy with a quick not engaging adrenalin rush.

3. Mobile, Social or "Casual" games are included in these numbers, do you think they should be discounted, if so, why?

Why should anyone who plays games be excluded from a survey on people who play games?

 

[OldNewNewOld]

Why isnt there a study that doesnt involve casual games , facebook games....

Because such a study couldn't be used as an "argument" why the AAA industry should stop revolving about the wast majority of their consumer base and start revolving about people that aren't their consumer base.

Honestly, I'm getting sick of this argument. Every time someone brings up the male to female ration gaming, I know it will lead to someone having a snarky comment to some AAA publisher telling them how they are woring and should start focusing on female players as much as male players. Now, don't get me wrong. I have nothing against big publisher pandering to anyone. If they want to do it, they can do it. I don't care. After all I'm not the targeted audience for the wast majority of the games since "widening the audience" has become a big thing.
But I hate those false arguments.

People are making a separation of the casual and core argument for a reason and it's not "because they don't want to share their games with others". It's because the markets for those 2 groups is vastly different and pandering to the other market means destroying my fun and I don't want that. They have their own developer, let those developer make games for them. I've lost the FPS market because casuals can't into fast paced FPS games. I've lost the RTS games because every game has to be a billion seller. I've lost the RPG market because people can't into reading and need quest marker, voice acting, overcasualized stats systems, magic, combat, world layout and everything else.
So yeah, sorry if it hurts someone that I don't want the things I like to get fucked up just so that he or she can enjoy it. Actually, I'm not sorry. Fuck them. Anyone who actually loved Morrowind will tell you what piece of shit Skyrim is. Everyone who loved Thief will tell you what piece of shit the new Thief is. I don't want to see more things I enjoy getting ruined just to pander to someone who actually doesn't really care about the game.

EDIT:

 

[Phasmal]

Nah, I would say we did exactly that when CoD got big and every publisher under the sun was trying to cater to the CoD audience. (Who is mostly male. Everyone considers a CoD gamer a casual here. We all know there are people who strictly play it and maybe another shooter on the side like Destiny or Titanfall. But CoD holds a fanbase that has zero interest in anything that isn't CoD or CoD-like in nature. The phrase "Go back to CoD" means we will do exactly that to other men. Especially considering CoD's fanbase are primarily guys in their mid 20s.

I just re-read the thread and I can't really see anyone going `but how many of those guys just play CoD?`, and I don't see this come up that often. Sure, I've heard it once or twice, but it's not automatically shoehorned in when you talk about men playing games.

Point being, men's inclusion in gaming is rarely questioned in the way women's is. As a core female gamer, this makes me disappointed a little, when conversations about women in gaming immediately turn to conversations about casual gamers as if they are one and the same.

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

I don't know about this. If we were talking about the prevelance of women in tabletop games like DandD or Warhammer and the data included people who play Candyland you probably wouldn't think they were comparable.

Let's ignore, for a moment, that we then put some sort of undemonstrated weight on whether there's an actual gender bias in browser/Facebook/whatever games. Let's focus solely on the terminology. The problem here is we're talking games. Not "games like X and Y," but games in general.

Is this what people are so pissed off about? They see a study based on tabletop games and are upset that D&D isn't fairly focused on?

Well...so what?

No, I'm being serious here. I don't get it. The market is widening. It seems like only yesterday we were bemoaning the focus on "dudebro shooters," and statistically it probably was only yesterday. We collectively get pissed off when your Roger Eberts come along and insist games can never be art because he didn't factor in X or Y or Z, but then, what do we do?

We do the equivalent of excluding a good chunk of the market because....what?

When you say "tabletop game," you're talking about a broad term that encompasses traditional board games, modern RPGs, card games of both the traditional and trading-card varieties, and so on. If we're talking about board games, and someone says this doesn't reflect D&D or Warhammer, well so what?

First off, I never said I was pissed off about or defensive of anything so don't get your panties in a bunch and start using "we" for every statement. I'm not attempting to throw up walls and set up separate tree houses for the "casual" and "hardcore" crowd. I'm only pointing out that from my perspective there can be certain distinctions within a broad category like PC gaming or board games that should be acknowledged when talking about the market as a whole; because they're not the same market. I'd be willing to bet that a large proportion of facebook/mobile/browser "gamers" couldn't care less about PC gaming in any other capacity or even know what say, Steam is, for example. Does that make them lesser than you or I or anyone else? No of course not. But lumping the groups together and calling them exactly the same and comparable is naive.

 

[Something Amyss]

First off, I never said I was pissed off about or defensive of anything

Never said you did.

so don't get your panties in a bunch and start using "we" for every statement.

Hey, you know how you didn't like it when you thought accusations were made? You know, in the first half of this very sentence? Yeah, now you're doing the same. Isn't it interesting how it's wrong for me to do it (even though I didn't), but okay for you to?

Also, I used "we" as a collective statement. I even said "collectively" once.

I suppose the new question is: why take personally things not said about you?

I'm not attempting to throw up walls and set up separate tree houses for the "casual" and "hardcore" crowd.

And I said you were, where?

I'm only pointing out that from my perspective there can be certain distinctions within a broad category like PC gaming or board games that should be acknowledged when talking about the market as a whole; because they're not the same market.

And I addressed this specifically by pointing out how these are broad categories and that even your analogy was terrible.

I'd be willing to bet that a large proportion of facebook/mobile/browser "gamers" couldn't care less about PC gaming in any other capacity or even know what say, Steam is, for example.

I bet a large portion of Rummy players don't care about D&D. Unless your argument is that they don't count as tabletop players, however, I don't see the point of bringing this up. Broad categories are broad.

But lumping the groups together and calling them exactly the same and comparable is naive.

And thankfully, neither I nor Verlander said that. I'm not sure if you're not reading us, or what, but Verlander simply said "games are games, whether they're casual or not." Again, this should set off your tautology sense. Games are games. Instead, you're either inferring or making up some sort of "exactly the same and comparable" sentiment that wasn't there.

Baseball and hockey are both sports. It doesn't make them exactly the same and comparable.

I'm not even sure how you get there from here.

 

[Something Amyss]

I've lost the FPS market because casuals can't into fast paced FPS games.

But who cares what you think? You're a minority in gaming. Why should they pander to you? Why should the industry stop revolving around the vast majority of its consumer base?

Now, consider for a moment, that's the same logic you just espoused towards another group.

I just re-read the thread and I can't really see anyone going `but how many of those guys just play CoD?`, and I don't see this come up that often. Sure, I've heard it once or twice, but it's not automatically shoehorned in when you talk about men playing games.

And you never see such people labeled "fake gamer guys" or similar, except in the context of someone taking the piss.