hehehe, guess what the biggest demographic in gaming is?

If you take out mobile gaming how much would the numbers drop by?

Digital Solitude wrote: »

If you get out mobile gaming how much wouldzthe numbers drop by?

Based on statistical studies in this thread, they would drop 95%

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

Creamy Goodness wrote: »

why would you take out mobile gaming? what's that got to do with a survey about gaming as a whole?

Well you would take it out or leave it in based on what you actual target demographic is.

EA aren't going to aim the next Battlefield at this female demographic because (in all likelihood) the vast majority of that demographic are not paying €70 for a AAA FPS game on a next-gen console.

At the same time, if they are looking to create the next candy-crush they will aim at that demographic.

You'd want to be some fecking moron to look at a headline figure like that and think you should aim all games on all delivery platforms at this big demographic.

So, as always, statistics are meaningless when viewed without context.

Well, with that demographic should people not take notice and try and figure out ways to get them gamers on current gen platforms. They should be viewing mobile gaming as a gateway into console/pc gaming and try their best in some way to appeal to that larger percentage in order to get more money. They'd be fools not to, they just need a hook.

BMX-XXX, it's empowering

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Well you would take it out or leave it in based on what you actual target demographic is.

EA aren't going to aim the next Battlefield at this female demographic because (in all likelihood) the vast majority of that demographic are not paying €70 for a AAA FPS game on a next-gen console.

At the same time, if they are looking to create the next candy-crush they will aim at that demographic.

You'd want to be some fecking moron to look at a headline figure like that and think you should aim all games on all delivery platforms at this big demographic.

So, as always, statistics are meaningless when viewed without context.

I wasn't saying to start targeting more to women. This is simply a report done by ESA that covers america about gaming. I just questioned why someone would want to take out mobile gaming (or any other section of gaming) out of their report.

I just feel like mobile gaming has gotten a hugely bad rep because of IAP and people exploiting it, but it's so much more. Monument Valley, Alto's Adventure, Her Story etc. etc.

My missus really like the Telltale stuff, and the Sims, and Mario, and Rayman, and Animal Crossing, and Professor Layton....

"Real Female Gamers" probably hate her :pac:

CliCliW wrote: »

I don't understand, in a Female Gamer and I enjoy most of these games. Why does that define me as "not a real gamer"?

She could also try pokemon and all its spinoffs.

I was being sarcastic/tounge in cheek, I don't want to go down this whole rat hole again, hence the quotation marks

rizzla wrote: »

Well, with that demographic should people not take notice and try and figure out ways to get them gamers on current gen platforms. They should be viewing mobile gaming as a gateway into console/pc gaming and try their best in some way to appeal to that larger percentage in order to get more money. They'd be fools not to, they just need a hook.

Or are they trying to keep them exactly where they are because the profit margins on mobile and social games are better (AFAIK) than AA / AAA console and PC games.

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're going to the wrong places my man.

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 girlfriend is interested in trying out games. Thinking of finding some of the Lego games for a cheap price and starting her off there.

Taylor365 wrote: »

Calling people ''gamers'' who solely play mobile/facebook games is like calling someone a ''movie buff'' who's extent of movie watching is a trailer.

Why?

Take Clash of Clans for an example (because it's the only mobile game I play). Yes, most of it is the whole thing of earning enough money to upgrade things, then waiting for hours/days for it to upgrade (or use real money to speed it up of course).

But, attacking other people's bases, whether in a war or just looting, requires planning, strategy and timing. And I'm in a clan with a few women, including my sister who doesn't play console games. But the skills you need for console games are the same skills you need for some mobile games. Sure, maybe to a lesser extent, but again, why do we need to create arbitrary separation between what is or isn't a game/gamer?

SeantheMan wrote: »

Most people would consider 'Mobile gaming' as something very casual....to pass the time on a bus instead of looking out a window.

I guess the people here would consider themselves more hardcore, consoles and PC and probably like myself...wouldn't really consider anyone who only plays 'mobile' games as a 'Gamer'.

If I met someone and they told me "Oh yeah, I play computer games" and I asked..."Oh which ones ?" (because It's something I'm interested and would genuiely like to talk about games with them) ...and they told me mobile games only...I'd be a bit disappointed,

Why would you be disappointed?

Games are games whether or not they're casual, mobile, hardcore etc.

Once I realised that the whole concepts of pc master race and console wars and etc is just tiring gaming is far more enjoyable and rewarding.

Chemical Byrne wrote: »

I think it's misleading in a big way. The term "gamer" would generally be interpreted as a hard core enthusiast who spends hours on end and large amounts of money on gaming. To lump people who play 5 mins of candycrush while waiting in traffic into the gamer category is not accurate.

Couldn't agree more - the point of "people who make time for gaming" as opposed to "people who play games to kill time" is the key here.

I can't even really define myself as a gamer anymore, as I don't nearly play as much as I used to and it's also very rare for me to find a game, nowadays, that I actually look forward to have a play session with.

According to this encompassing definition, my 58-years old mother is a gamer, because she does play 1-2 hours a day of some flash based puzzle game or the other, while waiting for the washing machine to finish cycle or the likes. Even if she has no idea what a GeForce is, is familiar with the "Playstation" and "Xbox" names just because she saw a few of them lying around the place...and thinks "Capcom", "Eidos" or "Bethesda" are football teams or car makes

Chemical Byrne wrote: »

I know no women who participate in what would be considered gaming culture.

Maybe I'm in the wrong demographic being 35; I do know one or maybe two who would be properly into gaming: playing games for the sake of playing them and not to alleviate the boredom of a bus trip, knowledgeable about the industry/landscape/upcoming launches and so on.

All the others, no interest; However, and here things get strange, many if not most are actually open to the idea: give them a controller, and they'll get into the game - even becoming fiercely competitive. In my experience, fighting games seem to be a "girl favourite" most people don't think about - Tekken, DOA but even a classic Street Fighter 2 or KOF. Nothwithstanding that, when the session is over they completely forget about it - they're not going to get the game themselves (even if say, it's a PC game and it wouldn't require any hardware purchase), not pursue it as an hobby nor give it any further consideration, even 'though it was clearly something they enjoyed a lot.

In comparison, most of the guys I know that aren't gamers, wouldn't touch a game with a 10-meters pole and class it as "waste of time".

Chemical Byrne wrote: »

No offence dude but if your missus isn't into games then you shouldn't be trying to coax her into it if you care about her. There are healthier pursuits out there. Personally, I'd consider spending €5k on a rig and spending 4-5 hours a day plonked in front of it to be a very expensive, unhealthy and ultimately unproductive habit to have.

Recreational activities do not have to be productive - you have plenty of time at work to be so:D.

Now, certainly there are hobbies that give the pursuers skills and / or various benefits - from model making to cycling or wood working or photography, but even games have their perks - reflexes, attention, abstraction, logic are all stimulated by most of them (maybe not Farmville, but still...).

Of course it'd be better to be heavily into exercise, cross-country running, gourmet cooking or growing crops - but in the end most non-gamer people still spend the vast majority of their time plonked in front of the same screen, far more than 4-5 hours a day, nosing around Facebook profiles or absorbing one crappy TV series after the other

Penn wrote: »

But likewise, many would think there's a huge difference between someone spending €2,000 on a gaming rig with 5 screens who plays games for 4-5 hours a day, and someone who buys a console but mostly just uses it for Netflix/dvds and the occasional game of Fifa when friends come over.

Do we need to create arbitrary separation for different levels of "gaming"?

Yes, from a business perspective it makes sense to have separate levels of "gamers" (consumers).

If I was a studio, I want to know, first and foremost, which demographic brings me the largest potential revenue; and by and large, that's probably the passionate gamers who are willing to pay for games.
Freemium games are a valid business too, but the hits are so few and far between, I'd rather not invest in a title that will probably be overlooked among the mountains of shovelware in the F2P marketplace.