Results 1 to 15 of 15

  1. Post

    Posts in this thread appear as comments on the following Gameplanet article:

    Read article...

  2. Post
    #2
    The words computer games, video games and digital games are used interchangeably to refer to the broad class of interactive, digital entertainment
    As with every year they put out this report, no effort is made to distinguish between the different types of game-mechanics, elements, designs or heuristics etc. The furthest they appear to go is delimiting 'casual' and 'in-depth' to time spent playing, which is a silly way to go about it. Instead, everyone is just lumped together. The reason they get away with it is because they rely on ridiculously broad and inclusive definitions of 'game' and 'play', in which, everyone can be captured regardless of nuance.

    The report is essentially a marketing piece. It's a handy thing to point at if you're trying to sell something game related (edutainment or serious games) to buinsesses but, for traditional game development I think it has little value.

  3. Post
    #3
    I must be playing the wrong games! I would love to meet a female gamer about my age (28-34). 47% female gamers? Why do they always sound like angry young people to me. 47%, I think 40% must be phone app games or something. "games" is way too broad these days. It's like saying "I watch TV" that could mean anything nowadays, -netflicks, Neon, lightbox, youtube, internet, radio, normal TV, all can be done on a "TV".....

  4. Post
    #4
    seanhinton wrote:
    As with every year they put out this report, no effort is made to distinguish between the different types of game-mechanics, elements, designs or heuristics etc. The furthest they appear to go is delimiting 'casual' and 'in-depth' to time spent playing, which is a silly way to go about it. Instead, everyone is just lumped together. The reason they get away with it is because they rely on ridiculously broad and inclusive definitions of 'game' and 'play', in which, everyone can be captured regardless of nuance.

    The report is essentially a marketing piece. It's a handy thing to point at if you're trying to sell something game related (edutainment or serious games) to buinsesses but, for traditional game development I think it has little value.

    I'm fairly sure this is a strong indication the people who run these surveys have little to no interest in any sort of 'gaming' themselves, otherwise I'd imagine you would see more relevant details that would far better represent a survey of people who enjoy digital entertainment.

    'Gaming' is no longer an all inclusive term describing people who enjoy digital entertainment other than to serve as red flag of someone who has little to no understanding, much like how I will call sports 'Sports' I really think the word 'gaming' has become this almost negative one size fits all description of an activity that should be looked down upon.

  5. Post
    #5
    I don't understand how this report is at all representative of the general population.

    The biggest problem is that it's based on data from the Nielsen Your Voice panel (yourvoice.co.nz). This is a website where you can sign up to do surveys and get paid for it. In other words, they've based their report on a sample of the population that is heavily skewed towards technologically savvy internet users - People who are keen to spend time sat in front of a computer (or tablet) and click lots of boxes on web pages. Hardly surprising there are so many gamers out there!

    I'd like to hear whether the authors of the report think their results are representative of the general population. Maybe this is something you could follow up, Matt?

  6. Post
    #6
    han16 wrote:
    'Gaming' is no longer an all inclusive term describing people who enjoy digital entertainment other than to serve as red flag of someone who has little to no understanding, much like how I will call sports 'Sports' I really think the word 'gaming' has become this almost negative one size fits all description of an activity that should be looked down upon.
    Negative?? I think they are trying to push for a positive but personally as a hardcore gamer I can't relate at all to any of this study. BS study IMO.

  7. Post
    #7
    OlafQuintessa wrote:
    I'd like to hear whether the authors of the report think their results are representative of the general population. Maybe this is something you could follow up, Matt?
    Given that they've published the results, I think it's fair to say they do think these numbers are representative of the wider population. And as Sean notes above, that's not surprising given they are basically a lobby group.

    It's pretty low priority for me to call them up and tell them their study sucks, but I've popped it in my task manager anyway. As others have noted, getting more detailed info like platform splits would be great, but as you noted, there could be larger flaws in their methodology as well.

    It's a shame no-one else does this kind of thing for Aussie and NZ. Maybe we can add a question or two to the upcoming election ballots?

  8. Post
    #8
    Most surprised by the over 65 sector, going like fire!

  9. Post
    #9
    IST wrote:
    Most surprised by the over 65 sector, going like fire!
    Can't wait to hear the griefers on Xbox live talking about how they did my grandma last night...

  10. Post
    #10
    Yes it's basically a lobby group. I would have thought working with a university to produce the results would have tempered their claims a bit, but I'm obviously naive.

    Matt M wrote:
    It's pretty low priority for me to call them up and tell them their study sucks, but I've popped it in my task manager anyway.
    No rush, you've got til this time next year

  11. Post
    #11
    IST wrote:
    Most surprised by the over 65 sector, going like fire!
    candy crush is a hell of a drug.

  12. Post
    #12
    Matt M wrote:
    Given that they've published the results, I think it's fair to say they do think these numbers are representative of the wider population. And as Sean notes above, that's not surprising given they are basically a lobby group.
    Given that they've published the results, I think it's fair to say they do think these numbers serve their needs and they likely don't really care if they are actually representative of the broader population or not. And as Sean notes above, that's not surprising given they are basically a lobby group.

    FTFY

  13. Post
    #13
    Unsettled wrote:
    candy crush is a hell of a drug.
    That's what I was gonna say too, lots of oldies getting iPad's and their main internet machine and keeping up with the kids on "The Facebook", may as well play candy crush/bejewled/solitaire.

  14. Post
    #14
    Given that they've published the results, I think it's fair to say they do think these numbers are representative of the wider population. And as Sean notes above, that's not surprising given they are basically a lobby group.
    If it's based on a survey, there's no way it can be called it a representative of the 'wider population'. That's an example of self-selection bias and generally speaking, those "studies" aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

    If you were going to ask them something, I'd ask how exactly they've accounted for the effects of self-selection bias, because their one-paragraph section on their methodology doesn't tell me jack shit.

  15. Post
    #15
    Now show us the statistics sans people who exclusively play mobile and/or Facebook games.