I'd argue that we're slightly mainstream. The author of the article likes to compare specific events quantitatively to show that gamer populations are so much smaller. What he/she doesn't keep in mind is that most of the people who play wow didn't buy Modern Warfare 2. Most of the people who bought Modern Warfare 2 didn't buy The Sims. Although there is likely some overlap, the fact is that there are many different sub-markets in this genre that make the entire size much larger than any one specific game.
I walked into the break room at bank I used to work for, I noticed sitting at the table closest to the door my CEO staring intently at his cell phone. after a moment he glanced up an noticed me and with a wry smile flipped the phone around to show me the little maze/puzzle game he was playing. after talking for awhile, He is not a gamer, he does not own a console but on occasion when bored does play this on his cell, and on occasion solitaire on his PC.
I own Monopoly, Scabble, and Connect Four. I could count on one hand the number of times I break those games out in the space of a year. Does that make me board gamer?
Now by that same token, I don't own any movies, but I couldn't tell you how many movies and TV shows I've watched in the last week. I might be able to rattle off titles of books I read last month, but I couldn't tell you how many hours I spent listening to music. I generally play at least an hour or so of video games a day.
Now compare the scale of the previous two paragraphs. That is the difference between "core" gamers, and everyone else. If games were as mainstream as TV or books, then it would be the people who didn't play games regularly who were looked down on.
Been avoiding this post all day because I thought it would be some BS about gaming...glad I finally clicked on it because I agree with the premise - gaming is more common than people think.
While I agree that gaming is much more "mainstream" than people give it credit for, you also need to look at the actual sales for each market.
That "looks" like gaming is twice the size...but dig a little deeper and you'll see it doesn't quite work that way. Those numbers break down to be roughly 1 billion people seeing a movie and only 400 million buying a video game.
Therefore, you are STILL better off talking about movies vs. video games when looking for commonality in conversation.
On the other hand do some of those games get given away or sold cheap to friends when the first players is done with them.
I don't see how it matters if people go 2 1/2 times more often to movies (not counting discount games that often cost $10-20), that should still be more than enough to call it mainstream.
I'm lifting this from a blog that you can read here. The whole thing is kinda long so I'm just going to post the most pertenent parts.
Gamer Culture Is Not As Big As You Think It Is
It may seem to you that everyone is gaming these days, but that really depends on who you surround yourself with. The internet’s most vocal and prominent denizens are naturally tech-savvy, and because of that, are likely no strangers to games. If you visit a bunch of gaming sites (you had to find this article somehow, no?), seek out a bunch of gamers to hang out with, etc, you’re going to feel surrounded by gamers. But the broader world is still fairly games-ignorant.
Is your boss a gamer? His boss? If you work for an indie game developer, maybe, but even if you work for a major games company (hi, Bobby Kotick!) the answer is probably no. Does the sales force play games? Marketing? Finance? Maybe. Probably not. When the NES and Genesis were around, most kids at school still didn’t play games regularly. Even in college, where a Playstation or N64 was always connected to a common TV, most people weren’t playing games.
You may be thinking that everyone you know plays games. Personally, out of all the people that I know from meeting face to face (i.e. not over the internet), about ten are gamers. I’m not just talking about members of an older generation that isn’t gaming; this includes people my age who still think gaming is a waste of time, or something for kids that they’ve given up long ago. They can talk the balls off a brass monkey about the upcoming football season, or that week’s episode of Lost/True Blood/Dexter/whatever, but bring up games and you get honest blank stares. Not because they play games, but games aren’t “cool” to talk about. Because they really don’t know what you’re referring to.
Here’s a totally unscientific video of a guy asking random people on the street about Final Fantasy‘s (one of gaming’s longest-running series) most popular mascot (the chocobo). It goes as you would expect. But maybe that’s just Cleveland though? Wark!
Ok, how about women gamers? What’s the rule about the internet? “Men are boys, women are men,” etc etc. Gamers make a tremendously stupid deal about girl gamers. Finding one is apparently as rare as a double rainbow. If they were around in regular numbers, it wouldn’t even register a thought. That’s almost exactly half the world’s population right there that apparently isn’t playing many games.
Let’s try some real-life situations. It’s date night with a girl you don’t know well. Do you take her to the movies, or somewhere to play games? You’re meeting a new group of people at some kind of social function. Would you feel more comfortable talking about books or movies before you bring up games? It’s Friday night – are you going to talk about your plans to see the new movie, or your plans to go home and play games all night? Being a “gamer” stillcarries a negative connotation in most situations.
Even if you personally aren’t, there are plenty of people who aren’t totally honest about their gaming habits. Even if you don’t lie about being a gamer, have you ever lied to someone about how much time you spend gaming? Why the shame? What’s to hide if it’s mainstream and totally accepted? But you’d never lie about games right? Fuck the haters! Well… would you admit in a job interview how many hours you play WoW? On a date that’s going well? Your convictions might change when it’s important!
How about this – who is the Roger Ebert of video game reviews? Who is an equivalently respected, published, cited authority on the subject? (I don’t know of one) When the mainstream media does a video game story, is it positive or sensationalist; treating video games as deviant, quirky, or a kid’s toy? I shouldn’t even need to link to examples for that one. Did you know that The Wall Street Journal does book and movie reviews for some incomprehensible reason, but not video games? In fact, while just about every major publication keeps a film or book critic around, you still have to go to a “game” website or magazine to get opinions on video games.
How about some numbers then? Statistics are easily cherry-picked and manipulated, but I’ll throw a few quick ones in here so it’s not just my personal experiences and rhetorical questions.
Modern Warfare 2 famously raked in the “the biggest launch in history across all forms of entertainment” with 4.7 million units sold in the US and UK the first 24 hours. That claimdidn’t hold water. The Dark Knight pulled an estimated 9.2 million moviegoers in the U.S. alone. But hey, many of The Dark Knight‘s viewers were probably gamers too, so how about something where the audiences aren’t likely to overlap? Twilight: Eclipse drew in about 3.75 million viewers (assuming an $8 ticket) in ONE MIDNIGHT SHOWING. It would go on to bring in over 17.8 million eyeballs for that opening weekend (assuming the same ticket price). Remember, we’re not talking revenue here (games are far more expensive per unit), we’re talking tickets sold/units moved/eyes on the screen.
What about those Asian nations where people play games until they die from them? Like China, where there are a whole lot of people (1.3 billion). Game consoles are banned in China, but online games are not affected and have flourished accordingly. Still, estimates put only 68 million online gamers in China for 2009 (some of which, I’m assuming, are gold farmers). That’s not a lot by comparison.
69% of all Americans go to movies, according to Nielsen’s 2009 American Moviegoing report. (It’s not free, so no links for this one.) According to U.S. Census estimates for 2009 (305 million) that’s about 210 million moviegoers in 2009.
Television viewership has been steadily declining, but Nielsen still estimates 114.9 million TV-watching homes in the U.S. alone. That just counts homes, not multiple people living in them.
Exact statistics for books sold are apparently somewhere between difficult and impossible to get, but I can tell you that 2009 sales were somewhere between $13.5 and 26.6 billion dollars. And print’s dead, right? I mean, who do you know that still reads books?
The most successful game around, FarmVille boasts 63 million active users worldwide. That’s getting up there. ButFarmVille‘s not a “real game,” right gamers? That’s something the secretary plays at work when the boss isn’t watching. It certainly hasn’t been proven to be a gateway to more hardcore titles, and very doubtful that many of those players come home to PS3s or Xbox360s.
The ESA finds that 64% of American households play games – a number which seems to put it directly against cinema attendance (though remember, that’s just theater attendance – the total cultural impact of movies also includes DVDs, TV rebroadcasts, online streaming; additional markets that the games industry doesn’t have). However, the ESA’s report doesn’t mention what they consider to be games, or how many hours are spent playing them. Aside from sales figures I’ve already referenced (showing a skew toward casual party/family games), the only real clue is the statistic of 42% of online game time being devoted to “Puzzle, Board Game, Game Show, Trivia, Card Games,” i.e. “casual games.” Which leads back to games being seen as simple diversions instead of frequently-consumed, respected, universally-enjoyed media.
You probably have a board game somewhere in your house or apartment. This means you’ve bought a board game. You’ve played a board game. You count as a statistic of board gaming households, but would you consider yourself a “board gamer?” If you’re like most people I know, you bust that board game out maybe once a year, but it hardly factors into your daily routine like movies, TV, or books do.
That’s why it’s hard to count casual gamers as proponents for, or examples of, mainstream gaming. Games for them are temporary diversions. Certainly not something they do often. Certainly not a lifestyle. Certainly not a passionate hobby.
Certainly not up there with established “mainstream” media.
Ok, if it's not main stream, what do you call the STATE when people, such as myself, played computer games on PLATO back in the 70s? Then there were muds?
As far as I am concerned, the Internet went mainstream once the world wide web was established and regular people started to use it.
IMO, it's mainstream. It may be a matter of your computer gaming history, but that is the way I have experienced it.
Well I can't say for society as a whole but from my own person experience I'd have to say that video games are definitely not in the mainstream. Out of everyone I know, from work, friends, family, teammates from my sports teams, players from the sports leagues that I run, out of all of them very few actually play video games (they might have played once or twice in their life, but certainly not a regular occurance). I think I know of one other person, besides myself, that plays video games on a regular basis.
We have to also take into consideration that games on your phone, also video games, facebook games, also considered video games, I mean everything, from T-shirts to Movies are about videogames or taking inspiration from them. Videogames are a large part of society now, albeit not all kinds of video games. I'd bet if the OP walked around with a picture of mario you'd have a lot of people who would know the face and/or know the game. I would say that video games have become as mainstream as most forms of entertainment, possibly even more mainstream then books now as a recreational past time , as they are, for the most part, interactive stories.
I walked into the break room at bank I used to work for, I noticed sitting at the table closest to the door my CEO staring intently at his cell phone. after a moment he glanced up an noticed me and with a wry smile flipped the phone around to show me the little maze/puzzle game he was playing. after talking for awhile, He is not a gamer, he does not own a console but on occasion when bored does play this on his cell, and on occasion solitaire on his PC.
I own Monopoly, Scabble, and Connect Four. I could count on one hand the number of times I break those games out in the space of a year. Does that make me board gamer?
Now by that same token, I don't own any movies, but I couldn't tell you how many movies and TV shows I've watched in the last week. I might be able to rattle off titles of books I read last month, but I couldn't tell you how many hours I spent listening to music. I generally play at least an hour or so of video games a day.
Now compare the scale of the previous two paragraphs. That is the difference between "core" gamers, and everyone else. If games were as mainstream as TV or books, then it would be the people who didn't play games regularly who were looked down on.
It wasn't really a question of weather or not most people are gamers, it was a question of weather or not video games are mainstream and not even a question of weather or not video games are as mainstream as TV and Movies. But I think an earlier poster was correct that the question cannot really be answered unless you can clearly define what constitutes mainstreem.
Been avoiding this post all day because I thought it would be some BS about gaming...glad I finally clicked on it because I agree with the premise - gaming is more common than people think.
While I agree that gaming is much more "mainstream" than people give it credit for, you also need to look at the actual sales for each market.
That "looks" like gaming is twice the size...but dig a little deeper and you'll see it doesn't quite work that way. Those numbers break down to be roughly 1 billion people seeing a movie and only 400 million buying a video game.
Therefore, you are STILL better off talking about movies vs. video games when looking for commonality in conversation.
On the other hand do some of those games get given away or sold cheap to friends when the first players is done with them.
I don't see how it matters if people go 2 1/2 times more often to movies (not counting discount games that often cost $10-20), that should still be more than enough to call it mainstream.
True, just as some of the movies are the $2.50 discount theaters, $5.00 daytime specials, and matinees, which typically go for under the $10 price.
And my point was to illustrate that more people see movies, meaning it's a much better conversation topic than games, not to argue that gaming isn't "mainstream"...cuz $20 billion annually is pretty f**king mainstream IMO.
But then we'd have to argue "mainstream" for which generation? 10-15? 15-25? 25-35? 35-45? 45+? There's no doubt it's an exploding market, but it isn't the "best" one for common interests...yet.
Mainstream is, generally, the common current of thought of the majority[citation needed]. However, the mainstream is far from cohesive; rather the concept is often considered a cultural construct[citation needed]. It is a term most often applied in the arts[citation needed] (i.e., music, literature, and performance). This includes:
something that is available to the general public;[citation needed]
something that has ties to corporate or commercial entities.[citation needed]
As such, the mainstream includes all popular culture, typically disseminated by mass media. The opposite of the mainstream are subcultures, countercultures, cult followings, and (in fiction) genre. Additionally, mainstream is sometimes a codeword used for an actual ethnocentric or hegemonic subculture point of view, especially when delivered in a culture war speech. It is often used as a pejorative term. In the United States, mainline churches are sometimes referred to synonymously as "mainstream."[1][2]
Now still kinda ambiguous because now real number value for broadly, but I would say that gaming in general is mainstream-ish, lol.
You can look up sales figures for consoles and it seem like quite a few have been sold in the last 15 or 20 years and when you really think about the PC market and how the technology has increased what is the reason for that? I mean my first computer that I actually bought was a 386SX with 80MB HDD and 2MB of ram, now for the most part normal word processing and spread sheet stuff would not make this old system really work that hard (throw in the math co-processor to boost it to a DX and you spreadsheets ran like a dream) So why do we have quad core, TB HDD's and Gigs or ram? If you said games your pretty spot on (graphics on the net as well ) but really think why did computer tech take off and get so crazy? I am not saying its the only reason but I feel it is a pretty good reason of why tech is where its at (I do know that several real intensive graphics programs are used it the science and medical fields and that help advance tech as well but without games would you see graphic cards as advanced as they are and people now using their pc's for other things then just record keeping?)
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.
I thought I made it clear in the original post that I didn't write the article that I quoted. I do agree with much that is in the article though. I totally agree that video games are a niche market that is being sucked into the same vortex that comic books seemed to have disappeared into. And by "vortex" I mean a total sausage fest subculture devoted to licking the jackboot heels of hollywood.
The comparison to Dark Knight and Twilght was solid. Video games are going to draw more money (overall) than movie tickets because video games cost more. The question is about the number of people that went to the theater to see these two movies as opposed to the number of people that bought MW2 at launch. It's $8 a ticket to see a movie and $60 for MW2 at launch. You do the math. I'm also pretty sure that if we added in rental/pay-per-view numbers into the mix that we'd see more people grabbing the movies rather than MW2.
As for casual/social games also being vidoe games....
I'm cool with that as long as the "hardcore" and "elite" know their rightful place as the absolute bottom of the shit barrel and STFU every now and again.
No, that isn't a viable comparison in any way shape or form if you want to run statistical analysis on it.. The point is not in the price of the set items, it's in the nature of the set items. Given that films also have retail releases (which is EXACTLY the same as the MW2 release) you can run a fair and balanced statistical comparison from that. Price has absolutely no impact on the statistical comparsion unless you are A) looking for reasons for an imbalances, or because you are looking at income above sales figures (which the piece was not).
You started by (reposting) an article which claimed to debunk the fact that MW2 was not the single largest selling entertainment product using spurious (at best) statistics. When in fact if you look at the like by like sales figures MW2 did indeed sell more. You finish by saying that 'i'm also pretty sure that if....' which whilst your opinion may indeed be correct, it is only that an opinion, not something backed up by facts. More importantly rental figures and pay per view have exactly zip to do with the key figure which is boxed unit sales figures.
I for one could not care less how many units MW2 sold in comparison to any film, I couldn't care less if the gaming industry was not 'mainstream'. But if someone is going to write, or quote an article that is using absolutely atrocious statistical comparisons as a basis for fact, then it's there to be shot down in flames.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
As an older gamer I have seen it increase in popularity, especially over the past 10 years. And the age gap of generations playing computer games has closed up vastly aswell. I think it has become pretty mainstream nowdays, up there with music and movies.
I mean my first computer that I actually bought was a 386SX with 80MB HDD and 2MB of ram, now for the most part normal word processing and spread sheet stuff would not make this old system really work that hard (throw in the math co-processor to boost it to a DX and you spreadsheets ran like a dream) So why do we have quad core, TB HDD's and Gigs or ram?
If you said games your pretty spot on (graphics on the net as well ) but really think why did computer tech take off and get so crazy? I am not saying its the only reason but I feel it is a pretty good reason of why tech is where its at (I do know that several real intensive graphics programs are used it the science and medical fields and that help advance tech as well but without games would you see graphic cards as advanced as they are and people now using their pc's for other things then just record keeping?)
Actually, I would have said planned obsolescence. Even if there were no game made for the PC -- and for many years there weren't -- hardware manufacturers would have still rolled out new stuff every six months. Why? Because they have to keep people buying new computers. Forcing people to upgrade nice and regular like is a cheap way to do that. Look at any other kind of technology and you'll see the same thing.
We might not have had the crazy insane graphics cards if it weren't for games. But you can bet your aunt Sally's fat ass that processors would be just as fast, memory would be just as expansive, and hard drives would be just as ridiculously huge.
The comparison to Dark Knight and Twilght was solid. Video games are going to draw more money (overall) than movie tickets because video games cost more. The question is about the number of people that went to the theater to see these two movies as opposed to the number of people that bought MW2 at launch. It's $8 a ticket to see a movie and $60 for MW2 at launch. You do the math. I'm also pretty sure that if we added in rental/pay-per-view numbers into the mix that we'd see more people grabbing the movies rather than MW2.
No, that isn't a viable comparison in any way shape or form if you want to run statistical analysis on it.. The point is not in the price of the set items, it's in the nature of the set items. Given that films also have retail releases (which is EXACTLY the same as the MW2 release) you can run a fair and balanced statistical comparison from that. Price has absolutely no impact on the statistical comparsion unless you are A) looking for reasons for an imbalances, or because you are looking at income above sales figures (which the piece was not).
You started by (reposting) an article which claimed to debunk the fact that MW2 was not the single largest selling entertainment product using spurious (at best) statistics. When in fact if you look at the like by like sales figures MW2 did indeed sell more. You finish by saying that 'i'm also pretty sure that if....' which whilst your opinion may indeed be correct, it is only that an opinion, not something backed up by facts. More importantly rental figures and pay per view have exactly zip to do with the key figure which is boxed unit sales figures.
I for one could not care less how many units MW2 sold in comparison to any film, I couldn't care less if the gaming industry was not 'mainstream'. But if someone is going to write, or quote an article that is using absolutely atrocious statistical comparisons as a basis for fact, then it's there to be shot down in flames.
So you honestly believe that more people bought MW2 than went to see the Dark Knight or Twilight? Really?
Price does have an impact because it determines the number of units sold. MW2 did make more money, but it didn't sell as many units as high end Movies, books, or music albums. In the case of movies, the number of units (discs and tickets) was not even remotely close.
Also keep in mind that going to the movies is an even bigger pain in the ass than getting a video game. The fact that more people were willing to set aside a whole evening, drive halfway across town, wait in line, and deal with assholes in the theater while they watched the movie speaks volumes.
Video games are mainstream. They've stopped being something that unwashed teenaged boys play in their parents' basements on days when they're not hosting tabletop RPing games and have become something families play together, that women play on busses, that businessmen do between meetings. Downloading snake to your phone is putting a video game on it, working out with the Wii fit is playing a video game, playing that damn unicorn flash game is playing a video game.
Gaming has diversified, its target demographic has diversified and mega-investors are prepared to drop millions into developing games because it is incredibly profitable now. Games aren't hidden away on TV programs or in magazines and it's not a 'pathetic' niche topic that people wouldn't bring up in front of an adult.
Do games have to be 'more successful than movies' to be considered mainstream? No. Erm, why should they have to be?
"Those who stand at the top determine what's wrong and what's right. This very place is neutral ground! Justice will prevail, you say? But of course it will! Whoever wins this war becomes justice!"
Video games are mainstream. They've stopped being something that unwashed teenaged boys play in their parents' basements on days when they're not hosting tabletop RPing games and have become something families play together, that women play on busses, that businessmen do between meetings. Downloading snake to your phone is putting a video game on it, working out with the Wii fit is playing a video game, playing that damn unicorn flash game is playing a video game.
I have this really stupid thing that I do. It's called "going outside." You should try it.
While you're out there, be nosey and count the number of people with PSPs, Nintendo DSes, laptops, and cell phones. With the laptop and cell phone folks, look over their shoulders to check if they're playing games. I'm always on the lookout for portable game consoles in the wild and I don't think I've ever seen one in the hands of anyone over the age 12. I have yet to see anyone with a cell phone in their hands who wasn't either talking on it, checking the time, or texting someone. Laptops? Normally seen only at Starbucks by wannabe writers that want to be seen writing in public, so no games there either.
And those games that "business" men do between meetings? Solitaire and Sudoku. Games that they could play without a computer and therefore not video games.
Gaming has diversified, its target demographic has diversified and mega-investors are prepared to drop millions into developing games because it is incredibly profitable now. Games aren't hidden away on TV programs or in magazines and it's not a 'pathetic' niche topic that people wouldn't bring up in front of an adult.
Try it sometime. Like when you're at work. Just drop a reference to whatever game you happen to be playing in a group of working adults. Note the tortured moment of silence and awkward expressions as the people around realize that they have no fucking clue what you're talking about.
Although you might get a response... from a parent who's ten year old son is playing that same game....
Do games have to be 'more successful than movies' to be considered mainstream? No. Erm, why should they have to be?
Video games have to be at least as successful as pop music to be mainstream. They're almost there now. But just like music, there is only one genre that everyone is going to be familiar with. As of yet, the only genre of games that EVERYONE is familiar with are retro games. You know, the games we were all playing when we were ten years old...
I'm going to say this now so that all of you understand. The only reason you believe video games are mainstream is because you surround yourselves with other gamers.
Go out and mingle with the population at large. You'll be amazed at how far removed you are from them.
Firstly, that's is insulting and I really don’t understand why you assume I’m a ‘boy in a basement’ type just because I talk about them. I’m a 21-year-old girl and guess what? I do more than game. I have to. Money, family responsibilities… you know? Everywhere I go there are kids, teens, students, working adults, the elderly with phones, DSs, PSPs. Does everyone whip out a game in the supermarket? No, but not everyone pulls out a book either. There are enough people sat on benches around the area playing on portable consoles for me to consider them mainstream.
I have regular conversations with adults who game. I know a large number of exasperated women my age annoyed with how their mothers monopolise their Wii Fit. I know more people who’ve tried Brain Training than who haven’t and I don’t know anyone who doesn’t know what a Wii is or who wouldn’t understand a joke about the remote flying off and breaking something.
The MMO genre isn’t mainstream (only WoW even comes close) but video gaming as a whole is (just like how popular music is a conglomerate of genres). People know what a Playstation is without needing it to be explained, people know where to go if their kids ask for Pokemon Black/White, people sit down as families and play games like Halo or Wii Sports. It’s not just ten-year-olds that pick up Wii Fit, MW2 or even collections of those old retro games you talk about on their phones.
"Those who stand at the top determine what's wrong and what's right. This very place is neutral ground! Justice will prevail, you say? But of course it will! Whoever wins this war becomes justice!"
certanly not in many countries, but the rich one it´s becoming quite mainstream. The day i see a game comercial on my TV i may shit my pants, but with all this "Wee-Wee" crap surely it´s starting to grab more attention of the masses.
... quality being turned down but... another subject
You seriously haven't seen all the Starcraft 2 propaganda on FX and on some stores like FNAC? I'm pretty certain that I've seen some LevelUP ads somewhere too. I don't know how common FNAC stores are down there, though.
Ultima Online 98~04 Dark Age of Camelot 03~07 Final Fantasy XI 04~06 Guild Wars 05~08 World of Warcraft 04~05 Unsuccessful Tries: DFO/EQ2/DRaja/Rag/Req/RYL/9D/Cabal/KO/PSU/RF/GE/TO/TR/DDO/EVE/LoTRO/L2/RZ/SWG/VG
My 63-year-old mother owns a Wii and a DS, but she's not a gamer by any stretch of the imagination. Owning a game and playing games once in a while does not make you part of the gamer subculture. She feels like she gets a little activity in with the Wii, and she likes Brain Age on the DS. If she couldn't pretend it was productive in some way, she wouldn't do it.
I am surrounded by gamers IRL, but I have no illusions about where we fall on the social scale. WoW might be somewhat mainstream among the younger crowd, but most non-gamer people I know (generally being 35 and older) think that avid gamers are sad, pathetic people with nothing going on in their lives. I am NOT saying that I agree with that point of view. I disagree very strongly-- gamers are people who happen to prefer a different form of entertainment, and that's it.
It does make me laugh to hear slurs against 'game nerds' coming from the mouth of someone (my brother) involved in THREE different fantasy football leagues. WTF?!
I'm going to say this now so that all of you understand. The only reason you believe video games are mainstream is because you surround yourselves with other gamers.
Go out and mingle with the population at large. You'll be amazed at how far removed you are from them.
Lol what do you mean go out and mingle with the population at large? what do you think people who play computer games are lepers or some social outcasts. Like somebody stated whole families are playing together on Wii`s etc. Its far more sociable than just sitting in your bedroom playing [insert MMO game here] than it used to be.
Even my mother plays games nowdays on her laptop and she`s like over 65 (abiet crap game farmville )
And I bet in the not to distant future we will be playing in the movie not just watching it, as fully interactive movie with VR and motion censors/goves/glasses. Have you ever been in the Willie Wonker lift ride at Alton Towers?
Games, movie & music are gradually become merged into a big media format, or have you not noticed?
The comparison to Dark Knight and Twilght was solid. Video games are going to draw more money (overall) than movie tickets because video games cost more. The question is about the number of people that went to the theater to see these two movies as opposed to the number of people that bought MW2 at launch. It's $8 a ticket to see a movie and $60 for MW2 at launch. You do the math. I'm also pretty sure that if we added in rental/pay-per-view numbers into the mix that we'd see more people grabbing the movies rather than MW2.
No, that isn't a viable comparison in any way shape or form if you want to run statistical analysis on it.. The point is not in the price of the set items, it's in the nature of the set items. Given that films also have retail releases (which is EXACTLY the same as the MW2 release) you can run a fair and balanced statistical comparison from that. Price has absolutely no impact on the statistical comparsion unless you are A) looking for reasons for an imbalances, or because you are looking at income above sales figures (which the piece was not).
You started by (reposting) an article which claimed to debunk the fact that MW2 was not the single largest selling entertainment product using spurious (at best) statistics. When in fact if you look at the like by like sales figures MW2 did indeed sell more. You finish by saying that 'i'm also pretty sure that if....' which whilst your opinion may indeed be correct, it is only that an opinion, not something backed up by facts. More importantly rental figures and pay per view have exactly zip to do with the key figure which is boxed unit sales figures.
I for one could not care less how many units MW2 sold in comparison to any film, I couldn't care less if the gaming industry was not 'mainstream'. But if someone is going to write, or quote an article that is using absolutely atrocious statistical comparisons as a basis for fact, then it's there to be shot down in flames.
So you honestly believe that more people bought MW2 than went to see the Dark Knight or Twilight? Really?
Price does have an impact because it determines the number of units sold. MW2 did make more money, but it didn't sell as many units as high end Movies, books, or music albums. In the case of movies, the number of units (discs and tickets) was not even remotely close.
Also keep in mind that going to the movies is an even bigger pain in the ass than getting a video game. The fact that more people were willing to set aside a whole evening, drive halfway across town, wait in line, and deal with assholes in the theater while they watched the movie speaks volumes.
Take another look at my post which you quoted and ask yourself whether or not I proclaimed that MW2 sold more copies then people went to see Twighlight.
Now assuming you have been capable of resolving that first issue (I have my doubts at this point as to whether you will have managed that I must admit), lets tackle your other point...
Price does not have an impact unless you are taking into account the two points (A + I mentioned earlier. The reason being the post you have re quoted is trying to make a statistical analysis and is failing miserably. Putting that aside, and to humour you, lets take a look at the price factor to sales shall we?
MW2 sold 4.2 million units in the first 24 hours of release at a cost of 30-50 dollars. Within the space of 6 months it had gone on to sell over 20 million copies. Summit Entertainment states that The Twighlight Saga: New Moon sold 4 million dvd copies in a weekend (48 hours) at a retail price considerably less then the cost of MW2. Twighlight only managed 3.8 million units in its first 48 hours and sold a total of 9.2 million units in its first year (which was the single highest selling movie dvd of 2009).
Take another glance at the above paragraph, MW2 sold more units then Twighlight, even though it cost alot more per unit.
You are arguing in general vague terms about time taken to get to a movie etc, whereas someone else may argue that it takes time to drive to a video game shop, eitherway that is besides the point as I shall conclude post hence...
I looked at the article linked and once again it was using incorrect comparisions in terms of the moive section. The book though did surpass MW2 in units sold but then that is more then understandable, more people in more countries have access to paper books then they do to the latest console game (and indeed electricity to run it on).
The orginal article writer tried to rubbish the claim that MW2 was the biggest selling entertainment product on release by using inaccurate and misleading statistics. The simple fact of the matter is that if you are going to try and back something up with stats, you have to make sure you are using the right ones.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
The comparison to Dark Knight and Twilght was solid. Video games are going to draw more money (overall) than movie tickets because video games cost more. The question is about the number of people that went to the theater to see these two movies as opposed to the number of people that bought MW2 at launch. It's $8 a ticket to see a movie and $60 for MW2 at launch. You do the math. I'm also pretty sure that if we added in rental/pay-per-view numbers into the mix that we'd see more people grabbing the movies rather than MW2.
No, that isn't a viable comparison in any way shape or form if you want to run statistical analysis on it.. The point is not in the price of the set items, it's in the nature of the set items. Given that films also have retail releases (which is EXACTLY the same as the MW2 release) you can run a fair and balanced statistical comparison from that. Price has absolutely no impact on the statistical comparsion unless you are A) looking for reasons for an imbalances, or because you are looking at income above sales figures (which the piece was not).
You started by (reposting) an article which claimed to debunk the fact that MW2 was not the single largest selling entertainment product using spurious (at best) statistics. When in fact if you look at the like by like sales figures MW2 did indeed sell more. You finish by saying that 'i'm also pretty sure that if....' which whilst your opinion may indeed be correct, it is only that an opinion, not something backed up by facts. More importantly rental figures and pay per view have exactly zip to do with the key figure which is boxed unit sales figures.
I for one could not care less how many units MW2 sold in comparison to any film, I couldn't care less if the gaming industry was not 'mainstream'. But if someone is going to write, or quote an article that is using absolutely atrocious statistical comparisons as a basis for fact, then it's there to be shot down in flames.
So you honestly believe that more people bought MW2 than went to see the Dark Knight or Twilight? Really?
Price does have an impact because it determines the number of units sold. MW2 did make more money, but it didn't sell as many units as high end Movies, books, or music albums. In the case of movies, the number of units (discs and tickets) was not even remotely close.
Also keep in mind that going to the movies is an even bigger pain in the ass than getting a video game. The fact that more people were willing to set aside a whole evening, drive halfway across town, wait in line, and deal with assholes in the theater while they watched the movie speaks volumes.
Take another look at my post which you quoted and ask yourself whether or not I proclaimed that MW2 sold more copies then people went to see Twighlight.
Now assuming you have been capable of resolving that first issue (I have my doubts at this point as to whether you will have managed that I must admit), lets tackle your other point...
Price does not have an impact unless you are taking into account the two points (A + I mentioned earlier. The reason being the post you have re quoted is trying to make a statistical analysis and is failing miserably. Putting that aside, and to humour you, lets take a look at the price factor to sales shall we?
MW2 sold 4.2 million units in the first 24 hours of release at a cost of 30-50 dollars. Within the space of 6 months it had gone on to sell over 20 million copies. Summit Entertainment states that The Twighlight Saga: New Moon sold 4 million dvd copies in a weekend (48 hours) at a retail price considerably less then the cost of MW2. Twighlight only managed 3.8 million units in its first 48 hours and sold a total of 9.2 million units in its first year (which was the single highest selling movie dvd of 2009).
And how long after theatrical release do DVDs come out? Would it be safe to assume that the people who bought the movie had already seen it in the theater and liked what they saw?
You don't have leg to stand on here. Movie Tickets are units, the same as per disc video game sales. Period. Each ticket sold is one person. Is there a split-screen option for the console version of MW2? If not then each disc equals one person on lauch day. But seriously, who plays split-screen anymore?
Crunch the numbers and more people went to see the either of the two movies discussed than bought MW2. AND we can add in rentals for MW2 since rental copies would equal one sale. That means that people who rented MW2 on launch day would be part of the numbers.
Take another glance at the above paragraph, MW2 sold more units then Twighlight, even though it cost alot more per unit.
Take another look at the numbers and determine the percentage of movie tickets that converted into DVD sales. I don't know about you, but I would never purchase a movie that I hadn't even seen yet.
You are arguing in general vague terms about time taken to get to a movie etc, whereas someone else may argue that it takes time to drive to a video game shop, eitherway that is besides the point as I shall conclude post hence...
Considering that MW2 was aimed at core gamers, it's more likely that they preordered in the mail or got it directly off of Steam. Unlike movies, the few idiots that camp for hours outside of Best Buy have no one to blame but themselves.
I looked at the article linked and once again it was using incorrect comparisions in terms of the moive section. The book though did surpass MW2 in units sold but then that is more then understandable, more people in more countries have access to paper books then they do to the latest console game (and indeed electricity to run it on).
Seriously, what part of "units sold" do you not get? Movie ticket = 1 unit. Game disc/download = 1 unit. You can't get any more equal than that.
The orginal article writer tried to rubbish the claim that MW2 was the biggest selling entertainment product on release by using inaccurate and misleading statistics. The simple fact of the matter is that if you are going to try and back something up with stats, you have to make sure you are using the right ones.
Actually, it was EA misrepresenting it's figures by using only the total revenue rather than the number of people that actually bought the product. The Kotaku article called them on that.
This is kind of like debating how overpriced Apple computers are. Mac fanboys will always fall back on the "but that computer isn't EXACTLY like the Macintosh so your comparison is invalid." Yeah, as if.
But if you want to declare victory, go ahead. The rest of will still understand that one unit equals one unit whether it's movie tickets, video game discs, or happy meals.
The comparison to Dark Knight and Twilght was solid. Video games are going to draw more money (overall) than movie tickets because video games cost more. The question is about the number of people that went to the theater to see these two movies as opposed to the number of people that bought MW2 at launch. It's $8 a ticket to see a movie and $60 for MW2 at launch. You do the math. I'm also pretty sure that if we added in rental/pay-per-view numbers into the mix that we'd see more people grabbing the movies rather than MW2.
No, that isn't a viable comparison in any way shape or form if you want to run statistical analysis on it.. The point is not in the price of the set items, it's in the nature of the set items. Given that films also have retail releases (which is EXACTLY the same as the MW2 release) you can run a fair and balanced statistical comparison from that. Price has absolutely no impact on the statistical comparsion unless you are A) looking for reasons for an imbalances, or because you are looking at income above sales figures (which the piece was not).
You started by (reposting) an article which claimed to debunk the fact that MW2 was not the single largest selling entertainment product using spurious (at best) statistics. When in fact if you look at the like by like sales figures MW2 did indeed sell more. You finish by saying that 'i'm also pretty sure that if....' which whilst your opinion may indeed be correct, it is only that an opinion, not something backed up by facts. More importantly rental figures and pay per view have exactly zip to do with the key figure which is boxed unit sales figures.
I for one could not care less how many units MW2 sold in comparison to any film, I couldn't care less if the gaming industry was not 'mainstream'. But if someone is going to write, or quote an article that is using absolutely atrocious statistical comparisons as a basis for fact, then it's there to be shot down in flames.
So you honestly believe that more people bought MW2 than went to see the Dark Knight or Twilight? Really?
Price does have an impact because it determines the number of units sold. MW2 did make more money, but it didn't sell as many units as high end Movies, books, or music albums. In the case of movies, the number of units (discs and tickets) was not even remotely close.
Also keep in mind that going to the movies is an even bigger pain in the ass than getting a video game. The fact that more people were willing to set aside a whole evening, drive halfway across town, wait in line, and deal with assholes in the theater while they watched the movie speaks volumes.
Take another look at my post which you quoted and ask yourself whether or not I proclaimed that MW2 sold more copies then people went to see Twighlight.
Now assuming you have been capable of resolving that first issue (I have my doubts at this point as to whether you will have managed that I must admit), lets tackle your other point...
Price does not have an impact unless you are taking into account the two points (A + I mentioned earlier. The reason being the post you have re quoted is trying to make a statistical analysis and is failing miserably. Putting that aside, and to humour you, lets take a look at the price factor to sales shall we?
MW2 sold 4.2 million units in the first 24 hours of release at a cost of 30-50 dollars. Within the space of 6 months it had gone on to sell over 20 million copies. Summit Entertainment states that The Twighlight Saga: New Moon sold 4 million dvd copies in a weekend (48 hours) at a retail price considerably less then the cost of MW2. Twighlight only managed 3.8 million units in its first 48 hours and sold a total of 9.2 million units in its first year (which was the single highest selling movie dvd of 2009).
And how long after theatrical release do DVDs come out? Would it be safe to assume that the people who bought the movie had already seen it in the theater and liked what they saw?
You don't have leg to stand on here. Movie Tickets are units, the same as per disc video game sales. Period. Each ticket sold is one person. Is there a split-screen option for the console version of MW2? If not then each disc equals one person on lauch day. But seriously, who plays split-screen anymore?
Crunch the numbers and more people went to see the either of the two movies discussed than bought MW2. AND we can add in rentals for MW2 since rental copies would equal one sale. That means that people who rented MW2 on launch day would be part of the numbers.
Take another glance at the above paragraph, MW2 sold more units then Twighlight, even though it cost alot more per unit.
Take another look at the numbers and determine the percentage of movie tickets that converted into DVD sales. I don't know about you, but I would never purchase a movie that I hadn't even seen yet.
You are arguing in general vague terms about time taken to get to a movie etc, whereas someone else may argue that it takes time to drive to a video game shop, eitherway that is besides the point as I shall conclude post hence...
Considering that MW2 was aimed at core gamers, it's more likely that they preordered in the mail or got it directly off of Steam. Unlike movies, the few idiots that camp for hours outside of Best Buy have no one to blame but themselves.
I looked at the article linked and once again it was using incorrect comparisions in terms of the moive section. The book though did surpass MW2 in units sold but then that is more then understandable, more people in more countries have access to paper books then they do to the latest console game (and indeed electricity to run it on).
Seriously, what part of "units sold" do you not get? Movie ticket = 1 unit. Game disc/download = 1 unit. You can't get any more equal than that.
The orginal article writer tried to rubbish the claim that MW2 was the biggest selling entertainment product on release by using inaccurate and misleading statistics. The simple fact of the matter is that if you are going to try and back something up with stats, you have to make sure you are using the right ones.
Actually, it was EA misrepresenting it's figures by using only the total revenue rather than the number of people that actually bought the product. The Kotaku article called them on that.
This is kind of like debating how overpriced Apple computers are. Mac fanboys will always fall back on the "but that computer isn't EXACTLY like the Macintosh so your comparison is invalid." Yeah, as if.
But if you want to declare victory, go ahead. The rest of will still understand that one unit equals one unit whether it's movie tickets, video game discs, or happy meals.
Declare victory? I'm not agreeing or disagreeing as to whether or not video games are 'mainstream'. The point of the matter is whether or not those statistics used in that one example were misleading or not, they were... A unit is indeed a unit, but the fact of the matter is that a retail until to own something is totally different to a unit that only lets you view something one off at a completely different price.
The Mac analogy is bunk for the simple reason that you buy and own the Mac in just the same way as you do for a PC. Comparing one off viewing numbers with completely buying a product is in no way the same thing and not a true statistical comparison, especially when you consider you can match them equally as both have full retail releases. EA may well have used total revenue, but look at the figures above again.. it sold more retail boxed units then either Twighlight film. That the films boxed release comes some time after the original cinema release is neither here nor there until you decide to look into the factors explaining any differing variation in statistical figures.
Films undoubtedly are seen by more people then play games, but the fact that MW2 outsold Twighlight in terms of retail boxes is not open for debate, it shifted more units and it returned more profit. The original article tried to debunk that claim using ineffectual numbers pointing to the fact more people saw said film on a one off basis, which has feck all effect on retail numbers so was a useless statistical comparison. If a Quant was to deliver a report based on such bodged stats they would be summarily sacked.
To sum up (as I cba to waste more time on something that should be clear to anyone with a basic grounding in statistics): Whether video games are mainstream or not is not what I'm overly concerned about, that they are not the highest selling entertainment item does not mean they are not mainstream or not, people will have different interpretations as to what qualifies something as being mainstream and as such it is highly objective. But it is clear, and I mean patently clear, that the statistics used to 'have a pop' at the MW2 claim are very very badly set out. More people may have seen Twighlight, but given that MW2 does not have one off showings and given that both products have retail boxes and that MW2 outsold the film, the comparison used in the original article was complete and utter shit.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Comments
I'd argue that we're slightly mainstream. The author of the article likes to compare specific events quantitatively to show that gamer populations are so much smaller. What he/she doesn't keep in mind is that most of the people who play wow didn't buy Modern Warfare 2. Most of the people who bought Modern Warfare 2 didn't buy The Sims. Although there is likely some overlap, the fact is that there are many different sub-markets in this genre that make the entire size much larger than any one specific game.
I own Monopoly, Scabble, and Connect Four. I could count on one hand the number of times I break those games out in the space of a year. Does that make me board gamer?
Now by that same token, I don't own any movies, but I couldn't tell you how many movies and TV shows I've watched in the last week. I might be able to rattle off titles of books I read last month, but I couldn't tell you how many hours I spent listening to music. I generally play at least an hour or so of video games a day.
Now compare the scale of the previous two paragraphs. That is the difference between "core" gamers, and everyone else. If games were as mainstream as TV or books, then it would be the people who didn't play games regularly who were looked down on.
The conversation in a nutshell:
We know Precise Values X, Y, and Z. Revenue, viewership, etc. Plenty of hard cold facts
We haven't defined what constitutes "mainstream".
Therefore the original post can't really be agreed or disagreed with...we're comparing hard facts with some vague obscure term "mainstream".
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
On the other hand do some of those games get given away or sold cheap to friends when the first players is done with them.
I don't see how it matters if people go 2 1/2 times more often to movies (not counting discount games that often cost $10-20), that should still be more than enough to call it mainstream.
Ok, if it's not main stream, what do you call the STATE when people, such as myself, played computer games on PLATO back in the 70s? Then there were muds?
As far as I am concerned, the Internet went mainstream once the world wide web was established and regular people started to use it.
IMO, it's mainstream. It may be a matter of your computer gaming history, but that is the way I have experienced it.
We have to also take into consideration that games on your phone, also video games, facebook games, also considered video games, I mean everything, from T-shirts to Movies are about videogames or taking inspiration from them. Videogames are a large part of society now, albeit not all kinds of video games. I'd bet if the OP walked around with a picture of mario you'd have a lot of people who would know the face and/or know the game. I would say that video games have become as mainstream as most forms of entertainment, possibly even more mainstream then books now as a recreational past time , as they are, for the most part, interactive stories.
It wasn't really a question of weather or not most people are gamers, it was a question of weather or not video games are mainstream and not even a question of weather or not video games are as mainstream as TV and Movies. But I think an earlier poster was correct that the question cannot really be answered unless you can clearly define what constitutes mainstreem.
I agree as most of my friends are non gamers..I am the only 'hardcire@ game out of the lot.
March on! - Lets Invade Pekopon
True, just as some of the movies are the $2.50 discount theaters, $5.00 daytime specials, and matinees, which typically go for under the $10 price.
And my point was to illustrate that more people see movies, meaning it's a much better conversation topic than games, not to argue that gaming isn't "mainstream"...cuz $20 billion annually is pretty f**king mainstream IMO.
But then we'd have to argue "mainstream" for which generation? 10-15? 15-25? 25-35? 35-45? 45+? There's no doubt it's an exploding market, but it isn't the "best" one for common interests...yet.
If I missed it in the thread sorry but: a definition of the word mainstream
Purchased, used or accepted broadly rather than by a tiny fraction of population or market; common, usual or conventional.
also the wiki entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream
Mainstream is, generally, the common current of thought of the majority[citation needed]. However, the mainstream is far from cohesive; rather the concept is often considered a cultural construct[citation needed]. It is a term most often applied in the arts[citation needed] (i.e., music, literature, and performance). This includes:
something that is available to the general public;[citation needed]
something that has ties to corporate or commercial entities.[citation needed]
As such, the mainstream includes all popular culture, typically disseminated by mass media. The opposite of the mainstream are subcultures, countercultures, cult followings, and (in fiction) genre. Additionally, mainstream is sometimes a codeword used for an actual ethnocentric or hegemonic subculture point of view, especially when delivered in a culture war speech. It is often used as a pejorative term. In the United States, mainline churches are sometimes referred to synonymously as "mainstream."[1][2]
Now still kinda ambiguous because now real number value for broadly, but I would say that gaming in general is mainstream-ish, lol.
You can look up sales figures for consoles and it seem like quite a few have been sold in the last 15 or 20 years and when you really think about the PC market and how the technology has increased what is the reason for that? I mean my first computer that I actually bought was a 386SX with 80MB HDD and 2MB of ram, now for the most part normal word processing and spread sheet stuff would not make this old system really work that hard (throw in the math co-processor to boost it to a DX and you spreadsheets ran like a dream) So why do we have quad core, TB HDD's and Gigs or ram? If you said games your pretty spot on (graphics on the net as well ) but really think why did computer tech take off and get so crazy? I am not saying its the only reason but I feel it is a pretty good reason of why tech is where its at (I do know that several real intensive graphics programs are used it the science and medical fields and that help advance tech as well but without games would you see graphic cards as advanced as they are and people now using their pc's for other things then just record keeping?)
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.
Groucho Marx
No, that isn't a viable comparison in any way shape or form if you want to run statistical analysis on it.. The point is not in the price of the set items, it's in the nature of the set items. Given that films also have retail releases (which is EXACTLY the same as the MW2 release) you can run a fair and balanced statistical comparison from that. Price has absolutely no impact on the statistical comparsion unless you are A) looking for reasons for an imbalances, or
because you are looking at income above sales figures (which the piece was not).
You started by (reposting) an article which claimed to debunk the fact that MW2 was not the single largest selling entertainment product using spurious (at best) statistics. When in fact if you look at the like by like sales figures MW2 did indeed sell more. You finish by saying that 'i'm also pretty sure that if....' which whilst your opinion may indeed be correct, it is only that an opinion, not something backed up by facts. More importantly rental figures and pay per view have exactly zip to do with the key figure which is boxed unit sales figures.
I for one could not care less how many units MW2 sold in comparison to any film, I couldn't care less if the gaming industry was not 'mainstream'. But if someone is going to write, or quote an article that is using absolutely atrocious statistical comparisons as a basis for fact, then it's there to be shot down in flames.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
As an older gamer I have seen it increase in popularity, especially over the past 10 years. And the age gap of generations playing computer games has closed up vastly aswell. I think it has become pretty mainstream nowdays, up there with music and movies.
http://www.tbbp22.com/
Actually, I would have said planned obsolescence. Even if there were no game made for the PC -- and for many years there weren't -- hardware manufacturers would have still rolled out new stuff every six months. Why? Because they have to keep people buying new computers. Forcing people to upgrade nice and regular like is a cheap way to do that. Look at any other kind of technology and you'll see the same thing.
We might not have had the crazy insane graphics cards if it weren't for games. But you can bet your aunt Sally's fat ass that processors would be just as fast, memory would be just as expansive, and hard drives would be just as ridiculously huge.
So you honestly believe that more people bought MW2 than went to see the Dark Knight or Twilight? Really?
Price does have an impact because it determines the number of units sold. MW2 did make more money, but it didn't sell as many units as high end Movies, books, or music albums. In the case of movies, the number of units (discs and tickets) was not even remotely close.
If you want a more fair breakdown then check out the article at Kotaku that compares MW2 with music, movies and books.
Also keep in mind that going to the movies is an even bigger pain in the ass than getting a video game. The fact that more people were willing to set aside a whole evening, drive halfway across town, wait in line, and deal with assholes in the theater while they watched the movie speaks volumes.
Video games are mainstream. They've stopped being something that unwashed teenaged boys play in their parents' basements on days when they're not hosting tabletop RPing games and have become something families play together, that women play on busses, that businessmen do between meetings. Downloading snake to your phone is putting a video game on it, working out with the Wii fit is playing a video game, playing that damn unicorn flash game is playing a video game.
Gaming has diversified, its target demographic has diversified and mega-investors are prepared to drop millions into developing games because it is incredibly profitable now. Games aren't hidden away on TV programs or in magazines and it's not a 'pathetic' niche topic that people wouldn't bring up in front of an adult.
Do games have to be 'more successful than movies' to be considered mainstream? No. Erm, why should they have to be?
"Those who stand at the top determine what's wrong and what's right. This very place is neutral ground! Justice will prevail, you say? But of course it will! Whoever wins this war becomes justice!"
I'm going to say this now so that all of you understand. The only reason you believe video games are mainstream is because you surround yourselves with other gamers.
Go out and mingle with the population at large. You'll be amazed at how far removed you are from them.
Firstly, that's is insulting and I really don’t understand why you assume I’m a ‘boy in a basement’ type just because I talk about them. I’m a 21-year-old girl and guess what? I do more than game. I have to. Money, family responsibilities… you know? Everywhere I go there are kids, teens, students, working adults, the elderly with phones, DSs, PSPs. Does everyone whip out a game in the supermarket? No, but not everyone pulls out a book either. There are enough people sat on benches around the area playing on portable consoles for me to consider them mainstream.
I have regular conversations with adults who game. I know a large number of exasperated women my age annoyed with how their mothers monopolise their Wii Fit. I know more people who’ve tried Brain Training than who haven’t and I don’t know anyone who doesn’t know what a Wii is or who wouldn’t understand a joke about the remote flying off and breaking something.
The MMO genre isn’t mainstream (only WoW even comes close) but video gaming as a whole is (just like how popular music is a conglomerate of genres). People know what a Playstation is without needing it to be explained, people know where to go if their kids ask for Pokemon Black/White, people sit down as families and play games like Halo or Wii Sports. It’s not just ten-year-olds that pick up Wii Fit, MW2 or even collections of those old retro games you talk about on their phones.
"Those who stand at the top determine what's wrong and what's right. This very place is neutral ground! Justice will prevail, you say? But of course it will! Whoever wins this war becomes justice!"
You seriously haven't seen all the Starcraft 2 propaganda on FX and on some stores like FNAC? I'm pretty certain that I've seen some LevelUP ads somewhere too. I don't know how common FNAC stores are down there, though.
Ultima Online 98~04
Dark Age of Camelot 03~07
Final Fantasy XI 04~06
Guild Wars 05~08
World of Warcraft 04~05
Unsuccessful Tries: DFO/EQ2/DRaja/Rag/Req/RYL/9D/Cabal/KO/PSU/RF/GE/TO/TR/DDO/EVE/LoTRO/L2/RZ/SWG/VG
My 63-year-old mother owns a Wii and a DS, but she's not a gamer by any stretch of the imagination. Owning a game and playing games once in a while does not make you part of the gamer subculture. She feels like she gets a little activity in with the Wii, and she likes Brain Age on the DS. If she couldn't pretend it was productive in some way, she wouldn't do it.
I am surrounded by gamers IRL, but I have no illusions about where we fall on the social scale. WoW might be somewhat mainstream among the younger crowd, but most non-gamer people I know (generally being 35 and older) think that avid gamers are sad, pathetic people with nothing going on in their lives. I am NOT saying that I agree with that point of view. I disagree very strongly-- gamers are people who happen to prefer a different form of entertainment, and that's it.
It does make me laugh to hear slurs against 'game nerds' coming from the mouth of someone (my brother) involved in THREE different fantasy football leagues. WTF?!
Lol what do you mean go out and mingle with the population at large? what do you think people who play computer games are lepers or some social outcasts. Like somebody stated whole families are playing together on Wii`s etc. Its far more sociable than just sitting in your bedroom playing [insert MMO game here] than it used to be.
Even my mother plays games nowdays on her laptop and she`s like over 65 (abiet crap game farmville
)
And I bet in the not to distant future we will be playing in the movie not just watching it, as fully interactive movie with VR and motion censors/goves/glasses. Have you ever been in the Willie Wonker lift ride at Alton Towers?
Games, movie & music are gradually become merged into a big media format, or have you not noticed?
http://www.tbbp22.com/
Take another look at my post which you quoted and ask yourself whether or not I proclaimed that MW2 sold more copies then people went to see Twighlight.
Now assuming you have been capable of resolving that first issue (I have my doubts at this point as to whether you will have managed that I must admit), lets tackle your other point...
Price does not have an impact unless you are taking into account the two points (A +
I mentioned earlier. The reason being the post you have re quoted is trying to make a statistical analysis and is failing miserably. Putting that aside, and to humour you, lets take a look at the price factor to sales shall we?
MW2 sold 4.2 million units in the first 24 hours of release at a cost of 30-50 dollars. Within the space of 6 months it had gone on to sell over 20 million copies. Summit Entertainment states that The Twighlight Saga: New Moon sold 4 million dvd copies in a weekend (48 hours) at a retail price considerably less then the cost of MW2. Twighlight only managed 3.8 million units in its first 48 hours and sold a total of 9.2 million units in its first year (which was the single highest selling movie dvd of 2009).
Take another glance at the above paragraph, MW2 sold more units then Twighlight, even though it cost alot more per unit.
You are arguing in general vague terms about time taken to get to a movie etc, whereas someone else may argue that it takes time to drive to a video game shop, eitherway that is besides the point as I shall conclude post hence...
I looked at the article linked and once again it was using incorrect comparisions in terms of the moive section. The book though did surpass MW2 in units sold but then that is more then understandable, more people in more countries have access to paper books then they do to the latest console game (and indeed electricity to run it on).
The orginal article writer tried to rubbish the claim that MW2 was the biggest selling entertainment product on release by using inaccurate and misleading statistics. The simple fact of the matter is that if you are going to try and back something up with stats, you have to make sure you are using the right ones.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Actually, it was EA misrepresenting it's figures by using only the total revenue rather than the number of people that actually bought the product. The Kotaku article called them on that.
This is kind of like debating how overpriced Apple computers are. Mac fanboys will always fall back on the "but that computer isn't EXACTLY like the Macintosh so your comparison is invalid." Yeah, as if.
But if you want to declare victory, go ahead. The rest of will still understand that one unit equals one unit whether it's movie tickets, video game discs, or happy meals.
Declare victory? I'm not agreeing or disagreeing as to whether or not video games are 'mainstream'. The point of the matter is whether or not those statistics used in that one example were misleading or not, they were... A unit is indeed a unit, but the fact of the matter is that a retail until to own something is totally different to a unit that only lets you view something one off at a completely different price.
The Mac analogy is bunk for the simple reason that you buy and own the Mac in just the same way as you do for a PC. Comparing one off viewing numbers with completely buying a product is in no way the same thing and not a true statistical comparison, especially when you consider you can match them equally as both have full retail releases. EA may well have used total revenue, but look at the figures above again.. it sold more retail boxed units then either Twighlight film. That the films boxed release comes some time after the original cinema release is neither here nor there until you decide to look into the factors explaining any differing variation in statistical figures.
Films undoubtedly are seen by more people then play games, but the fact that MW2 outsold Twighlight in terms of retail boxes is not open for debate, it shifted more units and it returned more profit. The original article tried to debunk that claim using ineffectual numbers pointing to the fact more people saw said film on a one off basis, which has feck all effect on retail numbers so was a useless statistical comparison. If a Quant was to deliver a report based on such bodged stats they would be summarily sacked.
To sum up (as I cba to waste more time on something that should be clear to anyone with a basic grounding in statistics): Whether video games are mainstream or not is not what I'm overly concerned about, that they are not the highest selling entertainment item does not mean they are not mainstream or not, people will have different interpretations as to what qualifies something as being mainstream and as such it is highly objective. But it is clear, and I mean patently clear, that the statistics used to 'have a pop' at the MW2 claim are very very badly set out. More people may have seen Twighlight, but given that MW2 does not have one off showings and given that both products have retail boxes and that MW2 outsold the film, the comparison used in the original article was complete and utter shit.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."