Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Television Media Entertainment Games

TV's Missing Men Still Flocking To Games? 94

Posted by simoniker
from the battle-of-the-mediums dept.
Thanks to Ad Age for its article discussing the young male demographic's move away from television and towards videogames. The article notes: "Some 32 million 18- to 34-year-old males constitute the mother lode for a vast array of marketers. That's about one-quarter of the total U.S. male population", and goes on to quote an advertising executive as suggesting: "Games have bigger viewership numbers than The Sopranos." Also of note is a referenced Codemasters survey, which "...found that 32% of gamers were over 30 and 47% were in their 20s. It was the latest data to confirm that video gaming, once almost exclusively associated with teenagers, has become a mainstream interest that is dramatically altering the pattern of media consumption by men."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

TV's Missing Men Still Flocking To Games?

Comments Filter:
  • maybe now.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by JohnLi (85427) * on Monday January 19, 2004 @12:39PM (#8021677) Homepage
    journalists will understand "violent" video games a bit more. They are dealing with a mature demographic. Or, at least we know that companies trying to make a buck will continue to do so even with the protests.
    • Have Them Join Us (Score:2, Insightful)

      by ajax0187 (615355)
      What the journalists really need is to start playing the games themselves. I imagine the major news outlets will change their tune when their reporters start playing these games and find that they AREN'T turning into homocidal serial rapists, but instead that these games are [GASP] fun.

      Of course, if all the reporters of The New York Post suddenly find themselves playing CounterStrike during their working hours, well...no big loss ^_^.

      • by Incoherent07 (695470) on Monday January 19, 2004 @02:20PM (#8022763)
        I've noticed that the mass media in general has NO idea about anything concerning video games. They consider them a curiosity, a destabilizing element in our country's youth, or simply a pastime that's not worth reporting on. By and large, they're not much better with computer-related stories, unless it's on the business end.

        Why is it that scientific stories generally have "science correspondents", weather reports are made by actual meteorologists, and even political stories are made by people who watch politics closely, but video gaming stories are reported by whatever clueless hack happens to be open at the moment?
        • Well, for most people, the weather and who is running the country is more relevant and important than a story about the latest video game. But you're right: video games, 4H, and after-school plays should all get dedicated reporters that do nothing but follow them.
          • Cute. And I suppose movies and music are also more relevant and important. If video games are a form of entertainment, they're as relevant as other forms of entertainment.
            • And I suppose movies and music are also more relevant and important.

              Um, yes? Because:

              If video games are a form of entertainment, they're as relevant as other forms of entertainment.

              is demonstratably untrue. Old people are entertained by feeding pidgeons at the park. My toddler is entertained by banging pots together. Some people are entertained by jumping out of perfectly-working airplanes. There are a lot of people entertained in a lot of different ways. Just because gaming is your favorite one

    • Re:maybe now.. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by bigman2003 (671309)
      I haven't watched television in about a year. DVD's yes- TV, no. I don't miss it.

      Yesterday I was playing tennis, and told everyone I had to leave by 11:00. They all asked "what's the hurry, the game doesn't come on until 12:00".

      First, I had no idea what "the game" was. Second, I thought it was sad that they scheduled their day around the television schedule. The same group of guys changed our Monday tennis to Tuesday during football season, so they could watch Monday Night Football.

      But I did tell th
      • "Second, I thought it was sad that they scheduled their day around the television schedule."
        More or less sad than scheduling your life around an online golf tournament? People enjoy different forms of entertainment. Why be so pompous and act like yours is so much better than others?
    • which has been rarely of late, since I don't have one at home, I start itching for the forward button.

      Zapping just doesn't cut it :(
  • I'm not surprised (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Quixotic Raindrop (443129) on Monday January 19, 2004 @12:46PM (#8021756) Journal
    It seems to me that the generation that is now in its 30s and late 20s is the generation that the phrase "video gaming, once almost exclusively associated with teenagers" used to describe. All that happened is that while the media wasn't paying any attention, the home console video game generation grew up. Or, at least, grew older. Does this really surprise anyone?
    • Re:I'm not surprised (Score:4, Interesting)

      by *weasel (174362) on Monday January 19, 2004 @01:39PM (#8022321)
      It surprises anyone who still clings to the idea that gaming is the domain of children. Those people would assume that players of the Atari and ColecoVision would have 'put away childish things' by now. The same way previous generations did with cartoons, action figures, puppets and comic books.

      The truth is that gaming as a form of expression has largely matured with them.

      Older gamers aren't playing Tron any more often than boomers catch a classic disney flick - mostly they are finding new games with content that appeals to their matured taste. The more complex stories and nuance that mature society has historically turned to theatre, and later film to find (that they didn't find in puppet-shows and cartoons) - are being made in modern computer games.

      This could change of course, if the "won't anyone think of the children?" reactionaries successfully kill the idea of a legitimate M or AO game title.
      • Re:I'm not surprised (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Captain Rotundo (165816) on Monday January 19, 2004 @02:04PM (#8022592) Homepage
        The sad part is I feel I have matured far more than the games have. I have a very difficult time finding "good" games with strong mature sorylines.

        Too ofter "mature" means sex and violence, and "story" just doesnt mean anything.

        Even critically acclaimed games have yet to reach the consistancy of say Hollywood in the story department. You may hate Hollywood "re-tread" story lines but at least they are cohesive (maybe thats why they are re-used so often)

        I recently played "Enternal Darkness" which was an OK game with a very mediocre story, but for crying out loud it felt like they just forgot about the end, at one point there is a random knock on the door and a package is left for you with an item you need! This doesnt even jive with the explaination of what happend to said item, and feels like the designers just said "fuck it I don't want to spend the time explaining where this is, lets jsut give it to them!" - it takes you out of the games illusion completely and leaves you asking "why?"

        Lets not even get to the problem of games often feeling like they lead you around by the nose rather than you leading them. Isn't it an interactive media? I often get the feeling that the industry has mastered puzzle games, and button mashers the why the film industry had mastered sound, and black and white, but for some reason when it comes to color no one can figure out what to do with it.
        • Recently, I was reading an article on the development of Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time. In the article, they explained that they had some of the stuff they cut out because they ran out of time. Fortunately, it seems to me that they managed to keep the story line intact.

          However, I'll bet in the case of Eternal Darkness, which I haven't played that much, that the plot hole you ran into was because of something like this. Maybe originally there was a whole level you had to go through to get the obje

          • This is actually exactly what happened. Dennis Dyack was interviewed awhile after ED came out, and he spoke of 2 or 3 'extra' chapters that bridges some of the gaps that were apparent in the last bit of the game. Specifically, there was originally a greater connection between the firefighter and Alex Roivas.
        • Wasn't it from the firefighter? As I recall, the cutscene shows him with the package, and then knock, knock the package appears on your doorstep. Yeah, that's a bit rushed and obviously Silicon Knights intended a bit more, but it's certainly not a game-killer.
        • For all the controversy, the stories behind GTA3 and GTA-VC are very entertaining... better than a lot of crime movies I've seen in the last 10 years.
      • cartoons, action figures, puppets and comic books

        Interestingly, two of those are art forms that, while generally considered childish, certainly have mature alternatives (e.g. The Simpsons). Maybe video games are similar, but with more mature than childish options?

  • Blatant Errors? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Ian_Bailey (469273) on Monday January 19, 2004 @12:51PM (#8021799) Homepage Journal
    hard-core players who prefer first-person-player games like Nintendo's "Final Fantasy" series which takes 100 hours to complete

    Now, I can understand someone not understanding what a 'first-person' game is.

    But thinking Nintendo makes Final Fantasy? That's either a testament to the strength of the Nintendo brand, the weakness of Square-Enix (in North America, anyways), the inability of the writer to look up a simple detail, or some combination of the three.
    • I'd say a little bit of all three, since Nintendo published the first Final Fantasy Game in America.
    • Incidentally, what do you suppose he means by "first-person-player games"?
      • I think his mistake is he is thinking of narrative instead of visual.

        In books, a 'first-person' narrative is inside the head of one of characters, seeing things as they see. This is what most writers (even article writers) know, and probably what he was thinking of. Most modern Final Fantasies have some kind of thoughts of the male hero displayed to the player. In that sense, he is correct.

        However, many games with a narrative do this, putting the player in the role of the principle character. This is nece
        • Well, that part I understood. I knew he wasn't referring to the visual perspective of the game but rather to the narrative perspective. What I was wondering, though, is the bit about "-player". Most people can discern what first-person games means, but why "first-person-player"?
  • by prufrax (521403)
    Nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of programmes that are on the telly during primetime then.
  • by redelm (54142) on Monday January 19, 2004 @12:53PM (#8021810) Homepage
    If men are MIA, then TV writers and producers have to go after women to keep their eyeball score (ratings, share) in the profitable range.

    I've noticed a shift towards programming to attract female audiences over the past ~10 years. There always has been some, just as there is some directed programming for males. But the shift is not just in female oriented networks (Lifetime), but also in mainstream broadcast programming. Some of this gets extreme. [amazon.com] - pardon the commercial reference.

  • by SmallFurryCreature (593017) on Monday January 19, 2004 @12:55PM (#8021832) Journal
    I don't think there is anything really wrong with tv programs. There are enough shows I would want to watch except for two tiny little things.

    One is to do with the tv schedule. The computer has changed the way I do my entertaining/time wasting. I want it when I want it. It is not really even a want. It is more like I see a program I might like to watch and then totally forget to turn the tv on in time. Of course it doesn't help that were once I had the tv on as background noise I now have to turn it off in disgust when their is some reality show before what I want to watch and even hearing it in the background irritates me. There is at the moment only 1 program that I watch and that is "have I got news for you" on the bbc. Nothing else. Not that I don't wanna watch but I simply forget.

    I have been hearing since I was a little kid about on demand tv. First machines I seen used tapes to give you an idea how old it is. Yet it never happened. No demand the networks said. Nope people didn't demand it. I don't demand it. I simply don't watch your product anymore.

    There is a group to whom I belong that tv just can't seem to reach anymore. I never liked programs like gameshows but when they where half-shows I could at least tolerate them. If in a group I would watch it with half an eye. Shows like Idols I can't stand. Wich means I have the tv off and won't watch the program I might be intrestted in afterwards since I am now doing something else.

    So tv networks can do three things. Whine and die, aim at other groups, win us back. 1 is what they will do, 2 is what they should do, 3 is what they haven't got a chance in hell of doing.

    Oh and cutting back on the number of ads wouldn't hurt either. Don't have 10x$1000 ads. Have 1x$100.000 ads. Same money less channel hopping.

    • One is to do with the tv schedule.

      I think this is probably one of the biggest things they are missing. There was recently a poll on where people learned the most about political candidates which showed a rise in the internet and cable news channels as the source rather than the networks. I listened to the people on the radio and cable news talk about this as if the networks were doing something wrong, and what it really comes down to, I believe, is that the internet and cable news channels are there when
    • We don't care about Ally McBeal. We don't care about Dharma and Greg. We're sick of all the metrosexual bullshit that they show us on TV.

      In previous decades, if people didn't like what was on TV, what were the choices? Books? Radio? Movie theaters?

      Sure all of them are valid, but they're nothing like video games.

      In one hour I can switch from being a Florida Drug Kingpin (GTA:VC) to being the NSA's top agent (Splinter Cell).

      How can "Queer Eye" compete with that?

      Oh and cutting back on the number of ads w
  • Yeah, and all Adult male TV viewser are a bigger group than Metal Gear Solid players... they make grand statements, and it sounds like a revolutionary advertisers shift, but the Sopranos is ONE show, and all gamers are users of many different products.... let's see the adman who reads that statement and then buys an ad for Big Rigs 2, claiming to his boss they will get more viewers than the Sopranos!
  • "...found that 32% of gamers were over 30 and 47% were in their 20s. It was the latest data to confirm that video gaming, once almost exclusively associated with teenagers, has become a mainstream interest.."

    It couldn't possibly be that the teenagers grew up since the last big survey and are now in their 20's and 30's?
  • by orthogonal (588627) on Monday January 19, 2004 @01:04PM (#8021915) Journal
    "Games have bigger viewership numbers than The Sopranos."

    Let me correct this statement: games have a larger number of players than "The Sopranos" has viewers.

    In case you're an ad-man, or have an MBA, let me clearly state: gamers are not viewers.

    Anyone remember the whole premise of cable-tv channels? That you'd pay for the channel upfront, and so avoid commercials?

    Now this is only true for the so-called "premium" channels, so called because to view them you must pay an additional premium over and above what you pay for the basic cable service. Indeed it seems like most cable channels not only feature ads, but sell their entire late night time to infomercials. (Of course, I may be wrong; I only watch cable on vacation, because I won't buy lots of channels with lots of ads.)

    So beware this discovery of games by Madison Avenue: prepare to find the games you've paid for to interrupt your play for commercials, or to sacrifice playability to product placements.
    • So beware this discovery of games by Madison Avenue: prepare to find the games you've paid for to interrupt your play for commercials, or to sacrifice playability to product placements.

      I'm prepared. I'm also prepared to take such a game right back to the store, or put it in the trash bin, and never purchase another game from that company again, assuming I was deceived enough to purchase it in the first place.

      I have no problem voting with my dollar where such things are concerned.
    • Well, games are going to be like movies. Some will be chock full of ads like any recent James Bond movie, and some will not, like LOTR. ("Imagine Gollum plugging Pepsi half way through the Two Towers. It'll be like printing money. Hey, why is this pit opening up beneath my feet, aieeee...")

      So, you just have to hope that the game series you love aren't among the ones on the James Bond side of the equation.

      I was kind of stunned to find that there is a game for Gamecube that is a fantasy game based on [mobygames.com]

    • So beware this discovery of games by Madison Avenue: prepare to find the games you've paid for to interrupt your play for commercials, or to sacrifice playability to product placements.

      So I'll just wait for someone to pirate the game and tell me whether it's an ad game or not. ;)
  • by Boglin (517490)
    ...hard-core players who prefer first-person-player games like
    Nintendo's "Final Fantasy" series... (emphasis mine),/i>
    I was going to make some lame jokes about the journalists poor fact checking abilities, but it's honestly an easy mistake to make. I mean, he at least correctly associated the games with their primary console platform, assuming the article was written in 1994.
  • Adult Swim [adultswim.com]
    ^^^ That's where they(we) are!
    Besides the Daily Show, what else is there besides Adult Swim?

    Wake up and smell the Meatwad. (Do what now?)
  • (shameless plug for current addiction follows)

    With the release of Savage 2.0 yesterday [s2games.com], I plan on wasting all my "TV time" playing [s2games.com].

    This one is almost as time consuming as previous [civ3.com] addictions [idsoftware.com], and shares many of the same traits of both!

    If you get slaughtered by a rabbit or a penguin, you've probably 'seen' me!

  • by dobber (160548) on Monday January 19, 2004 @01:07PM (#8021954) Homepage
    Reality shows just don't cut it for a lot of men. I am sick of hearing about them, and I would rather see higher quality fiction on television. Instead, shows like Firefly, John Doe, Mr. Sterling, and The Lyon's Den get canned. All for 'lack of ratings'... sometimes a show takes awhile to get a following, but this short-sighted nature will kill a lot of good tv.

    I have Tivo, so the time a show is on doesn't really matter much to me. I get to watch the shows I'm interested in, when I want to. Unfortunatly, television schedules still work on the prime-time model, and that needs to change. If there are three shows on at the same time that I want to watch, I'll usually only pick one. If they show one in another time slot, then I can get that one as well. Fortunatly this isn't much of a problem now, as the networks are hell-bent on cramming every form of reality show into as many spots as they can.

    Until then, the computer is a better use of my time anyway. Maybe the execs will get it, maybe they won't.
    • To a lot of men, myself included, I find the "fuck your teammate" concept of reality shows obnoxious and disturbing. There's nothing wrong with competition. Indeed, I like Jeopardy, pro football, and an occasional Nascar race.

      I think it's the concept of not being able to trust a teammate that makes reality shows disturbing to me. I don't watch them.

    • have Tivo, so the time a show is on doesn't really matter much to me
      I always found odd that people who have TiVo say this. It's not as is tape recorders didn't let you record TV shows for 25 years now. They're more complicated, but sicne I got my PVR, I haven't been taping more TV shows. Well, to be honest, I have, but then I realise that I wouldn't be watching all this crap so I delete it anyway and focus on what I watch each week (24, Alias, Angel, Smallville, That 70's Show and Tru Calling).
      • The ability to record and watch a show at the same time has dramatically increased the usefulness of the PVR over the VCR to me. Combine that with the built-in TV guide and searching, and that is what made the shift for me.

        Yes, the tape recorder allowed me to record shows, but it didn't dramatically shift my habits. Now, I ONLY watch shows that I record. I will set Tivo to record things that I'm interested in, and watch those. I don't worry about recording extra things, because I can easily delete them
  • Since TV is becoming more and more "Reality" oriented. I believe that video games are "Reality TV" at its best. Since just like TV it is a different reality than the "yours" with the added benifit of actively controling it. As opposed to the TV one where you're just a passive viewer.
  • With commercials and product placements inside.

    I can't believe they haven't tried it yet.

    • There have been give-away games with products in them. In a way, America's Army (put out by the US millitary) is a very high-level add. (Some hate the idea, I think they are damn smart...runs on Linux too!)
    • A game that has commercials and product placements is not, can not be, and will never be a quality game.

      Say what you will but I seriously doubt that Nobunaga's Ambition goes better with Coke.
    • Games aren't really comparable to TV (with the exception of MMORPGs, maybe), they're more like movies. So I wouldn't expect commercials, but product placement - why not? If it's feasable, it might lead to a preference of certain settings. Less fantasy and sci-fi, more contemporary stuff where you can squeeze your product in.
  • No more TV (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Apreche (239272) on Monday January 19, 2004 @01:41PM (#8022341) Homepage Journal
    Freshman year I paid for cable. That was a mistake. I barely used any of it, my roomate used it all the time. I had to pay half. Oh well. I never paid for cable again. It's my 4th year of college now, and TV is dead to me. I only watch it in two ways. Way 1, when I go home for a break or something I'll watch some sports and some cartoons to kill the time. Way 2, download shows like family guy, or get DVDs of tv shows and watch them. Tivo isn't even worth it. Heck a home brewed linux tivo isn't worth it.

    TV is dead to me. I get all my information from the internet and I get all my video entertainment from DVDs and the internet. It's not just video games. It's push vs. pull technology. I just wont use anything that is push anymore.

    Fuck you TV networks you lose.
    • A few problems with no TV at all...

      - Sports. I love watching college ball. Solution: Go to a sports bar.

      - News. Its kinda cool to watch the "State of the Union" speech live.

      - History Channel. Discovery Channel. Animal Planet. Good shows still exist out there.
  • In my mind there is an ever growing gap in TV. TV Shows like CSI, Without a trace, Law and Order, or all sorts of stuf fon the informational channels engages my brain. It's not so much mindless garbage, but usually has somehting to get my brain moving a tad.

    Video games and general computer usage for geeks like us always moves our brains to action. programming, games, web design, or screaming and ranting on /. always is more entertaining than some stupid sitcom with the same plot we've seen a thousand time

    • In my mind there is an ever growing gap in TV. TV Shows like CSI, Without a trace, Law and Order, or all sorts of stuf fon the informational channels engages my brain. It's not so much mindless garbage, but usually has somehting to get my brain moving a tad.

      I agree with you completely here. CSI is probably the only reason I still subscribe to cable (reception is crappy here... but I'll be moving soon anyway). The problem is, despite the popularity of these shows, they are damn expensive to make. CSI re
  • I realize nowadays that I watch only the follow...

    1.) sports
    2.) news
    3.) discovery channel

    I can't watch anything else because I don't have HBOs and skinemax. I can't watch any regular citcoms and shows cause they are all so lame. Not to mention all shows are off the air in 3 days anyways. You know there's a problem when reruns of "married with children" is funnier than 95% of the shows on TV.

  • by moebius206 (692162) on Monday January 19, 2004 @02:58PM (#8023149)
    The only reason I, as a gamer in his 20's, don't watch much TV these days is because the majority of the tv and especially its primetime (I assume that's the time tv execs want us watching the most) lineup are geared toward mindless comedy, trite drama, and the much over-played shock-value.

    It seems to me that all of the tv that I find interesting has some aspect of it that hasn't been ran through the politically-correct/marketing machine. Things like reality tv are only intriguing (and sometimes funny) because they hint at showing everyday life, filled with obsceneties, moodiness, and everyone's unique perspective/opinions on life. Sitcoms and drama's just don't have that, even a fictional state. They try so desparately to keep their hands clean that its no wonder people tuned in everywhere when Southpark uttered "Shit" almost 200 times in 30 minutes.

    Its not that people want filthy tv filled with sex, violence, and cursing... rather, perhaps they want something that doesn't make them feel like they're children and have to cover their eyes all of the time.

    Besides the movie channels, I really only watch Cartoon Network (honestly, only Adult Swim/Toonami and a few others like Samurai Jack, occasionally Justice League, etc), Discovery/TLC, and SciFi. I'm sure I'm not alone, either. And if you think about the programming you watch on those channels, I would bet that they all just don't pay much attention to what the other channels are doing, and instead just focus on what they do best: anime, documentaries, and science fiction with lots of cheesy effects.

    If you want me to watch your station, don't hold my hand like I'm a freakin' 2 year old. Just spit out the real truth behind what you're trying to tell (if there is some), and for God's sake quit trying to market to every demographic possible!

    Oh, and it might help to come up with something original instead of just repackaging the leading channel's ideas. Just a hint.

    Sorry for the rant.
    • The only reason I, as a gamer in his 20's, don't watch much TV these days is because the majority of the tv and especially its primetime (I assume that's the time tv execs want us watching the most) lineup are geared toward mindless comedy, trite drama, and the much over-played shock-value.

      TV execs don't specifically want you to watch on prime time. Rather, it's prime time because that's when most people watch TV, viewing habits being mostly determined by habit and daily schedule. So that's the slots adv

  • A few months back my roommate bought a TiVo. Before that, I watched very little TV anymore. It was too hard to keep up with all the schedule changes, new shows, cancelling of old/new shows, etc. My primary interest was SPEED and FoodNetwork. Now, I get to watch more of the good stuff (Monster Garage or Stargate SG-1 or Alias or whatnot) without missing an episode here or there. TiVo has put me back in control. That is something the networks can't do.
  • by ronfar (52216)
    When stuff comes on TV that is aimed at me, it is either:

    A. On the cartoon network. (Or kids WB, etc.)

    B. Short lived.

    I get tired of watching science fiction series X to have it cancelled, just as I am getting into the characters. (Besides the fact that there is a lot of bad, dumb or both science fiction on TV.)

    Video games, on the other hand help me to use up hours and hours of my life without boring me to tears. I can't say that about reality show Y or Friends.

    If they want the people who play vi

  • by Anonymous Coward
    One of the main reasons that young males move away from TV to videogames is...

    1. They are tired of being assaulted by your mindnumbingly irritating advertising every five minutes.

    2. Violent video games are a great release for the pent up frustration of having to watch commercials every five minutes.

  • ...and downgraded from Standard cable (just about everything except premium channels) to Basic cable (local channels). The only things I ever watch are college football, The Simpsons, and occasionally Seinfeld. Since football season is over, why pay the extra $35 a month? That just about pays for a new game - which, carefully selected, I'll enjoy a lot more anyway.

    My wife isn't as thrilled about it - she's an avid HGTV and TLC fan, mostly for the home improvement shows - but we just couldn't justify payin

    • downgraded from Standard cable (just about everything except premium channels) to Basic cable (local channels)

      I don't know much about cable (don't watch TV) but aren't local channels the channels you get without cable? Thus defeating the purpose of having cable? Just curious.
  • TV has become too racy for alot of folks, and not racy enough for the others. I made the the mistake of watching a prime time comedy with my children in the room, they learned all kinds of great words that I deem unacceptable. So the TV goes off.

    About the only things that get watched are history, tlc and espn.
    And about once a month Law & Order.

  • Some 32 million 18- to 34-year-old males constitute the mother lode for a vast array of marketers

    wouldn't that be the *father* lode???
  • Because I'm tired of men being portrayed as idiots. I also can't stand "reality TV" shows, and since there appears to be hours of it on every single channel every night of the week, I'm not tuning in. Rather, I'm watching The History Channel, The Discovery Channel, The Learning Channel, Cartoon Network, Spike TV, and yes, a lot of ESPN and ESPN2. As this article indicates though, I also play the GameCube a lot during prime time. Oh, and I'm 33 with two kids, and I probably play the Cube almost as much a
  • in australia, if you dont pay for your tv, you have the choice of 5 free to air stations. out the main three commercial stations, about 90% of their programming is a mix of game shows, current affairs shows*, fucking awful reality tv, and endless shitty drama shows, with everything from cop drama to law drama to hospital drama. and then half a dozen rapmovies each week.

    i watch maybe 2-3 hours of tv a week, mainly whatever sport is currently in season. if my tv is on, then 99% of the time its because im pla
  • I'm in that demgraphic and I walked away from prime-time TV and moved to games years ago. However, I find myself drifting away from games now towards DVDs. Given that I'm regularly ahead of the trend (scarily so), I suggest that TV, movie and advertising exectives leapfrog games and direct their attention directly at DVDs. Make "TV series" for sale as DVDs rather than for broadcast. Simultaneously release movies to cinemas and DVD. Nothing wrong with "direct to DVD".

    Oh, and advertising companies, give

    • Well exactly. Broadcast runs of shows are now just advertisements for the packaged DVD of the series.

      If you're an optimist, you can believe that that will increase the quality of shows, since the idea would be to make them good enough to pay for.

      If you're a pessimist, you can believe that that just means they'll try to appeal even more to the lowest common denominator.

    • I so agree with you!

      As a kid, I was a TV addict. My parents were concerned that I'd waste my life being a couch potato. Now I'm 34, and recently talked with my wife about shutting off the cable TV, as we couldn't recall watching cable at all in about 2 months.

      The last program I made a point of watching was the Battlestar Galactica miniseries on Sci-Fi. The last series I watched regularly was Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which ended some time ago. There are a lot of programs which look like they'd be fun, but
  • It was the latest data to confirm that video gaming, once almost exclusively associated with teenagers, has become a mainstream interest that is dramatically altering the pattern of media consumption by men.

    DUH! We grew up!

    It was people of my generation that popularized the atari2600, NES, Sega Master System, Genesis, SNES and the rest. Did they think we'd stay the same age forever?

    We aged into our 20s and 30s. That was going to happen. DUH!

    LK
  • Bunch of people already saying the same thing, but I might as well raise the decibel level a notch.

    I don't even watch TV shows I want to see anymore. I love Iron Chef, Adult Swim, a lot of what's on public television, and as much as I'd like to see them, I frankly can't be bothered with it. Too many ads. Even on PBS, the first and last 5 minutes of any particular show are merely thinly veiled advertising, it seems. Not to mention the month long pledge drives and TV auctions.

    I used to be glued to the TV
  • I got Halo and Final Fantasy XI a couple of weeks ago and have since stopped watching TV entirely.

There are running jobs. Why don't you go chase them?

Working...