Teenage Male Gamers No Longer Biggest Demographic

[Phasmal]

Well that seriously sucks. Sorry if I sounded like I was minimizing your bad experience.

Oh hey, no worries.

I'm actually thinking the atmosphere has gotten better (at least in real life) and it's been a long time since that happened to me irl, so you could be right. There's generally a nicer atmosphere in game shops now and I haven't been asked if I'm `buying for my boyfriend` in aaages.

I like to think positively about it.

 

[Racecarlock]

Who cares if they don't take into account casual versus hardcore? Fuck hardcore. Hardcore people insult you when you ask for tips on dark souls. Hardcore people laugh in your face when you say you can't build your own PC. Hardcore people sling sexist remarks day in and day out with bullshit justification for it.

I play games all the time. That said, I also use cheats or make the games easier where possible. I consider myself casual even though I follow industry news and frequent forums like these. Mostly because I play games more for fun than gamerscore. But also because hardcore people (at least the people who identify as hardcore) seem to be as hateful and exclusionary as possible. And not just because you're not playing a game "correctly" (read: how they would play), but because if you're a woman you're apparently just gaming because you want attention and gaming is the popular thing now so you're doing it to be popular even though you once bullied this douche in school. At least he remembers how he was rejected in school and now he's just afraid of all women. Not all hardcores are like this, but I bet most who do this are.

Then there's the hate thrown at anyone who even espouses that there might be something sexist about some games. Look, I haven't seen anita sarkeesian's videos yet, so I don't know how crappy her claims are. But they could be the worst in the world and for me, it wouldn't matter. Not one bit. Because the sheer backlash and hate and anger that I saw from people, including kitchen jokes, death threats, rape threats, and a flash game where you beat the shit out of her, told me everything I need to know. No matter how bad someone's claims of sexism in gaming are, the audience on the side of gaming can be so much worse that it doesn't even matter. That is why I refuse to identify as "Hardcore".

And your still 'core'. Because your a person who buys core games. CoD and Fifa only fanboys still count as core gamers because those games are in fact core. Its a very easy distinction to tell the difference between a casual and a core game. One expects knowledge or gives you such knowledge quickly, the other expects no knowledge, and introduces as basic mechanics as possible that usually don't transit between other non-clone games.

The only use of these statistics is for marketing and development purposes. As core sales have nothing to do with casual sales, including both makes the statistics pointless.


And 'hardcore' gamers is really an insult. The idea that you think you can be a SUPER HARDY GAMER BADASS is laughable. I have beaten Dark Souls 1 and 2 on multiple NG+, I can beat Persona 4 on very hard, I still would not consider myself hardcore in anyway, because thats a laughable thing to be. The term hardcore is a hilarious one, as its trying to inject impressiveness in an entertainment source that is completely unimpressive.

Ironically, the self identified hardcore gamers are usually the ones who ***** the most on any kind of defeat, so ironically, since being as calm as possible gives you a super strong advantage in any game, MEANS THEIR USUALLY WORSE THEN CORE GAMERS.

Ok, I'm core. But I refuse to add in the hard part of the title because of those last two paragraphs you said and my own justifications as well.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I think calling people gamers because they have a Smartphone is like calling them writers because they can also text with them, or photographers because they can take pictures of their cats with them. Mobile phones are the lowest common denominator of anything that isn't calling people with them. I don't think Smartphones are indicative of anything other than themselves.

You are basically making a high-art vs low-art argument. Which is really silly, in my opinion.

Hi and no I'm not. I'm saying that it's pointless to do a gamer statistic with mobile phones as common denominators (which the article is pretty specific about), seeing as everybody owns one. That's like doing a poll on how many people own a microwave and deducing how many chefs there are in the world based on that result.

A lot of people own smart phones, yes. Far from everyone uses it for game purposes.
This study counts people who own smart phones and tablets and other devices which they use for gaming.
It's more like polling people who have cooking utensils and use it to cook Spanish food.

Btw, I like how in all your examples gamers are equals to master professionals and skilled artists. Kind of a weird parallel for engaging in a pastime, don't you think?

It's less about skill and mastery and more about how much of an impact a practice has in your life that you would identify with it. I hung a few posters the other day in my bedroom, but I don't identify with interior design, nor would I gauge the number of interior designers out there based on the number of posters sold. Do you see where I'm getting at?

 

[Riotguards]

i already mentioned something about this study, i feel that at the core of the study they had some interesting points and overall its is a good study however it does not define anything (i.e. age of games being played, what age play what genre, etc, etc) so even though it says that 58% of online games (whatever that means) are casual and card games, trivia, etc, etc pretty much casual stuff

even though they don't define "casual" sure strat and action we know and understand but casual is such a broad term and since they define card games as something that's not related to casual it really doesn't clear things up, the fact is however is that 58% of the gamers in that list are defined as casuals (in my opinion)

with that definition set it does not help the study out for (in my opinion) the study is focusing on people who do not count as gamer's, since they don't state that casual players go to action, etc, etc this suggests they are the mobile phone demographic or solitaire, which is pretty much will put the age gap higher than what it really is considering these games are played mainly by bored people sitting around doing nothing or waiting for something to do (i.e. tv commericals, etc) by the studies logic they would put you in by simply playing some minesweeper

(http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2014.pdf PAGE 7)

if the same study methods and techniques were used in make up products would we all be included in the study simply for using toothpaste or any other cleaning product

the study is being boasted as the best evidence for gamer diversity but just looking at it shows that they failed to even study what gaming is about, any basic gamer would tell you what they would define as a gamer (of course subjective) but you could make a conclusion from your study group and use that result as a definition in which you define your proper study which does not fall into "everyone is a gamer because we set the standards so low"

 

[nathan-dts]

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?

It's not something you can really define. It's generally something I'd call out based on the game's content and the game's user base.

 

[OldNewNewOld]

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.

No one is crying, especially not about there being girls into gaming. No. People just dismiss the shit you posted because it's completely misleading and because people like you will tomorrow use it as an argument about how developer should pander more to women because 48% of all "gamer" are women.

Now, I have nothing against pandering to neither side and if the developer want to pander to anyone, it's their own decision and I won't say anything. But I won't just let you or anyone else use lies to argue. And we all know that you will considering that you're the type of feminist who is called a feminazi. You proved that point right in your post.

There is a reason why so many people point out the distinction between (hard)core and casual gamer. Yes, some people use the term casual as an insult, but the majority doesn't. It's there to show the habits of the gamer. A (hard)core gamer is more likely to spend more money on his hobby, he follows the news, visits gaming related forums and sites.
Casuals play games casually. They download a simple game, don't invest too much time into learning and mastering it. They are less likely to spend money on gaming (with the exceptions of the whales), don't visit forums or sites related to gaming.

The skill is not relevant. What is relevant is who is bringing more money, spending more time and actually loving the hobby more. Casuals usually play games to kill time. (hard)core gamer play games because they love playing games.
There is a reason why the people who love games want the industry to focus more on them than the people who don't really care if the game is a cheap copy, some cash shop infested shit ala Dungeon Keeper Mobile or if it's a master piece.

More women playing "core" games? Great, I welcome them. But don't try to take away my hobby by bringing up fake or flawed statistics.

Note: I use the word pander because of the lack of a better word. I don't mean anything bad with it. Maybe targeted audience would be better.

 

[A-D.]

Well there's a distinct lack of fact-checking involved in this thread, primarily the OP. Sorry i didnt read further than the first few posts on the first page since these threads usually end up going the same way with a lot of a back and forth.

Firstly, please note that "Study" is done by the ESA. The ESA only deals with the US Population. They also do not make specific distinctions of genres or amount of time played. If 1 Million Girls play 1 hour of Candy Crush, and 500.000 Boys play 2 hours of Call of Duty, then with simple math they play the same amount, even though one group is larger. The study also doesnt take into account which games women generally play versus games favoured by men, i.e. the whole thing about genres. That doesnt mean women cant play something like CoD or whatever, but for the most part there is a reason there are fewer female players in CoD and its not because of misoginy or verbal abuse, most just arent interested in that sort of thing.

So why does that matter? Because for one, the Industry is world-wide, not just US-centric. Triple-A Studios make games for a global market, not just a domestic one. However most "hardcore" games require a larger investment of both time and effort, playing a single round of Bejeweled on your way to work or school is not the same as an online match in say Starcraft. In short, that study means nothing and is worth only the proverbial paper its printed on. For all the talk of "we need more women in gaming" nobody has ever really thought about that maybe some women dont like to play the same games their boyfriends/husbands/sons/other dudes play. And this forced change doesnt help anyone.

Because in the effort to make your Triple-A game appealing to that female audience, you run risk of alienating your existing audience. If you have to turn CoD into Bejeweled to get all those bejeweled-playing women to buy your game, all the CoD-fans will jump ship.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

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.

Noble as your bravado sounds, the article and the statistic that it's handling are disappointingly flawed. Did you read it or did you juts go by the title?

 

[Axel1105]

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.

This is an over simplification.

Video games are huge with a wide range of games for different people of different tastes and its hard to make any accurate judgement based on a statistic that lumps such a massive pool of people under one category. Different games are made for different groups, same with movies, books, and music. These days its safe to assume most people around us play video games of some kind and so the question is really more the type of game these people play.

Frankly, I find your attitude towards an inconsequential statistic like this a little disturbing. It makes for a nice headline or political tool, but realistically it is neither a good or bad thing. Really, the percent is split almost perfectly in half which is ideal.

 

[chikusho]

The problem is, there is no reason a phone game will make someone want to play far more complex games which even the simplist of 'core' games are.

Also, there's no reason a phone game wouldn't make someone want to play far more complex games. Just like some guitarists never move away from three chord songs. And that's fine.

Furthermore, neither have any impact AT ALL on the other sides market. One could crash and not effect the other outside of the studios doing both. Therefore, including both in statistics causes those statistics to be considered null and void.

This statement doesn't make any sense. Furthermore, Mr. Business Ph.D, why would it need to? Also, a study of an entire industry is not null and void because some sub-markets might crash.. Why the hell would it?

Finally, the rapidly increasing acceptance of games in culture, which this study shows beautifully, is a true sign of a societal shift in perception. That alone is evidence of the gaming landscape rapidly and continuously changing. Increased acceptance means an increased audience with an increased diversity. And that's *sniff* wonderful!

It's less about skill and mastery and more about how much of an impact a practice has in your life that you would identify with it. I hung a few posters the other day in my bedroom, but I don't identify with interior design, nor would I gauge the number of interior designers out there based on the number of posters sold. Do you see where I'm getting at?

No, you didn't put up posters the other days. You might think you did, but I bet that was SLAYER posters, and those don't count. Only posters of Justin Bieber counts, because they are completely separate artists.

Honestly, you don't need to do a genre breakdown for the male/female ratio of the movie industry, so why would you need to do it for games? Oh, and fun fact, women have been going to the movies more than men for the past few years: http://www.mpaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2012-Theatrical-Market-Statistics-Report.pdf

Sorry, but I think you're mistaking me for Mr. Straw. Seems he's getting a lot of attention these days.
Also, thank you for proving my point.

In other words, no, you didn't read the study, but intend to use it as some sort of "proof" for a personal agenda.

In other words, I read the study just fine. I just didn't make up claims that were not actually in it in order to call bullshit on imaginary things.
For an example of the practice I just mentioned, see this:

Well, have fun with that. The AAA gaming industry's going to keep on ignoring it, just as they have been for the last decade, because it's mostly based on a rise in mobile gaming and won't really affect them in the slightest. So long as they can sell millions of copies of the same old, same old, why should they care?

 

[LaoJim]

Oh, and fun fact, women have been going to the movies more than men for the past few years: http://www.mpaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2012-Theatrical-Market-Statistics-Report.pdf

No they haven't. I suggest you think long and hard about how you read and then talk about statistics because you are appear to be misrepresenting them to make a political point. What the survey actually says is:

68% of the population of the US went to at least one movie in the last twelve months.
Of the US population 51% are women and 49% are men.
Of the people who went to a movie once in a year 52% were women while 48% were men.
Of the total number of tickets sold 50% were sold to women and 50% were sold to men.

To quote the report itself

The gender composition of moviegoers (people who went to a movie at the cinema at least once in the year) in 2012 skewed slightly more towards women than the overall population (and up 1 percentage point versus 2011), while tickets sold continued to be split evenly among both genders.

 

[chikusho]

Yeah but they are DIFFERENT SPORTS. If you like golf it doesn't mean you like marathons or any other sport BUT golf.

That's true. But then you wouldn't be a core sportsman, I guess? :/
Liking different games doesn't make you not a gamer. Even though arguments to the contrary constantly seem to be popping up in forums like these.

I also mentioned the fact that a phone is is a valuable tool for daily life. A smartphone is GPS, texting, phone, camera, internet access, and video recorder you can carry in your pocket. That is a tool that will not only help you get a job easier but is often necessary to maintain one today. A console lets you play games and it isn't mobile or near as useful in every day life.

This doesn't matter in the slightest. When you use your phone to play a game it's a game machine, pure and simple. It's not less of a game because what you play it on can do other stuff also. In that case, I guess XBOX One owners don't count either?

You can walk into a cellular shop and walk out with a phone with no money down today. I know about phones and phone plans.

You can walk into a game store and walk out with a phone with no money down today. I know about payment plans.

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

The original post was. (This thread was made as a...) This whole discussion is a thread.

And.. that somehow makes it fine to randomly blurt out opinions to anyone, no matter what their argument actually was?

Really? You, yourself, bolded industry. (That means all markets. Of gaming specifically in this case) Who do you think the industry sells its stuff to? I honestly don't think I can paint a clearer picture.

Really? You yourself just said all markets. Not different market demographics.

Quote me anywhere where I said PC gaming is part of the core audience.

And now the silliness has hit critical mass. You clearly, desperately wants this to be another study with your made up criteria of a gamer, instead of what it is, a study of the entire industry. Which proves my point yet again. I'm out.

 

[chikusho]

Oh, and fun fact, women have been going to the movies more than men for the past few years: http://www.mpaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2012-Theatrical-Market-Statistics-Report.pdf

No they haven't. I suggest you think long and hard about how you read and then talk about statistics because you are appear to be misrepresenting them to make a political point. What the survey actually says is:

... Yes, this was clearly the most relevant thing you could get out of my post. I snagged a quick quote for funsies, and get a breakdown of something that's completely outside of the discussion?
Fine, what I meant to say was: "Oh, and fun fact, more women have been going to the movies than men for the past few years"

I suggest you think long and hard about what how you read and then talk about implications because you appear to be misrepresenting them to make a political point.

 

[Asuka Soryu]

Why is this even a thing to be happy or unhappy about? It all seems incredibly childish.

"Yay, more girls than yucky boys!"

Because in the end, both genders are about the same. They want to hear that THEY are the dominating force in the medium they like.

Another reason for this to be a happy note is to try and push away the stigma that females do not partake in games(or if they do, it's very small), which is obviously false.

 

[MHR]

Is this report saying that women use their cell phones a lot?

Gosh golly gee mister, that's some game-changing stuff! Better make the next Master Chief a tough chick with a sensible ponytail, give Gordan Freeman a female voice actor, and give Geralt a romantic love interest or that shit just won't sell!

 

[LaoJim]

I suggest you think long and hard about how you read and then talk about statistics because you are appear to be misrepresenting them to make a political point.

... Yes, this was clearly the most relevant thing you could get out of my post. I snagged a quick quote for funsies, and get a breakdown of something that's completely outside of the discussion?

Fine, what I meant to say was: "Oh, and fun fact, more women have been going to the movies than men for the past few years"

I think it was the most relevant thing because we have other member on the site saying things like

In other words, no, you didn't read the study, but intend to use it as some sort of "proof" for a personal agenda.

This thread is essentially all about statistics and what they do and don't say, so the way in which they are used or misused is relevant to the discussion.

Even if you rewrite your sentence to say "more women" than unless you are going to add the word "slightly" you are still misrepresenting the data. A normal person reading the report without an agenda would look at the data as provided and say "the numbers of men and women going to the cinema are basically equal". If there's been an assumption, spoken or unspoken, that more men than women are going to the cinema, than that should be enough to prove the point.

I suggest you think long and hard about what how you read and then talk about implications because you appear to be misrepresenting them to make a political point.

Okay, I will seriously do this. In order to help me, based on what you have read, what political point do you think I am making? If it doesn't match what I am trying to communicate I will look in detail at how I have approached this thread.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

I'm surprised no one is concerned with the methodology of this study. It's by an entertainment trades group. What kind of games are we looking at? What about free-to-play games? Did they look into those that play only pirated games? People who borrow games from their friends and libraries and haven't bought a game in their lives? Or was it just sales data? Kind of important.

 

[ThatDarnCoyote]

Now imagine a triple A title that is targeted at both genders, and imagine the money it would make. The videogame industry needs to understand that.

Sometimes, targeting both genders is as simple as multiplayer videogames that allow you to select a female character (I'm looking at you, Assassin's Creed multiplayer mode...). Other times, it's as simple as equal opportunity fanservice (many Japanese videogames do that already, and that includes big names like Metal Gear Solid and the original Devil May Cry).

OK, I'll bite. Titanfall was a triple A multiplayer game that let you select a female character if you wanted. What percentage of Titanfall's player base is female? Did including female characters actually succeed in attracting female players? Did it make more money as a result?

Look, I'm not saying women aren't "real" gamers. They certainly are, and I'm glad to see them. I don't give a crap what they play.

I'm not even saying that because I play Battlefield I'm somehow "MOAR GAM3R" than 30-something Julia Soccermom, who plays Angry Birds on her iPhone while the kids are on the swing set. This is especially true if she's better at Angry Birds than I am at Battlefield, which sadly isn't that hard.

What I am saying is that people who point to this survey and demand that the next Battlefield game be marketed more to Julia than to me are nuts.