The games (Xbox) gamers play

[LaoJim]

I'm the kind of gaming nerd that likes numbers and statistics and I'm interested in what people actually play. As a result I find things like this list of which Xbox games have been played by the most people a source of endless fascination.

http://www.trueachievements.com/games.aspx

To be clear, its from an achievement tracking site, which means that to count

1) Each player must have signed up to the site. This means the sample is self-selecting and so is biased towards the sort of player who would want to sign up for such a site (i.e. "hardcore" gamers and achievement hunters specifically)
2) For the game to count as having been played, the player must have earned at least one achievement in it. (Most games give you an achievement for practically pressing the start button these days, but some like for example Max Payne 3, are under-represented here because they don't give out achievements until you are a significant way through the game).

There are, as I write this, 234,699 registered gamers, so that means that the highest ranking game, which is Halo 3, has 175,337 people or about 75% of the total number of registered users having played it.

The last thing to note is of course, this is not based on sales, but on achievements, therefore it is natural that older games tend to rack up more players, as games get cheaper and are bought second hand.

The list is pretty much as you'd expect for the twenty or so entries (lots of CoD, Gears and Halo), but further down I think there is a lot of interesting things to say about it, and I'm asking Escapists to find games they love that deserve more love, or games that have done surprisingly well.

I'll start off with a couple of observations...


1) Dead Island (89,622) was surprisingly successful, more than Dead Space, all the Saints Row games and Forza.

2) For all Sonic Generations was one of the best Sonic games in years, few people on the site actually played it (17,399). Other 2D platformers like Rayman Origins (22,364) didn't do much better. You might argue that these games are too kid friendly for "hardcore" gamers, but then Viva Pinata has 57,229 players!

3) The Fifa and Madden games don't do well (on this site at least) The highest played on (Fifa 12) has 22,364. The highest played Madden game has 30,842. (In fairness if people don't by a Fifa/Madden game every years, the numbers will be divided between all the yearly releases)

4) The highest placed fighting game is not as you might expect Street Fighter, but Soul Calibur 4 (56,942) then Mortal Kombat (51,021) then Street Fighter (42,096), followed by MK vs DC universe (40,871). In fairness Street Fighters players may be divided between it and Super Street Fighter (the Arcade Edition and Ultra count as DLC achievements on Super, which had separate achievements from Vanilla 4). Even though it was given away free this month only Super SF4 only has 29,811 players (many of whom may be the same as Vanilla SF4). BlazBlue Calamity Trigger has only 10,684 players and Persona 4 Arena only 4,785.

5) Dante's Inferno (53,297) has more players than Ninja Gaiden 2 (51,025), Bayonetta (42,285) and Devil May Cry 4 (44,371)

Anyway, I could continue like this for hours, but I'll stop now and ask what everyone else can see that's interesting...

(By the way, if anyone know of similar (or maybe even better) lists somewhere I'd be interested in comparing them)

 

[Evonisia]

I love statistics, numbers and charts and find this incredibly interesting. Well besides Dante's Inferno being played more than NG 2, Bayonetta and DMC 4.

DMC was famous in the sixth generation, therefore I imagine most people who will have played 4 will have played it on the PS3 because the PS2 was the biggest seller. Bayonetta wasn't exactly a best seller list topper, even if the 360 was the only viable version to play and Ninja Gaiden would only be known to people who really, really loved the first one on the original Xbox (which was absolutely trampled by the PS2).

Dante's Inferno would be the God of War for 360 players and came out at the same time as Bayonetta.

I imagine most people who play FIFA wouldn't sign up to a site like that. Call of Duty, Gears and Halo are achievement heavy, FIFA... not so much.

 

[LaoJim]

DMC was famous in the sixth generation, therefore I imagine most people who will have played 4 will have played it on the PS3 because the PS2 was the biggest seller. Bayonetta wasn't exactly a best seller list topper, even if the 360 was the only viable version to play and Ninja Gaiden would only be known to people who really, really loved the first one on the original Xbox (which was absolutely trampled by the PS2).

Dante's Inferno would be the God of War for 360 players and came out at the same time as Bayonetta.

All good points, which begs the question "why haven't we had a Dante's Inferno 2, perhaps exclusive to Wii U? (Which according to wikipedia would technically be Dante's Purgatorio) I know Visceral moved on to Dead Space (and now, alas, to Battlefield). Perhaps I missed the boat with DI (I actually bought a cheap copy months ago, its still on my backlog list), I just felt it wasn't that big a deal when it was released and seems to have been generally forgotten, whereas all the others had some kind of name recognition and were generally well reviewed.

I imagine most people who play FIFA wouldn't sign up to a site like that. Call of Duty, Gears and Halo are achievement heavy, FIFA... not so much.

It's interesting to me because the top of the list is very much Dudebro games and yet Madden/FIFA doesn't really show up so much, it may be to do with achievement farming, although I got 400-500 achievement points with about 10-15 hours of playing FIFA 09 so I don't think its that light.

(come to think of it they are also split between themselves in that Americans buy more Madden and the rest of the world buys more FIFA, as well as the annual release cycle so its maybe not so surprising)

 

[josemlopes]

That list is kind of weird, especially since Halo 3: ODST is up there so high, not that I was thinking that it sold poorly or anything but that much? Usually sequel of big games that arent straight up named with the next number sell less (Gears of War Judgement and God Of War Ascension were good examples), ODST does have the advantage of being good but also looses a lot in marketing by being a game without Master Chief and being treated as a sorf of expansion since it keeps the 3 of Halo 3.

 

[Pink Gregory]

That list is kind of weird, especially since Halo 3: ODST is up there so high, not that I was thinking that it sold poorly or anything but that much? Usually sequel of big games that arent straight up named with the next number sell less (Gears of War Judgement and God Of War Ascension were good examples), ODST does have the advantage of being good but also looses a lot in marketing by being a game without Master Chief and being treated as a sorf of expansion since it keeps the 3 of Halo 3.

Well it was basically an updated Halo 3 multiplayer. And it came with the Halo Reach multiplayer beta or whatever.

Think that might go a ways towards explaining that.

 

[Evonisia]

That list is kind of weird, especially since Halo 3: ODST is up there so high, not that I was thinking that it sold poorly or anything but that much? Usually sequel of big games that arent straight up named with the next number sell less (Gears of War Judgement and God Of War Ascension were good examples), ODST does have the advantage of being good but also looses a lot in marketing by being a game without Master Chief and being treated as a sorf of expansion since it keeps the 3 of Halo 3.

Well it was basically an updated Halo 3 multiplayer. And it came with the Halo Reach multiplayer beta or whatever.

Think that might go a ways towards explaining that.

If you played the multiplayer, it would say you were playing Halo 3, though. Of course that doesn't imply that people didn't play ODST itself. It also had the final three Vidmaster challenges for Recon Armour which required you to play through Campaign and Firefight.

 

[Jamash]

1) Dead Island (89,622) was surprisingly successful, more than Dead Space, all the Saints Row games and Forza.

I don't think it's really that surprising (as opposed to an artificially inflated high number), seeing as it was free on Games With Gold recently and gives an Achievement for joining someone else's game (which is practically a "Press Start" achievement for people with Gold).

You should look at all the games which have been free with Gold so far (or included in console bundles), and look at which ones have easy "Press Start" achievements like join a multiplayer game, then cross reference those with the list to see which ones would have scored a presence on that TrueAchievements site for simply existing and being downloaded and played at least once.

EDIT:

(By the way, if anyone know of similar (or maybe even better) lists somewhere I'd be interested in comparing them)

Have you looked at the leaderboards of the Escapist's users top games and compared it to the TrueAchievements leaderboard?

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/profiles/top_games

I think the leaderboards are derived in a similar fashion, so it would be interesting to see what kind of conclusions, assumptions and speculations you could derive by comparing and contrasting the two community's top games.

The Escapist's Xbox Live leaderboard is a bit inaccurate though, since it also includes PC games that use GFWL, so you'd have to discount one version of Dark Souls, Dawn of War 2, GTAIV PC, Batman Arkham City PC, and query any other games which use GFWL and may be showing the PC version on the Xbox Live leaderboard.

 

[LaoJim]

I don't think it's really that surprising (as opposed to an artificially inflated high number), seeing as it was free on Games With Gold recently and gives an Achievement for joining someone else's game (which is practically a "Press Start" achievement for people with Gold).

Fair point, I remembered most of the games that had been free with gold, but Dead Island slipped my mind somehow.

Have you looked at the leaderboards of the Escapist's users top games and compared it to the TrueAchievements leaderboard?

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/profiles/top_games

I think the leaderboards are derived in a similar fashion, so it would be interesting to see what kind of conclusions, assumptions and speculations you could derive by comparing and contrasting the two community's top games.

I wasn't aware of this so thanks for mentioning it. Its a little sparse with info, for example how many Escapists have filled in their gamertag or steam id (so its not clear if these lists are based from tens, hundreds or thousands of users), and its based on most recently played games rather than an all time kind of deal, so its difficult to compare the two lists directly. Still it makes an interesting read.

On the Xbox side...

Lots of Halo, less CoD, no Gears.
Dark Souls 2 is the only game from this year to make the list.
People are still playing lots of Mass Effect 3 despite the fact we all apparently hate it.
People are still playing Rock Band 3 despite the franchise being declared dead.

 

[Fijiman]

The only place I can think of to get better and more accurate numbers would be from Xbox.com itself, but I don't know where you would even begin to look for those numbers.

 

[Something Amyss]

Self-reporting is generally a bad way to track statistics. This is a decent site for certain things, but you're relying on people to sign up before you can check them, you can (and likely will) skew the results.

I don't think there are many conclusions we can draw about Xbox gamers as a whole here.

 

[LaoJim]

snip

Reminds me a lot of this site for PS owners:
http://psnprofiles.com/games?order=owners

Thanks for this, I'll have a dig through the information later when I have some more time.

Self-reporting is generally a bad way to track statistics. This is a decent site for certain things, but you're relying on people to sign up before you can check them, you can (and likely will) skew the results.

I don't think there are many conclusions we can draw about Xbox gamers as a whole here.

Agreed, unfortunately Xbox.com doesn't provide a similar list including every Xbox owner so it's the best I've been able to find. As I say I'd be very happy if anyone can point me in the direction of something better. It's just for fun, so it doesn't matter if the conclusions aren't generalizable.

The PSN Profiles above has 1.5 million profiles, while TA has only about 25,000 so I guess PSN is more reliable, however I couldn't see any information about where those profiles come from (it says it has far fewer members so it doesn't seem like it can be on a sign-up basis, but surely there are more that 1.5m Playstations out there...)

 

[Something Amyss]

Agreed, unfortunately Xbox.com doesn't provide a similar list including every Xbox owner so it's the best I've been able to find. As I say I'd be very happy if anyone can point me in the direction of something better. It's just for fun, so it doesn't matter if the conclusions aren't generalizable.

The problem is that "lack of something better" doesn't make conclusions reasonable.

The PSN Profiles above has 1.5 million profiles, while TA has only about 25,000 so I guess PSN is more reliable, however I couldn't see any information about where those profiles come from (it says it has far fewer members so it doesn't seem like it can be on a sign-up basis, but surely there are more that 1.5m Playstations out there...)

Well, no. More members doesn't necessarily make it more reliable in the same way that a larger survey doesn't necessarily mean a more accurate one. It's all about the data coming in. That's why we can determine the way an entire populated by hundreds of millions will react by polling a few thousand people. The trick is developing a representative sample, something you're unlikely to find on any of these sites.

The only thing better than that would be absolute usage data, but at best the data we'd get from Microsoft would be on units connected to the internet, and that's not a given for the 360.

But I repeat: the absence of better data doesn't make it safe to draw a conclusion based on this data. This is how we get results wildly outside of real-world parameters. "Landon Wins By Landslide" level of wildly inaccurate.

If you really want to get such data, I suggest you do your own study on the subject. However, I would recommend you read up on polling procedures and statistics before you do, as you seem to not be familiar with the idea. Polling can be downright scientific in its accuracy, which is why reputable polling companies make so much money selling their data. And maybe the results would be the same as with this site, but I kind of doubt it. I'd wager against it, in fact.

So there you have it: a better idea. Unfortunately, it's got some assembly required.

 

[LaoJim]

The problem is that "lack of something better" doesn't make conclusions reasonable.

I think you are overthinking this too much. I've said clearly this is just for fun and I'm not concerned about generalizing the results. Put it another way if we want to say "Halo 3 is the most popular game amongst people registered with the True Achievement site (and who have their xbox connected to the internet...)" then this is an entirely reasonable conclusion. For the statement "Halo 3 is a popular game amongst achievement hunters" then this provides good evidence, but we might have concerns about whether TA is a representative sample of achievement hunters. The statement "Halo 3 is the most popular game on the Xbox 360" isn't really a reasonable conclusion.

I'm well aware of this and if you have a look at my original post, you see I'm pretty clear about the limitations of the data and I've not generalized it to all gamers in my post because I'm aware this would be unwarranted. Possibly, in light of this conversation, I regret that I didn't make my title more explicit.

The PSN Profiles above has 1.5 million profiles, while TA has only about 25,000 so I guess PSN is more reliable, however I couldn't see any information about where those profiles come from (it says it has far fewer members so it doesn't seem like it can be on a sign-up basis, but surely there are more that 1.5m Playstations out there...)

un
Well, no. More members doesn't necessarily make it more reliable in the same way that a larger survey doesn't necessarily mean a more accurate one.

Okay, I accept your point. I was kind of making an off-the-cuff remark really intended to thank s69-5 for his contribution, while asking for more information about how the data was collected. I was a little surprised that the site was so much bigger than TA (especially as I misread 250,000 as 25,000 when I was replying earlier).

If you really want to get such data, I suggest you do your own study on the subject.

I don't *really* want to get some data, I was looking at it as being an interesting diversion, something that could provide a talking point on the site, and to see if there was anything similar out there.

However, I would recommend you read up on polling procedures and statistics before you do, as you seem to not be familiar with the idea.

No, I am familiar with the idea, I'm just not interested in expending such efforts, because I'm not conducting a scientific survey, and have no particular research question I want to answer.

Polling can be downright scientific in its accuracy, which is why reputable polling companies make so much money selling their data. And maybe the results would be the same as with this site, but I kind of doubt it. I'd wager against it, in fact.

Right, if the survey was for all gamers it would surely be different. And the differences between the TA list and the survey list would also be potentially interesting.

 

[Something Amyss]

I think you are overthinking this too much.

I'm not over thinking it. I'm thinking it.

Do what you want, but you were the one asking for a better idea. I merely responded to that notion. If you want to draw wild conclusions "for fun" out of likely unrepresentative statistics, who am I to stop you? I'm just pointing out the issues in both practice and theory.

But actually thinking about what this data says (or, more aptly, doesn't say) isn't over thinking it. Even "for fun."

 

[LaoJim]

I think you are overthinking this too much.

I'm not over thinking it. I'm thinking it.

Do what you want, but you were the one asking for a better idea. I merely responded to that notion. If you want to draw wild conclusions "for fun" out of likely unrepresentative statistics, who am I to stop you? I'm just pointing out the issues in both practice and theory.

But actually thinking about what this data says (or, more aptly, doesn't say) isn't over thinking it. Even "for fun."

I think we are still talking at cross purposes here. I agree that we won't be able to draw conclusions about gamers as a whole, that doesn't mean we can't find something interesting to discuss within the data. I agree that polling is the best way to get reliable data, but even then we're not going to be able to ask people to list every game they own on the XBox, so in order to get reasonable responses we'd have to identify a specific research question to answer and even then its going to be expensive and time consuming. The free data we have is a good place to start (good but not great) to look for research questions. Even given that we're not actually going to do real research the data we have can be useful for making us look at the assumptions we have (often based off less data than we have here) and question them. We don't necessarily need to reach a conclusion.

For example, it was interesting to me that Dante's Inferno was had more players than Bayonetta. Now, if we looked at sales figures or polling data we might see that Bayonetta in fact sold better or Dante sold even better than the data here suggests, or that the figures on TA are basically correct. We could dig more into sales data for both titles, but again this wouldn't take into account used sales. With a bit more research we could possibly come to a firmer conclusion. Nevertheless I was surprised by the data and Evonisia wasn't and by the fact that I raised the issue, I learned a possible reason (only possible mind) why Dante might have done better than I was expecting.

To some extent, at the moment, we have to make educated guesses about the members of TA, but suppose we feel it is reasonable to assume that they represent more "hardcore" than "casual" gamers (or at least a certain type of hardcore gamer). An assumption which is reasonable enough, though the terms themselves are a source of endless controversy on these forums. Given that we might expect hardcore gamers to be more discerning in what they play, it's interesting that a game which received mediocre reviews is better received than one which was excellently reviewed and we might want to know why. Is that because, as Evonisia suggests

Dante's Inferno would be the God of War for 360 players

And so is this an example of publishers succeeding by cloning an existing series? Was there something about the way in which Bayonetta was designed, published or promoted that failed to attract TA gamers? Was it, to echo a perennial issue on this site, because the main character was a woman? Was it because the main character is a woman wearing what was basically bondage gear?

For the discussion to be fun and interesting, we don't necessarily need to reach any conclusions. We might however come up with some theories. If we were wanting to do scientific research on it, we'd also now have a good idea of which questions should be on a poll in order to demonstrate the theories.

Similarly the data about Street Fighter is interesting to me, because I'm old enough to remember when SF2 came out and have always regarded it as the premier fighting game. For me then my belief was that SF4 is a great game which should appeal to both hardcore and relatively casual gamers and should be far more prevalent in any sample of people's games (whether hardcore or casual). While I'm hardly surpised that it is less popular than a whole slew of first/third person shooters (though I am a bit saddened), it is surprising that its not even the top fighting game anymore. That said, I also remember being highly impressed by Soul Calibur (or it may have been SC2) on the Dreamcast, whereas SF went away for quite a long time. So its possible the Soul Calibur means more to a new generation of gamers that SF does. Its still possible that the data is misleading me and that SF4 is by far the most popular fighter in Microsoft's data set. If that were true though it would also raise questions about why SC comes out ahead with the TA achievement hunters. It may be that TA members have a specific average age, it may be that SC4 has easier achievements that SF4 or it might be something else entirely.

So I don't think there is a huge problem with looking at flawed data, as long as you are aware of what the flaws with it are likely to be and temper your conclusions accordingly.

 

[Something Amyss]

-SNIP-

But based on this post it doesn't at all sound like we're talking at cross purposes. It instead sounds like you don't like my conclusions. And speaking of conclusions, you were drawing them. You can argue semantics, but you even used the word previously.

And again, that's okay. I'm not forcing you to put any work into justifying it. But it comes off as you saying "but you don't get it" and making excuses.

But don't pretend you have tempered your conclusions, either.

 

[LaoJim]

-SNIP-

But based on this post it doesn't at all sound like we're talking at cross purposes. It instead sounds like you don't like my conclusions.

As I understand our respective positions.

You think the data is not generalizable to all gamers. You are not interested in discussing what the data might tell us about a subset of gamers.
I think the data is not generalizable to all gamers. I am interested in discussing what the data might tell us about a subset of gamers.

I don't like your conclusions in the sense that I disagree with you that the data is not worth discussing and I think you have not made a reasonable argument that it is worthless. I believe we are talking at cross-purposes since I have repeatedly said I am not concerned with generalizing to all gamers, and I am not seeing in your responses any indication that you have understood what I mean by that.

-SNIP-

And speaking of conclusions, you were drawing them. You can argue semantics, but you even used the word previously.
But don't pretend you have tempered your conclusions, either.

In my first post I used the word observations for the five statements about the data I made. These were mainly numerical facts with some commentary on why I felt they were surprising (based on what I expected from the type of gamer I felt was likely to sign up to the site). For most of the statement I noted that they were regarding the gamers on the TA site. For a couple of them I didn't repeat this caveat because I thought it would be naturally be inferred. I don't think there's anything I said there that I regret or withdraw in light of our discussion (excepting that I didn't at the time realize Dead Island was a free GwG game) and I don't think they represent conclusions except about the dataset under discussion.

Later on I agreed with you that "the conclusions won't be generalizable". Here I was still hoping that this thread would lead to discussion about the data itself and might lead to conclusions (again not generalized) being reached (alas it seems the thread is now completely derailed). I acknowledge its ambiguous and could have been read as referring to conclusions already reached. In fact by the point I felt we had reached at least one satisfactory conclusion "Dead Island has been played by a lot of gamers on TA *probably* because it was a free GwG game".

And again, that's okay. I'm not forcing you to put any work into justifying it. But it comes off as you saying "but you don't get it" and making excuses.

I think the statement that you are not forcing me to put any work into justifying it is false, at least from my point of view. You are aware that I would like a discussion with the various members on this thread, and by constantly inferring the whole discussion to be pointless, you are making it necessary for me to justify at length why it is not pointless, so that others might be more inclined to take part. By constantly suggesting that I am flat out wrong (but entitled to be wrong), accusing me of making excuses, reaching wild conclusions, and suggesting I am ignorant of statistics you are forcing me to explain my stance in great depth as not to reply would appear to concede that you are correct.

I don't believe I have made excuses, except possibly that I regret I didn't put enough thought into the title. I have been been explaining myself at length because I genuinely believe that you don't get it, ("It" being my meanings and intentions). I clearly stated that data was self-selecting and thus potential bias was a danger, something which you seem to have fixated on. Your one concrete suggestion on this thread, that I conduct a poll, was completely impractical given the context of the discussion. You have already caused offence to me by suggesting that I don't know about statistics, so I'll risk suggesting that you seem unaware that in the real world scientists (especially social scientists) often have to work with data that is less than ideal and they have to find ways to minimize and take those flaws into account, while acknowledging the limitations of their analysis. Requiring that the data be flawless regardless of time and monetary constraints before entering into any kind of initial discussion isn't a practical way of going about things.

I am happy to continue this debate if it seems to be getting more constructive, please feel free to add a reply to this. If any one else has anything to say please don't be put off by this disagreement. Other than that it is likely that this thread is now completely burned out and I'm not going to try to keep it alive anymore.

 

[Chicago Ted]

It's interesting to me because the top of the list is very much Dudebro games and yet Madden/FIFA doesn't really show up so much, it may be to do with achievement farming, although I got 400-500 achievement points with about 10-15 hours of playing FIFA 09 so I don't think its that light.

(come to think of it they are also split between themselves in that Americans buy more Madden and the rest of the world buys more FIFA, as well as the annual release cycle so its maybe not so surprising)

Or, perhaps some of those games are just more universal than given credit for.

I'm going to make an assumption here and take it that the 'Dudebro' titles you talk about here are mostly Halo, CoD, and Gears, especially with how you refer to those three in a post a bit further down. Personally, I find that the whole idea of the 'Dudebro' gaming is about as accurate as saying every person playing Skyrim is a Basement Dweller. Sure, there are people who play the game who fit the mold but I'm betting that the majority don't really.

I'd wager it's just a lot of the fact that the games offer solid online experiences with a wider appeal that a lot of people can agree to play together on. When I was using my 360 far more, I often wound up grabbing the latest CoD games, not because I liked them, but more that because all my friends were playing them. It was a good compromise game of sorts. Some took it more seriously, but a lot were more casual in the approach to it and using it more as a middle ground of sorts. I was personally a much bigger fan of Halo and Gears, but those were also ones we all had and would sometimes play (though CoD still was the more dominant). And while some of us in the extended group I would classify as your more stereotypical 'Dudebro' style gamer, most of us didn't fit the mold. Hell, whenever I wasn't playing online with them, I'd mostly be playing RPGs of some type or another, while one of my closer friends stuck far more to the arcade and roguelike style games. But yet we'd still get the rest just to play with everyone else we knew. Hell, even now, coming back to 360 after a couple years away from it with that same buddy, what are the games we find ourselves playing when we start up? Halo ODST, Halo Reach, and Gears 3.

To sum up quickly, to credit those games as simply 'Dudebro' I find to be an oversimplification of it, when really it's just solid multiplayer on consoles. You get a smaller group of friends together (~4) to play something, you'd probably get a title more appealing to all your tastes (this is when games like GTA IV and RDR won out for me and my closer friends though Halo was still a constant as well) but go a bit larger (~6-8) and Halo, CoD, and Gears just seemed to be the games everyone could compromise most easily on. Those games offered short, intense multiplayer matches, that people could easily drop in and drop out of, but have the group as a whole keep going on.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

There are, as I write this, 234,699 registered gamers

Which out of the 46,000,000+ Xbox Live profiles makes it a relatively small sample. Interesting results, but hardly indicative of Xbox gamers as a whole.

 

[LaoJim]

Or, perhaps some of those games are just more universal than given credit for.

I'm going to make an assumption here and take it that the 'Dudebro' titles you talk about here are mostly Halo, CoD, and Gears, especially with how you refer to those three in a post a bit further down. Personally, I find that the whole idea of the 'Dudebro' gaming is about as accurate as saying every person playing Skyrim is a Basement Dweller. Sure, there are people who play the game who fit the mold but I'm betting that the majority don't really.

...

To sum up quickly, to credit those games as simply 'Dudebro' I find to be an oversimplification of it, when really it's just solid multiplayer on consoles. You get a smaller group of friends together (~4) to play something, you'd probably get a title more appealing to all your tastes (this is when games like GTA IV and RDR won out for me and my closer friends though Halo was still a constant as well) but go a bit larger (~6-8) and Halo, CoD, and Gears just seemed to be the games everyone could compromise most easily on. Those games offered short, intense multiplayer matches, that people could easily drop in and drop out of, but have the group as a whole keep going on.

No I agree and I'm sorry if I was using the term Dudebro a bit too casually. For the record I have pretty much all the shooters at the top of the list and I enjoy Call of Duty. There is an image of the sort of player who buys Madden and CoD every year and very little else. I think a few years ago one of the Infinity Ward guys even said a lot of their player don't buy other games. So there the stereotype of the 'Dudebro' player gets mentioned a lot on this site and I don't know how accurate it is. If we had the full Microsoft data it would be interesting to look at how many people have mainly CoD and sports games and see if its justified. What this data seems to suggest is that these games are universal with 60-75% of people who sign up to TA having played them. So as you say the other way of looking at it is the stereotype that "real gamers" don't play junk like CoD doesn't seem to be true. (Then we get in to the discussion about how "achievement hunters" aren't "real gamers" and things get nasty again...)

Which out of the 46,000,000+ Xbox Live profiles makes it a relatively small sample. Interesting results, but hardly indicative of Xbox gamers as a whole.

I agree. I'm going to settle for interesting, but larger sample sizes (and more balanced) would be welcome. Incidentally where did you get the 46 million figure from? Wikipedia lists 82.9 million Xbox 360 sold as of March 2014, so that's about one profile for every two Xbox's (not included XBox one), which suggests most of them aren't hooked up to the internet (which may very well be correct) (but then I guess people may have bought replacement units and transferred the profile over, so that complicates matters as well).