Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
PC Games (Games) Entertainment Games

Gaming In Sweden Bigger Than Football and Hockey 252

An anonymous reader writes "SIFO (a major Swedish survey company) has conducted a gaming survey right before the launch of Dreamhack Winter. One of the results is that gaming is bigger than football and hockey combined."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Gaming In Sweden Bigger Than Football and Hockey

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Seen it coming (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 26, 2008 @12:49PM (#25900765)

    They are referring to actual football a.k.a. soccer.

    There is also a wimpy other side of the atlantic "sport" called "american football" which just is a bad copy of rugby (which is much more brutal than american football since you dont wear any wimpy padding). Though, you are not actually kicking on the ball with your feet in american football, so why it is called football no one actually knows.

  • by Tanktalus ( 794810 ) on Wednesday November 26, 2008 @12:51PM (#25900777) Journal

    Um, no.

    Jocks and athletes have power in secondary schools simply because their ego is fed by the swooning girls who are hardwired to look for guys who can protect them. In secondary school, girls think that big, strong guys provide the daddy-style protection that they covet. It's not until later (20 to 30) that most women figure out it's the nerds that will provide the economic protection that they really want. Of course, by that time, the nerds will have picked up zero in the socialisation department and not know what to do to pick up the chicks.

  • Re:Seen it coming (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 26, 2008 @12:56PM (#25900815)

    Any mention of 'football' outside the US means proper football i.e. soccer. Noticing the report came from Sweden should have indicated which to most people i.e. not Americans who probably think Sweden is where re-made home videos come from.

    Ironically most people think that soccer is an American term to refer to football, whereas it actually comes from the phrase 'association football'.

  • Re:Seen it coming (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Hardhead_7 ( 987030 ) on Wednesday November 26, 2008 @01:04PM (#25900911)
    I know it's popular to hate on American football because it's American, but the types of hits and tackles legal in the NFL would mean half a rugby team would be paralyzed by the end of the season.

    Add to that, the plays of the NFL are much more intricate... the NFL is more of a tactical contest between coaches than probably any other professional sport.
  • Re:Seen it coming (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Endo13 ( 1000782 ) on Wednesday November 26, 2008 @01:05PM (#25900925)

    If you actually knew any history about football, you would know that the "foot" in "football" has absolutely zero to do with kicking. It has to do with the fact that it's played on foot, as opposed to other historical games that were played on horseback. Football's origins go back much further than any other modern sport (possibly as far as the last century BC), hence why the term "football" still applies, even though under the original broad definition, basketball and baseball would also qualify. Neither Soccer nor American Football is close to how "real" football was originally played in most places, that honor goes to Rugby. (Although both Soccer and American Football do have roots going back for enough, it's impossible to say *for sure* that there weren't certain places that played with similar rules. Rugby just most closely resembles the most popular form of the game.) The only significant thing American Football added that wasn't there since the beginning is downs, and a turnover or punt due to not being able to gain a certain amount of yards in a certain amount of downs (first put into place in 1882). Soccer changed the game altogether. Yes, American Football is just as close or closer to how the game was originally played than Soccer is.

  • Re:Seen it coming (Score:5, Insightful)

    by clarkkent09 ( 1104833 ) * on Wednesday November 26, 2008 @01:20PM (#25901053)
    I know it's popular to hate on American football because it's American

    I don't hate it because it's American, I hate it because it's boring. I actually tried watching it for a while and I found that it consists mostly of commercials, with short bursts of football in between. If they would just get on with playing instead of having constant advertisement filled breaks it might be more interesting.
  • by Prien715 ( 251944 ) <agnosticpopeNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday November 26, 2008 @01:23PM (#25901081) Journal

    In my experience, there's different types of girls, just like there are guys. If you want cheerleaders, then yes, you probably want to be a jock. But there's more girls in music, dance, political groups, and theater than there ever were in cheerleading (at least in both my HS and college) and they tend to look for different qualities: ability to intelligently carry on a conversation not related to D&D, emotional support, and well, being interesting.

    It's unfortunate that so many nerds tend to take the approach that just because you're good at math, you can't play violin (Einstein) or jazz saxophone (Alan Greenspan's went to Julliard for jazz sax before giving it up and going into economics). Randall Munroe is a good contemporary example.

    I'd venture if more nerds dropped the attitude of being into technology at the expense of all other interests, they'd probably have an easier time socially.

  • Re:Seen it coming (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Cornflake917 ( 515940 ) on Wednesday November 26, 2008 @01:38PM (#25901227) Homepage

    I know it's popular to hate on American football because it's American, but the types of hits and tackles legal in the NFL would mean half a rugby team would be paralyzed by the end of the season

    I'm gonna have to call bull shit on that one. I have sneaking suspicion you never actually watched a professional rugby game before. There is little difference between the severity of the hits and tackles. In fact, I definitely see more blood and injuries with rugby. Also, the play doesn't always end when you get hit/tackled and rugby. American football players generally get a good 20 second rest. American football is pretty much rugby with much more resting.

  • OF COURSE it is 1 (Score:1, Insightful)

    by unity100 ( 970058 ) on Wednesday November 26, 2008 @01:40PM (#25901241) Homepage Journal
    what is football and hockey after all ?

    you just sit in front of a tv, and passively watch OTHER people playing a game.

    with computer games, at least YOU get to play the game.
  • by bitrex ( 859228 ) on Wednesday November 26, 2008 @01:55PM (#25901373)

    they tend to look for different qualities: ability to intelligently carry on a conversation not related to D&D, emotional support, and well, being interesting.

    Don't confuse traits girls may look for in a friend with traits they look for in someone they actually want to have sex with.

    The difficulty is that human beings are fantastic at self-deception, and often the qualities that a person tells you they're looking for in a mate are not really the qualities they're looking for, but are whatever allows them to think of themselves in a positive light and avoid too much cognitive dissonance. In practice, if the reality of their behavior doesn't fit with their image of themselves, it can always be rationalized later.

    In light of the constant state of self-deception that people live in (it's a fantastic evolutionarily strategy), taking advice from a woman on what she wants in someone to actually have sex with is like asking the Devil for advice on avoiding sin - it will always lead you wrong. If you want to learn, pay attention to the behavior, not the words.

  • Re:Seen it coming (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Wednesday November 26, 2008 @02:02PM (#25901435) Journal

    American football is pretty much rugby with much more resting

    Watching American football and baseball always leaves me with the feeling that popular American sports are designed around frequent advert breaks.

  • Useless Statistic (Score:2, Insightful)

    by interploy ( 1387145 ) on Wednesday November 26, 2008 @02:09PM (#25901487)


    This shouldn't even be news. I wouldn't doubt if this was true for every country. If they did a survey in the US, I'd bet money they'd find more people play sports games than play sports.

    Where's the statistic for how many people play games vs watch sports as their primary recreation?

  • by lagfest ( 959022 ) on Wednesday November 26, 2008 @02:10PM (#25901499)

    How the hell is this insightful?

    The summary says that playing computer games is more popular than playing soccer or hockey combined.

  • Re:Seen it coming (Score:2, Insightful)

    by master811 ( 874700 ) on Wednesday November 26, 2008 @02:16PM (#25901545)

    Don't forget about the fact that it's not really Football (seeing as you hold it with your hands most of the time).

  • Re:Sad Health (Score:4, Insightful)

    by LandDolphin ( 1202876 ) on Wednesday November 26, 2008 @02:46PM (#25901831)

    Because doing anything for fun that isn't pushing the human body to new heights isn't worth doing.

    If your not doing sit-ups while posting on Slashdot, then you should be arrested.
  • Re:Sad Health (Score:3, Insightful)

    by genner ( 694963 ) on Wednesday November 26, 2008 @02:52PM (#25901863)

    .. because too many people can no longer even set foot on a tennis court without being out of breath we have substituted physical prowess in competition for mental reflex prowess. Pushing the human body to new heights is a sport, sitting on your ass in a chair isn't a sport. Counter Strike isn't a sport. Team Fortress 2 isn't a sport. It's a substitute activity for people either too fat or too lazy to go outside.


    Go outside people.

    I'll buy that argument as soon as ESPN stops calling NASCAR a sport.

  • Re:Seen it coming (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mumblestheclown ( 569987 ) on Wednesday November 26, 2008 @03:00PM (#25901939)
    American football players would be gasping for air because they are not accustomed to playing an aerobic sport. Rugby is an aerobic sport - NFL football is an anaerobic one. Entirely different types of conditioning and muscles are required. Not better or worse - just different.

    I play one aerobic sport quite seriously (football aka soccer). I find that aerobic sports (and quasi-aerobic sports, such as volleyball) tend to be more fun to play. On the other hand, i find that they are generally rather dull to watch as the strategic intricacies are largely removed. You may talk about split-second strategic awareness that a rugby player might have and i could spill equivalent verbage about soccer. However, the reality is that while there is some sort of beauty about so many minds independently and in real time coming up with collective "brilliant" solutions to sports problems (such as scoring a goal or a try), such decisions are far less cerebral than those you get in american football and baseball.

    Or, to put it another way, you typical rugby match on TV looks like a physical contest. The team that is fitter and more skillful usually wins. Or, rather, that's how it is for soccer and certainly that's how it looks on tv for ruggers. Real time "strategic" or tactical decisions in soccer are nearly nil. Who to substitute and what formation to play are mostly it. there are a few set pieces, but they are of secondary importance.

    Baseball is a perfect strategic game. It's incredibly mathematical and lends itself to all sorts of analysis that is simply not possible in soccer. In soccer, "players working together" comes down i'd say 80% to personalities and at most 20% to complementary skills - such as having somebody with a good cross paired with somebody who is good in the air. In baseball, the situation is reversed. Sure, personality matters somewhat as it does in any sport, but players skills can be matched (both teammates and opponents) on far more levels. there are literally thousands of decisions that go into any baseball game that can be reviewed and discussed intelligently. In soccer there are maybe a handful.

    So, I love soccer. I train 3 times per week on the pitch and gym most other days. But, other than picking up some ideas for my own game, I find it incredibly tedious to watch. Baseball and american football stimulate the intellect far more and builds far better dramatic finales because of this. Plus, the games are better structured. Maybe 3 televised soccer matches in 20 are still interesting and plausibly competitive in the last 5 minutes. I'd say at least 5-6 out of 20 baseball games and 13-14 american football games out of 20 could make similar claims.

  • by hey! ( 33014 ) on Wednesday November 26, 2008 @04:35PM (#25902909) Homepage Journal

    I endorse your recommendations. Also, if you've been to the MFA, definitely ought to walk across the street to the Gardner. It's a must see. I'm serious, if you think the MFA is a reason to visit Boston, you have to do the Gardner.

    With respect to Harvard's museums, you should consider in addition to Natural History the Fogg, (art), Peabody (archaeology) and most especially in the Spring or Summer the Arnold Arboretum (the tree museum), which is a must see.

    The Peabody Essex in Salem can be combined with a side trip to Salem (worthwhile). This museum is another must see. On the South Shore, I think Plimouth Plantation and the Mayflower replica is worth a side trip in the summer. This time of year you can have Thanksgiving dinner. A third really worthwhile side trip is to the Higgins armory in Worcestor, which displays antique armor and swords. If you're interested in that sort of thing you might also consider a trip to Gloucester's Hammond Museum. A side side trip to Dogtown [wikipedia.org] is recommended as well.

    Those are just the major museums; we haven't started on the historical sites: the Paul Revere house, the Old North Church, the Constitution, the Adams National Historic Park, Lexington & Concord. Many towns here have historical societies and museums, and offer worthwhile lectures (e.g., the Somerville Museum).

    The Boston Harbor Islands host two museums, one on Spectacle Island and Fort Warren on George's Island, although you'd need to be hardy to take the boat trip this time of year. For a change of pace, the Trustees of Reservations (http://www.thetrustees.org/ ) operates a number of outstanding natural sites, many of which are also important historical sites -- Castle Hill in Ipswich and the Old Manse come to mind.

    Since you're in Cambridge, you can also try the MIT Museum; while you're there check out the Hart nautical museum's model ships. Then you can nip across the Charles and visit the Maparium at the Christian Science Mother Church.

    The point is museums are a lot bigger thing than you'd think. Of course everyone knows Boston has a lot of museum, but I doubt very few people know how mind-bogglingly many there are here. I haven't even name all the significant ones. I'd bet you could draw a one hour drive radius around Boston and within that circle you could visit a different museum every single day of the week (except Mondays) and it would literally, without exaggeration, take you years to exhaust them all.

    And it's not just college towns like Boston. I visited Cinncinati a few years ago, and easily found three world class museums: the Zoo, of course; The Cinncinati Art Museum (excellent collection of Dutch Masters); and the Krohn Conservatory. I was visiting friends, but these institutions were worth a visit in themselves.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 26, 2008 @04:38PM (#25902943)

    You sound like you were a real pussy back then. Don't be embarrassed by anything. Just fucking do it all you pussy. Proper responses for anything genuinely damaging to you back then would include picking up a steel bat and beating the fuck out of the other idiots. Then next time use a bigger bat, and so on, until either you kill them or they stop.

  • by Riktov ( 632 ) on Thursday November 27, 2008 @02:37AM (#25906691) Journal

    As the article says, the survey is about how many people participate in the sports and gaming. If you put it that way, probably more Americans play games than play basketball, more Japanese play games than play baseball. Not at all surprising.

    But if someone says he's "in to football", chances are good that he's in to watching professional football, not playing it. Apparently only 3% of Swedes play hockey, but undoubtedly many many more watch it. I think even a lot of football fans would, if placed in front of a TV set, prefer to interact and be challenged by a game than passively watch a game. And either activity would be greatly preferred to actually going out and getting down in the dirt.

    And nowhere does the article mention the amount of money spent on gaming vs. sports, and that's the conventional measure of how "big" something is. It's quite possible that gaming does take in more money, but probably not to the proportions reported here.

Basic is a high level languish. APL is a high level anguish.