Teenage Male Gamers No Longer Biggest Demographic

[Simonism451]

I don't think this study shows really anything pertinent aside from the fact that videogames as a medium are hard to talk about since we lack the vocabulary and commonly agreed understanding of what that vocabulary means, like we might have in other media. For instance, when someone says they are going to see a movie, the general understanding is that they will sit down to have a non-interactive narrative experience with a length of over 60 minutes designed to be consumed as a whole. Although at times there might be some overlap, in general the subcategories of the medium "film" are more or less understood by everyone and are also understood to be seperate entities by everyone, even though they themselves encompass a whole lot of variety in style, story, production value, method of distribution and whatever.
The same can not be said about videogames, I guess because for a long time most of the profit in the industry was focussed on a single type of game (at first relatively simple arcade games, then more complex PC and homeconsole games, which at least in the west quickly replaced the arcades (it might be interesting to see if the japanese discourse on videogames is different from ours due to them having more than one way of experiencing them that is financially viable for the people creating them) and the "casual" and mobile markets only recently becoming a fairly profitable alternative and I think this is where most of the backlash against the conclusions some people draw from the study comes from.
Most of us feel that there's a pretty significant difference between "casual" and "core" (core of what?) games but out of the many criteria I've seen to actually define that difference none has really stricken me as particularily convincing (cost of the game/money the player spends on games ignores the wide availability of older titles for free or very low costs as well as the (frankly insane) sales culture on platforms like Steam, singling out consoles seems ridiculous when some gaming PCs have GPUs that cost more than a modern console and the Ipad has become home to some seriously grognardian wargames). The only thing that even comes close to being an useful determining factor would be something along the lines of time invested on average before the maximum level of "fun" is reached, although of course so much of that is completly subjective and kind of hard to discuss.

Edit: TL;DR: The gamers in this study don't necessarily represent "gamers" as understood when talking about the kind of games that are subjects to discussions about diversity in gaming. Unfortunately, so far there hasn't been an agreed-upon definition of these more "serious" gamers consuming more "serious" games in a more "serious" manner aside from a general understanding that people'll know it when they see it.
All that said, I can't think of any reason apart from social expectations as well as the current content of a majority of these "serious" games that would stop women or other so far underrepresented group from engaging with them in a similarily "serious" manner.

 

[carnex]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/female-adults-oust-teenage-boys-largest-gaming-demographic/

The schadenfreude here is so sweet. And I am glad there are going to be whiny male gamers crying into their soup over this.

The 21st century is here. Get on board or get out of the way.

I think this is old news. Like 4-5 years old. It was sent to me by one of members here and I would like to take a chance top thank her but I always forget the name. Sorry.

Also, why are you in such morbidly celebratory mood? Shouldn't you be happy that more women game rather than that male teens got owned by numbers?

 

[TheKrigeron]

But it clearly doesn't count, because they're filthy casuals playing mobile games, and are not true for-realsies hardcore gamers.

As a side note, what does "casual" even mean any more? I saw a thread a while back calling Assassin's Creed "casual." I guess people just want to feel even more elitist about liking Dark Souls?

These terms we invented amongst the Gaming culture have been so stigmatised that we forgot their original meaning. Most people are casual gamers, they play Candy Crush on their phone when they're bored at work, they play the latest Assasins Creed and COD's because they saw many commercials for it, they lay licensed games because they like what it's been licensed from. A "hardcore gamers" is a cool way to say "Videogame enthusiasts", not homophobic mysoginistic racist puppy hating teenage boys. They read reviews for the games they want to buy, they're up to date with the releases, they can make decent assesement of a game and they keep up with the state of the industry.
So when someone uses one these terms, keep it in context. Don't paste that one Jimquisition script you had saved on your computer. And by you I don't really mean Bazilly, but you know. you.

 

[Suhi89]

So there's no problem with the gaming industry then. I mean, if women make up 50% (roughly) of gamers then why do we need more female protagonists? Surely those females are finding what they want somewhere?

Of course I'm being somewhat facetious. As many others have pointed out, it ignores demographics. As Jim Sterling has pointed out on many occasions, the games market is big enough to cater for the tastes of many different types of people. I don't like RTS games but have fun with JRPGs. Not a huge fan of horror but I like platformers. Because of PS+ I recently tried a "game" called Proteus which I just didn't get but I'm sure other people will have a good experience with. I could never get into creativity games like Terraria or Minecraft. I don't need everything to appeal to me.

That there's variety in the games industry is a good thing. For whatever reason, on mass, taken as a generalisation, men and women like different things. As long as everyone is catered for in some way, I don't see a problem. We shouldn't get protective over what a gamer really is, but we also shouldn't be using gross statistics like this to argue that we need to target CoD at a more female centric audience, anymore than we should look at the fact that males make up a large percentage of the cinema going population to argue that Twilight needs to be changed to appeal more to men.

As to the very smug tone of the original post, is there really any need? Crying into our soup? Do you really think gamers would have a problem if more women did play than men? Does anyone really have their identity so tied up with the fact they enjoy a certain type of entertainment and such a fear of being associated with something women like that they'd actually be upset if it was true? On mass? Nah I don't think so.

 

[TKretts3]

Yeah, but they don't play the kinds of games that I like so it doesn't count.

 

[McElroy]

And it's not like those fighting games and difficult games went away. Hell, dark souls has a sequel, I don't know how many platformers take after super meat boy, and fighting games now have reality shows based on them.

Oh I know, you're going to want revenge. I thought we were supposed to be better than that. You want to pwn noobs? Fine, but death threats when you lose or something is crap, and complaining that a game is too easy when it's meant for a more general audience is just immature. Waah, it wasn't made for you. Find another game, then.

What's the point in having difficult games when it no longer means anything? Yeah sure they're difficult single player games. Big whoopy fucking do. How about difficult online shooters where a large amount of people play on everyday? How about getting rid of CoD and BF and force Quake and UT on the masses. Oh god forbid that happening again, little Timmy might not win a game amrite.

Don't be condescending man. Everyone can stood up to that level.

I suggest you don't take it personally. Taking competitive gaming seriously and elitism (even if it's well-argued and understandable like yours) tend to spring an unattractive stereotype to people's minds. And most people here - including me - probably don't know anyone who's gaming as seriously as you do. I think you could somewhat compare it to playing football in the local 2nd Division here. Those guys definitely take their hobby seriously, but Thank Goodness they're not spending that time on something useless and stupid like video games! Eh, I hope you get my point.

OT: I don't think teenage male gamers have been the biggest demographic for years, though of course that depends on what the other demographics are (no shit). Half of gamers are women -stats are often used misleadingly, for example to imply that the e-sports scene has a huge attitude problem because only a fraction of pros are female. I'm not saying such a problem doesn't exist, but studies like these can't really prove or suggest either way.

 

[Vykrel]

only if you use the word "gamer" in the broadest sense, which includes people who play nothing but iPhone or Facebook apps. the majority of that demographic is not coming to forums like this. they probably arent even looking forward to any games in particular. needless to say, they arent actually all that interested in the industry.

but they play games on their phones when they are bored.

 

[Savagezion]

I am gonna change up the order of these so that the top stuff is what I think is your main points. You're evasive tactics has pushed them to the bottom by arguing over semantics. (Which I enjoy, so no worries, but I would actually like for this to go somewhere eventually.) I have actually given you time waiting for you to break out some of the survey to use in this discussion but you seem to like using generic buzzwords about a generic study instead so I will help it along since we are sounding like Pete and repeat here as you frantically run in circles in your argument.

How about you just tell me why this study is useful?

For one, it shows exponential growth and diversity in the gaming medium.

Not sure where you are getting exponential growth, 8% in 4 years. Break out the party hats and noise makers the whole world has completely changed since 2010. It's a new era now that 8% more women play phone apps more often than before. We can't even tell how much growth because the actual amount of media consumed isn't reported. What if just more men quit? That could also be the reason for these percentages. It probably isnt, but the study doesn't really clarify. These percentages represent an un-quantified value and only measures two groups based on gender alone. As for the article, the WHOLE article is talking about women playing on their phones.

Why should I be "supportive" of a study that has only altered the numbers by 5-10% from last years?

Never said you should be supportive of a study. Also, do you not realize that 10 percent is an enormous amount of people?

1. realizing the actual significance,
2. being supportive, welcoming and inclusive into this great hobby of ours.

Actually, you did. Plus, we don't know the numbers and it is actually a percentage of a percentage. I wouldn't doubt it is still in the tens of thousands but a percentage of a percentage means it is probably considerably less than you are thinking. Since you keep ignoring that different markets exist you probably aren't seeing that it is a percentage of a percentage. The original article is talking about the mobile market directly and not 'the industry' merely the mobile section of 'the industry'.If you look at the study you will find numbers that suggest against this in the core market.

Example: 14% play with their spouse or significant other. That is a lot of male/female relationships that is probably largely based on one person in the relationship not being interested in gaming. Or both play non-social phone apps or whatever. But if this study TRULY showed diversity, you would think this number would be at least above 20%.

Who exactly am I supporting when I start being supportive?

The previously underrepresented demographic that has found a way to join and grow the medium.

Ah, so it is an attempt to use the study as a way to argue women are underrepresented. Why did you lie about your intentions? And before you say you didn't:

This thread was made as a counter argument to the claim that females are outnumbered in core gaming.

My post was not an argument to the claim that females are outnumbered in core gaming.

We can assume that mobile gaming is different than core gaming now if you would like which would then not make it look like you lied. Now that you are at least acknowledging different markets exist in 'the industry'.

Be supportive of women playing games? I am not being unsupportive. 7/10 women in my family gameon consoles. 9/10 gameon mobile. Those 2 that game on mobile only have zero interest in non mobile games at all. I know guys who do the same thing. If it ain't a game on a phone, they don't care because games aren't meant to spend more than 10 minutes on. They see games as something to play for 5 minutes at a time throughout the day while waiting for stuff. They also look down on gaming as a hobby.


Now on to the battle of semantics. With that out of the way, let's showcase how your argument is scattered everywhere desperately seeking a point

Bless your heart, you are gonna amuse me. I never said they weren't. You said that I said they weren't. I said they were different markets. And the industry has many markets. 2 very different people play those types of games. One is focused on stabbing people in the throat and one is focus on cute birds knocking down the houses of cute pigs. Angry Birds would be more similar to the market Nintendo goes after with the cutesy stuff. Where as Assassin's Creed is going to target people interested in stabbing people in the throat/history/conspiracy. (Like it or not, a more mature gaming experience.)

I never said you said they weren't. You emphasized that they were different things, I explained what ties them together. Something you agreed to which makes your initial argument completely pointless.

Do you REALLY think that you explained to me what a video game was? Really? Interestingly enough I can't seem to convince you that they have differences and that those differences matter if you plan to say that this study has any significance to 'the industry'. Otherwise its just fun numbers. (Why the study even exists) Because the industry has differences within it and for the study to be significant in any regard, it needs to show consumer habits instead of throwing out random fun facts.

SO? What is the point of this study?

To show the current state of the gaming industry.

Yet, it is too vague to accurately show anything. It is just statistics for the sake of statistics. Which don't get me wrong is fun to look at but it isn't significant to the industry in any meaningful way. I wish it were, but trying to get any significance out of those numbers is like saying my tabby is a tiger because they are in the same animal family. Even in the 14% stat that I posted above I am throwing conjecture at a wall because it doesn't mean much without further statistics.

Are you trying to win an argument or are you trying to prove a specific point?

My initial point remains: everyone is going to miss the point of this study. Other than that I'm only replying to your misconceptions.

Your initial point was that everyone is going to "shit over the statistics" and fail to see significance or be supportive. The point of the study is just to track how consumers consume the media in the industry, which has not stayed constant due to the rise of mobile gaming and its entirely different trends and models to 'the industry' prior to its existence on the scene. If anything mobile gaming being so different than gaming media before it is what "shits on the statistics" considering at least you have admitted that the "significance" and "support" is in the vein of female gamers.

Now because of that completely different style of market those numbers are much more vague as are the male numbers if you plan to use that information to divulge what consumers want and on what type of gaming platform/device.

What does that have to do with anything? Did I SAY it was trying to sell something? No, I eluded to the fact that this study cannot be used in any meaningful way in marketing because it ignores demographics.

You said it couldn't be used to sell anything. You said something completely irrelevant to the study, so that made me assume you somehow thought it was connected. Because why else would you bring it up? What is going to be your next argument, that you can't use it to prove global warming?

Well, you can't use this study to prove global warming. Similar to how you can't use this study to show there is a market for any specific platform. Yet, many people have tried to do exactly that in the past. The rise of female gamers happened the second the rise of mobile games happened and this is an argument thAt has happened so many times that now when I see someone go "look this study proves women play games" I automatically assume the agenda for the thread is to push female protagonists in console gaming. Which I am not against at all and am actually in favor of. However, this is not evidence it will work like some people want it to be.

And someone who is not interested in games whatsoever will not use a smartphone for gaming. These people are not represented in this study.

But they will still own a smartphone so that point also still stands.

But they will not be gaming, so the point does not stand. Gaming is gaming, not gaming is not gaming.
Owning a smart phone =/= gaming with smartphone.
Gaming with smartphone = gaming with smartphone.

It's mind-numbingly simple. You have to be trolling.[/quote]
Owning a smartphone =/= owning a console as you are claiming "because it plays games". Console gamers are the core audience for major publishers whether you choose to accept it or not. They hunt "whales" in the mobile market. Console gamers are a reliable source of income if you cater to them. Try to push stuff on them like Microsoft and, not so much. (Still proud of everyone for that BTW) There is only 1 real reason to own a console and that is to play games. Blu Ray players are cheaper and a smart TV offers all the other benefits for hardly any extra cash than a non-smart TV. Owning a phone is practical for everyone so that device is is a given that most people probably have one. It is NOT a given that everyone owns a console.

The average U.S. Household owns at least one dedicated game console, PC, or smartphone.

Of that, only 51% of U.S. households own a dedicated game console, and those that do own an average of 2

See how the number cuts almost cuts in half? A percentage of a percentage. You have a study of two markets here at the same time. Then it goes on to show the rest of the study as if it were 1 whole market. These two markets operate on completely different guidlines and thus consumer habits will be vastly different from one another and skew each others results.

BTW, in case you forgot, that point is that it is convenient for most people to own a smartphone and not convenient for everyone to own a gaming console unless they are interested in the hobby of gaming. (Thus they are considered the core market)

So what, now it has to be inconvenient to play games for it to count? Your criteria keeps making less and less sense.

In the discussion regarding female protagonists in console gaming, yes it has to be "inconvenient" for it to count. Who will go out of their way for it? As I said this is a sub-debate of a much larger debate. If this thread gets a lot of "HURRAH!"s someone will make a thread using this study to go "Look at this study EA, Activision, Ubisoft and learn" and then I would be in there saying this stuff. I am heading it off at the pass if I can. And yet, that thread still may happen despite it.

I bet you like that I bit at that red herring. I love how you then go "well that's irellevant". I know, I was indulging your antics. Hell, I will do you one better you can emulate PS1 titles on your phone. So? Did you have a point with that or were you just arguing?

Like? No, I'm quite baffled as to why you keep bringing up irrelevant points. Are you trying to say you're bringing up irrelevant points on purpose?

LOL, yeah right. That was a counter point to a point you brought up. You said that a phone is the same as a console because it plays games. You were trying to once again say they are the same. You have been back and forth the whole time going:

You: "They are the same"
Me: "no they are different because X Y and Z"
You: "Well duh, I said they are different, that's how the industry works."

Then you will turn around and finish your post with "How can you not tell they are the same?". That is amusing to me.


Let's skip ahead.

EDIT: Nonono, I got quick on wrapping this up. It is not a singular entity. Industry is just an umbrella term. Movie industry, Entertainment Industry, electronics industry, etc. we use that term when we want to show trends around that media.

Which is what this study does.

I disagree. Now this is a terminology thing I have no idea if this will land for you or not. Probably not, but I am gonna see what happens. This study is most valuable tracking consumer habits. Consumer habit is something that is steady and doesn't really change. (Thus the term habit.) Now consumer trends on the other hand are just things on the upswing. It could be a fad, or it could die. It is a trend, and the only thing constant about trends is that there is always a trend of some kind. Mobile gaming statistics have't been around long enough to be considered a habit in 'the industry' They are like 10 years old, barely. Console gaming is turning 40 years old. It has habits. Mobile gaming is a trend right now. It may last. Gaming itself started as a trend. It has became consumer habit and an industry was built. If you are going to show the industry it is best to leave trends out.

Now I know you are itching to post that mobile gaming isn't a trend and isn't going to die. I agree. For now, yes it is a trend, but it will grow into something else. However, for now it is at best stepping out of 'trend' status and I would even say it is a whole separate division in the industry. Clearly many other people see it the same way as they play mobile games but don't identify themselves as gamer and wouldn't want people to say they are. Anecdotal, but a guy at work plays mobile games every chance he gets but will make it a point to stress he isn't a gamer. He does this so that people don't talk about games like Skyrim and such with him because he doesn't play them.

Your criteria for exclusion makes absolutely zero sense, and I have yet to see you back those criteria up with other than some personal preferation. You want this industry study to be a single market specified demographic study.

No, I am saying this can't be used as a single demographic study. Specifically, that it can't be used to show that more women would buy female protagonist console games. Whether you are incenuating it can or not is irrelevant. That is why the OP posted this study.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/female-adults-oust-teenage-boys-largest-gaming-demographic/

The schadenfreude here is so sweet. And I am glad there are going to be whiny male gamers crying into their soup over this.

The 21st century is here. Get on board or get out of the way.

The reason is because anyone saying that female protagonist games don't in fact pull in as much money as male leads makes you a misogynist now days instead of pragmatic. I can want female leads as much as you and remain pragmatic.

 

[Dango]

I thought it was known for a while now that the average gamer is a male in his 30's, but I guess that's different from demographics...

 

[chikusho]

In other words, the only "bullshit" is anyone who is trying to argue that female gamers have officially taken any sort of significant lead over male gamers in the "hardcore" market.

Which I haven't.

What that means is that the AAA market doesn't really have to do very much changing, since they're not the sort of games that these new female gamers are going for.

Which I haven't even touched.

This user seems to understand this discussion a lot better than you do. This isn't a question of whether or not females have "conquered" the gaming market.

Something I've never claimed.

b) The study makes no assessment of the differences between gamer social groups (casual vs "hardcore", for example).

Which it never set out to do, because that's not its intended purpose.

c) The study clearly does NOT conclude that females have taken over gaming. In fact, it decidedly rules that both genders have nearly equal representation.

I'm confused as to why you wouldn't think I would be aware of this.

I'm sorry if you can't understand that, but that's what this is. It's not the sort of "proof" that you can use to justify some sort of nonsensical political statement.

Which I haven't.

Did you quote the wrong person?

You're evasive tactics has pushed them to the bottom by arguing over semantics.

My "evasive tactic" has been to reply to the message in the order that the arguments came. Why the hell would that be a tactic?

I have actually given you time waiting for you to break out some of the survey to use in this discussion

Why would I? My main argument was never about the study, but rather the people who'll read it.

but you seem to like using generic buzzwords about a generic study instead so I will help it along since we are sounding like Pete and repeat here as you frantically run in circles in your argument.

Not sure where you are getting exponential growth, 8% in 4 years.

8% is a huge number.

These percentages represent an un-quantified value and only measures two groups based on gender alone.

It represents the US population. That's more than two groups based on gender alone.

Why should I be "supportive" of a study that has only altered the numbers by 5-10% from last years?

Never said you should be supportive of a study. Also, do you not realize that 10 percent is an enormous amount of people?

Actually, you did.

To the people, not the study.

But if this study TRULY showed ANOTHER KIND of diversity, you would think this number would be at least above 20%.

Fixed.

Ah, so it is an attempt to use the study as a way to argue women are underrepresented.

Nope, and I've told you a number of times what my initial argument was (and remains).

This thread was made as a counter argument to the claim that females are outnumbered in core gaming.

My post was not an argument to the claim that females are outnumbered in core gaming.

A statement which does not differ from my original argument. I don't know what supposed "lie" you get from this, though. :/

Be supportive of women playing games? I am not being unsupportive.

Good!

Bless your heart, you are gonna amuse me. I never said they weren't. You said that I said they weren't. I said they were different markets. And the industry has many markets. 2 very different people play those types of games. One is focused on stabbing people in the throat and one is focus on cute birds knocking down the houses of cute pigs. Angry Birds would be more similar to the market Nintendo goes after with the cutesy stuff. Where as Assassin's Creed is going to target people interested in stabbing people in the throat/history/conspiracy. (Like it or not, a more mature gaming experience.)

I never said you said they weren't. You emphasized that they were different things, I explained what ties them together. Something you agreed to which makes your initial argument completely pointless.

Interestingly enough I can't seem to convince you that they have differences

Sure they do. They have differences that matter outside the scope of the study.

trying to get any significance out of those numbers is like saying my tabby is a tiger because they are in the same animal family.

So, you lack imagination?

If anything mobile gaming being so different than gaming media before it is what "shits on the statistics" considering at least you have admitted that the "significance" and "support" is in the vein of female gamers.

That's faulty logic. All gaming media is different than gaming media before it.

What does that have to do with anything? Did I SAY it was trying to sell something? No, I eluded to the fact that this study cannot be used in any meaningful way in marketing because it ignores demographics.

You said it couldn't be used to sell anything. You said something completely irrelevant to the study, so that made me assume you somehow thought it was connected. Because why else would you bring it up? What is going to be your next argument, that you can't use it to prove global warming?

Similar to how you can't use this study to show there is a market for any specific platform.

Which is outside of the scope of the study.

Owning a smartphone =/= owning a console as you are claiming "because it plays games".

I've never claimed any such thing. Owning a smartphone used for games = owning a gaming device.

The average U.S. Household owns at least one dedicated game console, PC, or smartphone.

Of that, only 51% of U.S. households own a dedicated game console, and those that do own an average of 2

"51% of U.S. households own a dedicated game console, and those that do own an average of 2"

Those look like parallel statistics to me. That's a statement in and of itself.

You have a study of two markets here at the same time.

No, the industry, which includes way more than two markets.

In the discussion regarding female protagonists in console gaming

This again?

yes it has to be "inconvenient" for it to count. Who will go out of their way for it? As I said this is a sub-debate of a much larger debate. If this thread gets a lot of "HURRAH!"s someone will make a thread using this study to go "Look at this study EA, Activision, Ubisoft and learn" and then I would be in there saying this stuff. I am heading it off at the pass if I can. And yet, that thread still may happen despite it.

As if that would be the only reason for fair and/or equal representation in the medium... But that's outside the scope of this.

LOL, yeah right. That was a counter point to a point you brought up. You said that a phone is the same as a console because it plays games. You were trying to once again say they are the same. You have been back and forth the whole time going:

You: "They are the same"
Me: "no they are different because X Y and Z"
You: "Well duh, I said they are different, that's how the industry works."

I said that it doesn't matter if they are on a console or a phone. They are both games. And that the enjoyment someone gets out of playing them can be equal to, or greater, than a console games. And that phones are both capable of handling games that fit within a huge number those markets you're so fond of. Which makes phones, tablets and especially PCs fit very well within the scope of the study.

If you are going to show the industry it is best to leave trends out.

Not if they make up the majority of the market.

 

[MrHide-Patten]

I hate being that guy but unless I'm making a mobile game then I can't really consider women the core still. I would love to and it will take some more diverse subject matter and being more accepting of women in gaming. Until sales numbers for like the Last of Us (which was sorta gender neutral as far as story goes, grizzly Joel non withstanding) reach some kind of gender neutrality, then I'll start clapping.

This sorta thing strikes me as; my dicks 8 inches... in the Photosopped picture.

 

[DonTsetsi]

I just want to point out that nobody is against women in gaming. We are against people (mostly non-gamers) who want to turn gaming into a so-called "safe space for women" by calling us, the core audience, sexist misogynists (no matter what our gender may be). It's not about gaming or women for them, it's about exposure and money. Sorry if this was a little off-topic.

 

[SadisticFire]

As much as I want this data to be true across all genres, I'm pretty sure it isn't. For me when playing CSS it takes me finding a server with ~30 people on jailbreak to find another girl, and I'm pretty sure that's not the majority. This wont really change the industry at all, since like others pointed out its the 'casuals v hardcore' (As much as I hate that term). I'd think the best way to get more girls in the FPS market would be to actually ask for games and make communities less hostile rather than saying, "We don't need to do works look at this study!". But maybe the world has changed in my year of absence, I just feel more welcomed in fallout new vegas than CSS. But do what ever you guys want, but don't use useless statistics to say a problem is fixed when it really isn't.

Post Script: That came off harsh! I have no idea why! Not blaming the average player, but just speak up when there's misogyny and move away from communities who's admins don't take proper action against it. And do the same for ones that treat females to entitlement, that doesn't really help the cause either..

 

[Trunkage]

Something something casuals.

That's what this thread will become. Don't worry about it, we've seen these stats before.
It's always encouraging to know that more women are getting into games.
Those of us who are apparently invisible will just keep playing our games and listen to people spout `Girls don't play REAL games!`.

I'm sure this is going to translate into more and more ladies playing so called `real` games.

In other words-

Brace yourselves.
Women are coming.

*ominous music*

The "problem" isn't that the "women are coming". They've been here and they've been here a long time. Today my wife was on the DS while I played the PC and my daughter played the Wii U.

Thinking that women weren't part of the gaming culture even 30 years ago is the biggest problem we have with the whole issue. This "teenage male only" comes from the time when they look at demographics and movies. For about 40 years ago. And the data has been shown many times over since then to be incorrect.