chikusho said:
chikusho said:
Dude, that doesn't even make sense. You are now just randomly grabbing words from our discussion and slinging them together because YOU got lost in YOUR OWN ANALOGY. LOL. That's pretty funny. I have a feeling you will amuse me this weekend.
The analogy still holds up. Tennis and basketball are different sports, but they are both sports. Assassins Creed and Angry Birds are different games, but they are both games. Ergo, they are in the same industry.
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.)
Lemme see if I can paint this better for you. In all my posts "core gamer" means console gamer. If you like just go through ever post I have made and read the word "core" as "console".
Lemme see if I can paint this better for you. "core" gaming, or console gaming, isn't even the largest gaming audience. In fact, mobile phone gaming has the largest audience. It would be down-right irresponsible not to include them in a study like this.
SO? What is the point of this study? Are you trying to win an argument or are you trying to prove a specific point? Because from my stance, you are hopping around like a rabbit on crack trying to find something to "win" with and I haven't moved once. My point stands. If you want to prove a point, do it already and quit bouncing around throwing out red herrings and attacking strawmen.
In every post I have said that mobile gamers are gamers. Not once have I said they are not gamers. They are a different kind of gamer. The point behind you whole sports analogy is that you aren't going to try and sell basketball equipment at a golf club that doesn't even have a basketball court. (Or marathon as it were) That would be a foolish endeavor. You would however want to sell golf equipment.
This study isn't trying to sell anything. It's just showing what has been sold.
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.
First off, my point was that someone who is not interested in games whatsoever and think they are the devil, will have a smartphone because it is valuable device in every day life.
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. 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)
A phone can't run FarCry 3. It has less power and so forth because... it's a phone, not a device built FOR gaming. It's a device that can run small software applications. Even if you run emulators the best you can do is 3 generations behind consoles in terms of power.
Which is completely irrelevant. Games are not, and have never been, more or less of a game because of how hard they are to run.
Also, there are plenty of games that exist both on consoles, on PC, on tablets and on phones. And there are emulators for classic SNES and Sega titles for phones. But I guess those aren't core enough for you either?
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?
Fair enough. Your initial post was about how people on the internet who don't get excited about this study are heathens without class.
My initial post was a prediction that everyone would lose their shit and misinterpret both the study and it's implications. This prediction turned out to be true.
Well, then why don't you impart your wisdom on us and tell us the implications of this study?
I predicted the numbers on the study within 5% before clicking the link. These studies get brought up all the time with the female protagonist threads.
Really? You yourself just said
all markets. Not different market demographics.
Game Industry = all markets in relation to gaming. Market = specified demographics. Smile, you learned something today. I am being supportive.
Exactly what I said. This is a study of gaming industry, i.e. all gaming markets. Plural.
It's not a study on single specified market demographics. Singular.
Wonderful.
Afterthought: You might be seeing the "Game Industry" as a singular entity when it is not. It's more like a collaboration of multiple entities. Game Industry is an umbrella term and should never be looked at as a singularity and have attributes assigned to it. As CDPrjekt is different than Zynga, or EA, or Mojang. "The Industry" is not an entity.
Yes, that's the way
industry works. The gaming industry is multifaceted, but it's still a singular entity.
Well, you seem to not know that and can't follow my "silly" logic as you put it.
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. You can't say an industry is "sexist" because that actually means that the consumers are with their buying habits. Which their buying habit may just appear sexist based on circumstancial evidence while not actually being sexist. If more boys buy your product than girls for 20 years, it will effect that industry. However, the industry is just reacting to cashflow, not setting agendas if it is made of multiple markets. (In a free market anyways.) Industries in communist contries you could quantify as entities because the use media to push agendas and so forth because they control everything and the government controls them thus it is one entity. This is a whole post in itself so I am just gonna end it here. As it stands, the gaming industry is not a singular entity. Activision is, EA is, (rivals) etc. They compete against each other not allowing an entity to form, which is good.
I excluded them too because... well, look at that the PC is also a multi-functional device that most people have access to and offers cheap games nowadays.
Way to show a closed mind and tell me what I am thinking so that you don't have to broaden your horizons and meet me in the discussion.
I don't need to tell you what you're thinking. But you don't seem to realize what it is you're saying.
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.
That's what you keep repeating, and I'm quite curious as to how you can't seem grasp the flaw in that logic.
No you keep telling me that is what I am repeating. How about you just tell me why this study is useful? No one has done that yet. They just post a vague study that encompasses a HUGELY vague field and then you tell me I should be supportive and recognise the significance. All the while not being able to say what those are.
IN THE PAST, people like to grab these studies and say this is why console developers should make more female protagonists. I was heading that off at the pass. You have incenuated that you agree with me on that. SO what significance are you talking about? Why should I be "supportive" of a study that has only altered the numbers by 5-10% from last years? Who exactly am I supporting when I start being supportive? The researchers? What does this study support?