Teenage Male Gamers No Longer Biggest Demographic

ThatDarnCoyote

New member
Dec 3, 2011
224
0
0
LaoJim said:
I think you're generally right, but let me give you an example. My mother (60+) got an XBox 360 a couple of years back, so the grandkids would have something fun when they visited. Since they were young she thought she'd better know a bit about it, she started off playing Viva Pinata and the Lego Games, unlocking all the animals/characters "so the kids can have access to them". A couple of Christmases ago she got Skyrim (she's a Lord of the Rings fan). My expectation was that she'd playing it for a couple of hours, get stuck and then I'd have a free copy of Skyrim. She's now completed it twice and has 200+ hours logged into it. She also completed Kingdoms of Amalur and was able to give the standard 'gamer' explanation of what was wrong with Fable 2/3. Last thing she was asking me if she'd enjoy Dark Souls.
This thread was worth reading just to hear this story! Thanks! :)
 

small

New member
Aug 5, 2014
469
0
0
"Such a load of skewed garbage. Hey since you consider Candy Crush and
Temple Run "games" why not consider jump rope and Hopskotch games too!
Both are low budget, easy to understand and simple to master. When women
top teenage boys in things like "Uncharted" or "Borderlands" then I'll
consider the "Feminist Perspective". Get this garbage off the site and
make room for actual news."

You have to love some of the comments
people seem to forget that the early days of gaming all games were casual and people were damn hardcore about it. its not the game that makes something casual its the obsession and dedication
 

LaoJim

New member
Aug 24, 2013
555
0
0
Blood Brain Barrier said:
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.
The essential information is at the bottom of the contents page.

The 2014 Essential Facts About the Computer and Video Game Industry was released by the Entertainment Software
Association (ESA) in April 2014. The annual research was conducted by Ipsos MediaCT for ESA. The study is the most in-depth
and targeted survey of its kind, gathering data from more than 2,200 nationally representative households. Heads of
households, and the most frequent gamers within each household, were surveyed about their game play habits and attitudes.
So it's basically just asking people. It's unlikely to cover piracy as people are going to lie about it. (although it might get folded in, in the sense that people will say they spent 8 hours a week playing games and not mention that those games were pirated. If they've designed the study properly it should include rental games)

I think if people really doubted the results we could question whether the households truly were representative and the statement that they only interviewed "the most frequent gamers" is troubling. But I feel that, the numbers on show probably are more or less correct, based on my own experience, but that their definition of "gamer" obscures more than it reveals.

Rainbow_Dashtruction said:
You have fundamentally missed the point. It wouldn't matter if one market crashed because THEY ARE DIFFERENT INDUSTRIES.
Notwithstanding the fact that I'm locking horns with Chikusho over another matter at the moment, I have to say that I think you are wrong about this point. They are separate in some ways but connected in others. If Ubisoft suddenly goes bankrupt because its console arm is overextended than that affects its production of mobile games. If EA engages in shitty business practices with its mobile games, then it hurts its reputation with console gamers. The Vita is a mobile platform designed for gamers (with crossbuy on PS3/4), do I buy one or do I play games just on my iPad? Plants vs Zombies and Angry Birds have had success on both mobile and PC and consoles. Popular franchises on consoles are looking for a way to produce stripped down mobile versions. And so on. I think its far too simplistic to say they are different industries, a crash in one might benefit the other in someways and be disastrous in others.
 

lostlevel

Senior Member
Nov 6, 2008
163
0
21
Jonathan Hornsby said:
If I might dust off an old form of internet slang...

"Old news is old."
I was getting a bit of deja vu too, I was pretty sure I'd read a similar article before a couple of years ago.

The article is a little misleading too and functions more as click bate but the ESA link is much more informative.
Though it seems obvious that a larger sample age range of another gender or not would be bound to yield more gamers. In particular the increasing ubiquity of smartphones and what counts as games on them. I'm not entirely sure what they mean by social games but then again I don't really play games on my smart phone. I'd be interested to know what the figures are like internationally and also how many of them are bored commuters.
 

LaoJim

New member
Aug 24, 2013
555
0
0
Rainbow_Dashtruction said:
In the same way if a company that makes cars were to make a division in air conditioners. Yes, collapsing that car company would effect the economy of air conditioner sales. Its still stupid to connect the two.
Up to a point, but it's all a question of granularity. Is my local Chinese takeaway in the same industry as my local Indian takeway. What about a sit down Indian restaurant? What about the local supermarket? Is a Cantonese restaurant in the same industry as a Szechuan restaurant?

"Industry" is as much a debatable concept as "Gamer" is.

You could equally claim that the RPG market (on consoles) is different to the Sports market (on consoles) and that Fifa is in a different market to Madden. Upto a point you'd be right, but that doesn't mean there are significant links between the two.

Car companies, as a general rule, don't make air-conditioners and there is only limited transfer of skills, reputation and ideas between the two. Like it or not, the mobile and 'stationary' games industry are far more closely connected.
 

LaoJim

New member
Aug 24, 2013
555
0
0
Rainbow_Dashtruction said:
There is actually a very clear definition from a marketing standpoint.
Before we go any further, I think I'd better hear what this definition is.
 

chikusho

New member
Jun 14, 2011
873
0
0
You have fundamentally missed the point. It wouldn't matter if one market crashed because THEY ARE DIFFERENT INDUSTRIES.
Except it isn't. The gaming industry is everything including video game software. To claim otherwise is nothing but petty elitism.

If you want a better comparison, lets say I were to compare instruments on the same study. 32% of pianists and Guitarists are male, and 68% percent are female. Therefore, most people who play guitar are female. If you cant see what is wrong with a statement like that, you have no place talking to me.
Now you're being silly. This study makes no such conclusions, and I have no idea how you got there.
A more apt analogy would be: 55% of instrument players are female, 45% of instrument players are male. The most popular instruments are to use are guitars, 40%; piano, 15%; oboe, 14% etc.
 

Savagezion

New member
Mar 28, 2010
2,455
0
0
EDIT: Chikusho you seem determined to view everyone as wanting to look down on stuff and I mostly see people objectively discussing what these numbers mean. No one is looking down on anyone. It is actually you who are calling people "elitist" and "classless" and telling others how they are trying to put down others when they haven't.

chikusho said:
Savagezion said:
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? :/
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.

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".

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.
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.


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?
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. They will not buy an Xbone because it is worthless to them.

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.

The latest titles come out on the latest hardware that has been specifically designed for gaming. Plus you completely missed the point about phones being a smart investment for anyone regardless if they want to play games on it or not.

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?
Fair enough. Your initial post was about how people on the internet who don't get excited about this study are heathens without class. Despite that this study offers nothing beyond saying that if we include cell phones women play games as much as men. I can't celebrate that, I already figured that. I see and know women who play phone apps all the time. It's every bit as common as men. This study is nothing to get all giddy about.

You claimed this somehow has significance. I have yet to see where that significance is and you have yet to state it outside of the fact that mobile gaming has come to be in the last few years, which is nothing this study actually taught me or lended significance to.

Then you said we should be supportive. What are being supportive of? Because now you are saying that you don't think women are outnumbered so thus it clearly isn't news to you either.

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. :)
Game Industry = all markets in relation to gaming. Market = specified demographics. Smile, you learned something today. I am being supportive. :)

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.

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.
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. It's a shame because after this post I was really curious as to where you would go next watching you work yourself into a corner. It's funny how many people even with anonymity can't just say "Ah, I see where you are coming from" and moving on from there. But what do I know? I am just a classless heathen trying to shit on the stats.
 

blackrave

New member
Mar 7, 2012
2,020
0
0
1)Since males are minority gender on our planet I'm not surprised at that.
2)Glad that chances of finding girl gamer to date are increasing (even if I will have to explain her that there is more to gaming than AngryBirds or Bejeweled)

xaszatm said:


I feel like I should paste this here so people get a better idea how the male/female demographic is split up.

Some Notes:

Football is soccer
Voitures is Racing
Cartes is Cards
Autres is Others

People say that females are only large because of social games but it actually is fairly evenly split. Sure, there is more groups that favor males over females but it isn't as big as people might think.
Fits my suspicions on gender division in gaming
Surprised about Strategy genre though, on the other hand I don't know what is considered Strategy by their standards
 

Fulbert

New member
Jan 15, 2009
269
0
0
snowfi6916 said:
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.
What's up with the hatred? Did teenage boys kill your dog or anything?
 

chikusho

New member
Jun 14, 2011
873
0
0
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.

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.

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.


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.

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?


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.

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.

There's a world of difference between.

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.

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.
 

Savagezion

New member
Mar 28, 2010
2,455
0
0
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?
 

Artaneius

New member
Dec 9, 2013
255
0
0
Racecarlock said:
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".
Well to be fair, people feel the same way when any other hobby makes significant changes. If NFL made major changes to football because they wanted casuals to play the game more, all the people including pros that put time, work, sweat, blood, and tears into the game would most likely be pretty pissed off. Your suppose to reward those who treat games more seriously, not punish and ignore them. Competitive gamers are so spiteful because of what the casuals and companies have done to them over the years.

Yeah, people do remember when they were mistreated by others. And guess what? Like any other human being who gets shafted, your going to want revenge. Whether they use legal or illegal means to achieve that goal is another matter however. Personally I was never bullied or made fun of for being a gamer, but I can understand and relate to it. I myself have dedicated a ton of time getting good in competitive games. Fighting games, shooters, Real-Time Strategy, and many others. So yes, I expect to reap rewards for the blood and sweat I poured into these games. I expect to pwn the noobs and pubstomp like a boss. I payed my dues like all gamers had to back in the 90s era of online gaming. I remember losing every single match in Quake and UT when I first started. But that's how it should be. You should be only able to win a match when you get good enough and earn it.

That combo gif on my picture is an example. I put in the work to get that good, now time to reap the benefits of it. Just like you would expect from a job.
 

chikusho

New member
Jun 14, 2011
873
0
0
Savagezion said:
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.

And both are included in this study. Because they are both in the same industry. An industry that includes many markets. Which I point out in the very same post you quoted. Are you drunk or trolling? Because that's the only way I can see how miscounstruing arguments would be amusing.

SO? What is the point of this study?
To show the current state of the gaming industry.

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.

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?


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.


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.

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?


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.

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.
I'm glad you finally understand.



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 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.
And each time I explain why.

How about you just tell me why this study is useful?
For one, it shows exponential growth and diversity in the gaming medium.

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?

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.