hehehe, guess what the biggest demographic in gaming is?

Eric Cartman

Grumpypants wrote: »

The "ethics crowd" never had an issue with girls playing games despite what the media tries to tell you. They always knew girls play games, because they are the ones playing games with girls every day.

They had an issue with the false notion being put forward that gaming was the universal domain of smelly little boys and had to "die". They knew the facts and real life experiences of the gamers they interact with everyday didn't back up this false portrayal of a very open and inclusive industry.

Women have been a huge part of the industry for a long time now both playing and making games. Articles like this only highlight the incredible lack of quality writing about women in the industry that something everyone has been aware of for a decade is considered "news".

there are 2 types of women concerned with the gaming industry

1. The women actually playing, developing and reviewing decent games who are accepted as anyone else is and participate in the culture, know what they like and enjoy what the topic has to offer.

2. SJW nutters who don't play games, don't understand the culture or just like a good aul bash at white men that claim there is a problem which doesn't exist.

johnny_ultimate

strelok wrote: »

just because people don't enjoy the sort of pretentious ****e you think they should doesn't mean they don't engage with the games they love on a personal, intellectual and emotional level.

mother of **** this was some impressively arrogant ****e you doled out here. well done.

But if they are engaging with it on a "personal, intellectual and emotional level", then they are very clearly engaging with on a deeper level, which is absolutely not what I'm talking about. There are plenty of games I play as a fun little distraction, as 'chewing gum', and I'm perfectly satisfied with that. I just always find it a bit frustrating that people are dismissed for their 'shallow' engagement with games, when some of the same people who criticse them engage with games on a pretty shallow level themselves. There is no one form of 'true gamer', no more than there is no type of 'true Scotsman'.

kunst nugget

strelok wrote: »

just because people don't enjoy the sort of pretentious ****e you think they should doesn't mean they don't engage with the games they love on a personal, intellectual and emotional level.

mother of **** this was some impressively arrogant ****e you doled out here. well done.

He has a point though. I could never achieve a perfect 3 star run of any of the Angry Birds games because I wouldn't have the brain power to figure out all the levels but that would be considered mental chewing gum because it's on a mobile and a brainless FPS, which I've enjoyed many of, wouldn't because it's on a console? It really makes no sense.

No need to call him an arrogant ****e over it…

K.O.Kiki

kunst nugget wrote: »

He has a point though. I could never achieve a perfect 3 star run of any of the Angry Birds games because I wouldn't have the brain power to figure out all the levels but that would be considered mental chewing gum because it's on a mobile and a brainless FPS, which I've enjoyed many of, wouldn't because it's on a console? It really makes no sense.

No need to call him an arrogant ****e over it…

Angry Birds does not run on a robust physics level; it's actually random.

---

Let's steer the conversation:
"Gamers" are people who enjoy video games with good coding, artwork and ideas.
"Plebs" are people who pay for extra lives in F2P games.

kunst nugget

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

Angry Birds does not run on a robust physics level; it's actually random.

Ha, I never knew. I always thought I was sucking because of physics but it isn't. I just suck at it. And physics. I suck at physics too.

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

Let's steer the conversation:
"Gamers" are people who enjoy video games with good coding, artwork and ideas.
"Plebs" are people who pay for extra lives in F2P games.

But what if the gamers like magazines?!?!? What happens then?!??!

PucaMama

My partner has the ps4 and the Xbox. I've seen games on both I like. But it's the controllers the coordination needed to use them it frustrates me! I'm just not quick enough

kunst nugget

PucaMama wrote: »

My partner has the ps4 and the Xbox. I've seen games on both I like. But it's the controllers the coordination needed to use them it frustrates me! I'm just not quick enough

It's just about practicing and developing muscle memory is all.

Retr0gamer

kunst nugget wrote: »

Ha, I never knew. I always thought I was sucking because of physics but it isn't. I just suck at it. And physics. I suck at physics too.

It runs on Box2D which is free to use as long as you credit the author. Crediting the author is something Rovio didn't do until there was uproar about it. They tried to deny using it as well.

syklops

The Honey Monster wrote: »

This must only be mobile gaming...I've never heard a lady ask me for a ps4 or xbone yet.

You should meet my girlfriend.

Kirby

Retr0gamer wrote: »

It runs on Box2D which is free to use as long as you credit the author. Crediting the author is something Rovio didn't do until there was uproar about it. They tried to deny using it as well.

Wow I never knew that. Thats really poor form.

Generic Dreadhead

Didn't we already do this whole thingy last year?

gizmo

Retr0gamer wrote: »

It runs on Box2D which is free to use as long as you credit the author. Crediting the author is something Rovio didn't do until there was uproar about it. They tried to deny using it as well.

Did they actually try to deny it? I was under the impression they just didn't credit the developer until he publicly asked them about it at GDC one year after which they sent him a branded jumper.

Agricola

kunst nugget wrote: »

What was originally being said was that if someone said they were a gamer, they'd be disappointed if the found out they were a mobile gamer they'd be disappointed and then used the books/magazines analogy. I was just pointing out that you have the shared interests of book reading/gaming on consoles or pcs doesn't mean you're actually going to have anything in common. If I said I was into gaming and the person started talking in depth and at length about strategy games, I think I'd lose the will to live.

Ah I see what you were on about now, ok.

kunst nugget wrote: »

I don't buy €50/€60 titles. I think there's only twice in the last 3-4 years where I've spent over 20 euros for a game (25 on Last of Us and Alien Isolation). My average spend is €5-€10 euros on old games. Does that make me less of a gamer?

Edit: I'll be honest, I'd never refer to myself as a gamer. In my late thirties, the term feels a bit adolescent.

Me either, I only have a launch PS3 and the only brand new game Ive bought for it since Red Dead in 2010 was The Last of Us. Im not equating spending with who is or isnt a "gamer" Im simply saying people who spend money (even 10 or 20 quid) on console and pc games, or indeed people who check the Steam Sales page religiously at 6pm every day, are different to someone who downloads an app on an iphone. One type often views gaming as a major part of their lives, the other type often only found out about gaming with the advent of the iphone and now its a nice little distraction every now and then.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

The irony is that a significant portion of the people who do commit incredible amounts of money or time to gaming engage with it as little more than chewing gum for the mind. They play the same titles for thousands upon thousands of hours, and are happy to repeat tedious tasks ad nauseam and beyond. Some will vehemently argue that games are nothing more than mere fun or entertainment, or launch deeply passionate attacks against anybody who tries to poke the games to discover some deeper meaning or language beneath the surface. They make financial and time investments, but shy away from any intellectual or analytical engagement with the games they spend so much time with. A whole lot of people play games as 'chewing gum for the mind', well beyond just somebody playing Candy Crush for a few minutes during the morning commute.

Of course, I used to buy PES every year without fail and I probably sank thousands of hours into its various iterations. Ive played many such games over the years and enjoyed them immensely. Just playing stuff like Journey isn't the prerequisite for admission to the "high council of gamers"! so maybe chewing gum for the mind was a poor choice of words. IMO, even people who only buy COD and FIFA every year and nothing else are still a different breed to the new mobile gaming demographic. Not better, not worse, just different.... and more recognisable as what was traditionally seen as a gamer.

Skerries

Retr0gamer

gizmo wrote: »

Did they actually try to deny it? I was under the impression they just didn't credit the developer until he publicly asked them about it at GDC one year after which they sent him a branded jumper.

Pretty sure it took a public forum like gdc before they did anything about it.

CiDeRmAn

My wife detests videogames.
She also can't stand my collecting of them either.
That said, there was recently a thawing in this attitude with a suggestion she might like to try something, and she mentioned Legend of Zelda.
Unfortunately I spoiled it all by showing her Bloodborne, only amplifying her revulsion and resulting in talks breaking down....
I should have showed her something wholesome like Senran Kagura Burst or Retr0's copy of Gal*gun instead!

Seriously though, I might pop Ocarina of Time into one of my spare 3DS consoles and let her try it in her own time, I have an XL sitting there.

Kirby

Ocarina is quite hard for a first time gamer. She likely wont get past the deku tree.

Start her off with Wind waker or a link to the past. Both are very pretty and have gentle learning curves. A link between worlds would also be a great choice if you are restricted to 3DS only.

Retr0gamer

Ocarina also has very fiddly controls, 3D games really are not a good introduction for some one to games. Definitely go for something 2D.

If you want something Zelda, why not go for Phantom Hourglass or Spirit Tracks? I found Ocarina of Time extremely fiddly (it feels like the 3DS just isn't designed for those kind of Third Person games) and also not as amazing as people make it out to be.

Before I get slated, I reckon the reason is that i didn't play it when it was first released, when I can see it would have been super revolutionary.

CiDeRmAn

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Ocarina also has very fiddly controls, 3D games really are not a good introduction for some one to games. Definitely go for something 2D.

Dragons Crown it is so!

Canis Lupus

mahoganygas wrote: »

I've always wanted to get the missus into video games.
I don't know where to start. Any suggestions?

The last time she played was probably the sims on her brother's pc when she was 14.

Do you know many female gamers?
Are you a female gamer?

My GF is not a gamer but after I showed her Heroes of Hearthstone she plays it like an addict.

orubiru

Shiminay wrote: »

http://www.dailydot.com/geek/adult-women-largest-gaming-demographic/

It's women over 18 - 37% of total market share

News like this fills me with joy and the "ethics" crowd with dread because obviously this will mean that everything is going to get changed (cause obviously the 37% of ladies who play didn't enjoy any of the games that are already out :rolleyes:).

Why would it fill them with dread?

I own a Wii U and 3DS pretty much use it to casually play Smash Bros and Mario Kart. I'm a Nintendo fan. I like their fun and quirky games. Sometimes I play something a little deeper. I enjoy Fire Emblem and Final Fantasy games and others.

In general though, I won't spend a lot of money on games and I have no patience for most of the bigger games like God of War or Assassins Creed or Grand Theft Auto etc. I'd rather just get 3D Streets of Rage 2 for a fiver. I'd rather play Shovel Knight or Child of Light or Ocarina of Time.

Any company trying to market their new 400 Euro super fast, super graphics, super duper, console to me is wasting their time.

"Get the new Murder Simulator 500 with he bestest, realest, graphics you've ever seen. The clunky dialogue and rubbish storyline can be yours to experience for only 70 Euros." Eh, no thanks.

If game developers want to start tailoring their Grand Theft Autos or Calls of Duty or Hitmen to my specific tastes then they are completely wasting their time, effort, and money. I'm not gonna buy them.

How can we convince people who play games on a mobile phone to fork out 400 Euros for a shiny new PS4? How can we then convince them to fork out 70 Euros a time for games on PS4 instead of getting cheap games on their phone?

From a development and marketing point of view, of course you have to treat mobile, console and PC gamers differently.

This is the problem when you ignore the fact that different types of people enjoy different types of games. If you are just going to have one category called "games" and one category called "players" then its impossible to make any kind of detailed statement about gaming that could be considered valid.

orubiru

strelok wrote: »

"oh i love reading, i read all the time. it's such a rewarding hobby'

'me too, wow. we have so much in common. what do you read?'

"hello magazine, heat, Ok!.. everything really. I'm just mad for the literature"

kunst nugget wrote: »

"oh i love reading, i read all the time. it's such a rewarding hobby'

'me too, wow. we have so much in common. what do you read?'

"Thrillers, Horror and Sci-fi"

'I actually read the Classics and Philosophy. We have nothing in common I guess.'

Kunst Nugget, I think you've got it wrong here.

If we take Streloks example you have Person A investing X amount of money in a particular type of reading and you have Peron B investing Y amount of money in a completely different type of reading.

If the writers want to make money then they will write according to their audience. They want people to enjoy and pay for the content that they have created.

So what happens when Person B says "listen, I don't read the same content as Person A, I don't spend as much money, and I don't even read in the same format or genre BUT I think writers should stop writing what Person A wants to read and should start writing content that appeals to me"?

I can't figure out why anyone thinks this is reasonable?

Are mobile players really saying that they'd be willing to fork out 400 euros for a console and 70 euros for a game if the game is a bit more like Candy Crush and a bit less like GTA V?

Comparing books to magazines, as Strelok has done, is like comparing Metal Gear Solid to Angry Birds.

Comparing book genres like Sci-fi to other genres, as you have done, is like comparing Call of Duty to FIFA.

They are completely different comparisons. Different genres on PS4 still contain expensive and highly technical games. Comparing mobile games to PS4 games is ridiculous.

kunst nugget

orubiru wrote: »

So what happens when Person B says "listen, I don't read the same content as Person A, I don't spend as much money, and I don't even read in the same format or genre BUT I think writers should stop writing what Person A wants to read and should std and should start writing content that appeals to me"?

I can't figure out why anyone thinks this is reasonable?

Where was it said in this imaginary conversation that one person wanted writers to stop writing what appealed to the other person?

Has anyone on here suggested that companies should stop making games for consoles and PCs and concentrate and mobile phones or vice versa?

orubiru wrote: »

Are mobile players really saying that they'd be willing to fork out 400 euros for a console and 70 euros for a game if the game is a bit more like Candy Crush and a bit less like GTA V?

Comparing books to magazines, as Strelok has done, is like comparing Metal Gear Solid to Angry Birds.

Comparing book genres like Sci-fi to other genres, as you have done, is like comparing Call of Duty to FIFA.

They are completely different comparisons.

You know I like books and magazines, they're both great if you get a good one of either type. Why is there a need to segregate them and never the twain shall meet? And the same is true with mobile and console gaming? Why is there a need to keep them both separate? If I enjoy one or both, what difference does it make to you.

orubiru wrote: »

Different genres on PS4 still contain expensive and highly technical games. Comparing mobile games to PS4 games is ridiculous.

And there's a lot of 8 bit style indie games on the PS4 as well. A console does necessarily mean one style of game and a mobile game doesn't necessarily mean another.

orubiru

kunst nugget wrote: »

Where was it said in this imaginary conversation that one person wanted writers to stop writing what appealed to the other person?

Has anyone on here suggested that companies should stop making games for consoles and PCs and concentrate and mobile phones or vice versa?

No but the suggestion that there is no difference between PC, console and mobile gamers has been made and, to me, that seems pretty ridiculous.

If it were to turn out that 50% of players were female but that 75% of female players were only playing mobile games then that would be a very important statistic.

If it's almost 50-50 across all genres and platforms then fair enough.

Links234

orubiru wrote: »

Comparing books to magazines, as Strelok has done, is like comparing Metal Gear Solid to Angry Birds.

MGS and Angry Birds are both games, they might be completely different kinds of games, but they're still games all the same.

Hell, I'm not ashamed to say I loved Angry Birds, it was a very accomplished little physics game and did what it did very well. I picked up Besiege recently and am absolutely loving it, but quite honestly, I get the same kind of vibe as I did with Angry Birds. Don't get me wrong, Besiege is a lot more complex but they're both physics games with the main aim of destroying stuff. Likewise, Plants vs. Zombies is a pretty decent tower defense style game. Honestly, I think it's pretty absurd to think that games on mobile and tablet devices are really "games", and there's quite a lot examples of similar types of games on PC or Console.

MGS and Angry Birds are a poor comparison because they're two completely different types of game, perhaps a better comparison might be MGS and Republique.

johnny_ultimate

Frankly if somebody was only playing mobile games like Monument Valley, Threes, The Sailor's Dream, 80 Days or Spider: Rite of the Shrouded Moon... Well, they could be doing a hell of a lot worse

Although I think for anybody interested in games it's equally as important to keep an eye on what's happening in the App Stores as it is on Steam or XBL or PSN. Far more than just free to play nonsense and Angry Bird sequels.

Links234

And you know, there were plenty of games we played as kids like Tetris or Puzzle Bobble that if they came out today some people would be all like "urgh, they're not REEEEEL games!" So I think a lot of this fracturing over what makes a game a game is just silly, there wouldn't have been that sort of distinction before.

orubiru

kunst nugget wrote: »

You know I like books and magazines, they're both great if you get a good one of either type. Why is there a need to segregate them and never the twain shall meet? And the same is true with mobile and console gaming? Why is there a need to keep them both separate? If I enjoy one or both, what difference does it make to you.

And there's a lot of 8 bit style indie games on the PS4 as well. A console does necessarily mean one style of game and a mobile game doesn't necessarily mean another.

It doesn't make any difference to me but acting like mobile and console gaming are the same thing in order to prove some political point is just silly and I don't see any problem with pointing that out.

If a certain % of players belong to one demographic but a high % of that demographic are only playing a particular genre or are only playing on a particular platform then, for me, that is a really important point.

Sure, there are 8 bit style games on the PS4 but how many people are playing Bloodborne, Arkham Knight and Metal Gear Solid V on their mobile devices?

How many mobile players would be willing to fork out 70 euros for their games?

It's not a case of segregating mobile gaming and console gaming. They are already segregated. The current hardware itself is enough to keep them segregated for now.

The OP seemed to be saying "haha 37% of players are women, I bet guys are filled with dread because games are going to change" but if it turns out that a high % of those women don't own a current generation console and are not spending the 70 euros to get a AAA game then it is unlikely that AAA games will become targeted to women.

So, the magazine and book comparison is valid. If a certain % of readers are from one demographic and a high % of those readers only ever read magazines then it's a bit silly to say "you must be filled with dread because books are about to change". Change how? Books will change to appeal to a demographic that only reads magazines?

How easy would it be to convince your average mobile gamer to fork out 600 to 1500 Euros on a gaming PC?

orubiru

Links234 wrote: »

And you know, there were plenty of games we played as kids like Tetris or Puzzle Bobble that if they came out today some people would be all like "urgh, they're not REEEEEL games!" So I think a lot of this fracturing over what makes a game a game is just silly, there wouldn't have been that sort of distinction before.

I'm not saying that they are not games. I'm not saying that they're not real games.

It's utterly ridiculous to pretend that there is no difference between a 70 euro game running on a 400 euro console and a 5 euro game running on a 200 euro mobile phone.

There is obviously a difference between the players who will invest 1000s of euros in games and the players who don't invest as much.

Imagine you are running a business? Customer A comes in once a week and spends 150 euro. Customer B comes in once a month and spends 15 euro. Who is your more valued customer?

I can't imagine that any company would fancy their chances of turning a 15 euro per month customer into a 150 euro per week customer over simply just retaining the customer who buys more expensive stuff, more frequently.

Where do people think the money to develop new games comes from? Where do people think the desire to invest in new games comes from?