Study Debunks Gamer Stereotypes 117
Ars Technica reports on a recent study by Ipsos MediaCT which evaluated gamers with respect to a large variety of social parameters. Among their findings: "55 percent of gamers polled were married, 48 percent have kids, and new gamers — those who have started playing videogames in the past two years — are 32 years old on average." Also, "In terms of hard dollars, the average gaming household income ($79,000) is notably higher than that of nongaming households ($54,000), but the value of the gamer as a marketing target can be seen in a variety of ways. 39 percent of gamers said that friends and family rely upon them to stay up-to-date about the latest technology." The press release for the study is available at IGN.
Re:This honestly makes sense (Score:5, Interesting)
And the games cost over $50 a piece, that's a luxury to most people. I can take my wife out for dinner, or buy a video game, both for $65 or so but its at the expense of other luxuries.
Games are "becoming" a social activity? (Score:5, Interesting)
"there's no question that gaming has very much become more a social activity than a solitary one"
I wonder how old is the guy who made that comment. When I was a kid, video games were mostly a social activity. I don't remember going much to the arcade alone and most console games were fun only when played against someone else or at least trying to beat his high score. With games like Baseball or Sea Battle for the Intellivision there was no single player mode at all!
Re:This creates more questions (bad study) (Score:5, Interesting)
This creates more questions (bad study)
Generating questions is not itself a sign of a bad study.
Generating questions about the study is (often) a bad thing; it means the article is unclear or lacks information.
Generating questions about reality is (often) a good thing; it means there's more science to be done because there's rich system of causality and "moving parts" beneath the surface. IOW, there is a "there" there.
[and if I had actually read more than the summary, I might have chimed in with my opinion on whether it is indeed a bad study].
-- Jonas K
Re:This honestly makes sense (Score:4, Interesting)
Correct. I can only think of 3 times where I paid more than $20 to acquire a game. The mega-popular games like Final Fantasy eventually hit the $20 greatest hits mark, and game that are not popular eventually tumble to $10 or $15.
>>>the average gaming household income ($79,000) is notably higher than that of nongaming households ($54,000),
This is surprising to me, since games are supposed to have the most "bang for the buck". $20 nets you 40-50 hours of game. No other form of entertainment provides the same dollar-to-hour ratio. For example a $20 DVD only gives 2-3 hours of enjoyment. I would think games would be more popular with lower-income homes.