Slashdot Mirror

"Niche market of 17+ year old males"? According to the ESA, http://www.theesa.com/facts/top_10_facts.php, "the average game player is 33 years old and has been playing games for 12 years". Even if that's wildly off, the average gamer at this point is older than 17. The "niche market" you describe, is the majority.

After looking over some information from the ESA, this really doesn't come as much of a surprise to me. They point out that the average age gamers is 33. Does it come as any surprise to anyone that a 'mature' audience might prefer 'mature' content? This isn't to say that all gamers in their twenties and thirties like blood, gore, and other things such that they'll buy any game that has them, but if we look at a lot of the most popular games, they deal with subject matters (warfare, the mafia, etc.) that have violent content in them in order to stay true to the subject matter and portray it more accurately. These people have the disposable income to purchase these games which are most suited to their interests.

Another factor is probably young children perceiving these games as 'mature' and that playing them will make them more grown-up. I don't know how much weight this theory holds, but I've heard it used before and don't find it as hard to accept. There might also be the allure of playing a game that you're 'not supposed to' play because it might be too much for you to handle. Curiosity has probably gotten more people to look at goatse (or something else described as incredibly sick), moreso than any actual attraction to such images. Of course, I don't think younger children have as much disposable income to puchase these games directly, but their parents probably do.

> GameStop/EBGames does not carry on their website, Walmart and other retailers will not stock and Blockbuster does not rent AO titles.

That's fine, and perfectly within their rights. But it also doesn't prevent people from self-publishing AO-rated titles on the PC. Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft actually prevent the licensing of AO-rated titles for their game consoles, so it's not legally possible to bypass traditional sales channels to release this sort of content for their systems.

> I do not think companies should be "ashamed" of making a conscious business decision.

They should when the average game player is 15 years older than the age of consent, yet they still behave as if their customer base has to ask mommy to buy them games for Christmas.

Gaming will cease to be a teenage phenomena? It already did, years ago. 69% of gamers are 18 or older. Even limiting it to consoles (thus dropping all the solitaire players), 60% are 18 and over.

I am suggesting that. The last few times I went to a game store there was 1 child a few teenagers and a few adults. This has always lead me to think the largest demographic of console gamers are young men (16-30). Here is another tid bit 60% of console gamers are over 18. http://www.theesa.com/facts/gamer_data.php

I tell you what I cited a source, why don't you?

If nintendo allowed an AO game on their system is may lead to some bad press thats true. Even though the wii is supposed to be a console for everyone it has been holding on to it's console for kids image. This might go to sway that image. But what is sony's and microsoft's excuse?

"Gaming consoles are used mostly by children"

That is an outright lie. The average game player is 33 years old and has been playing games for 12 years. http://www.theesa.com/facts/top_10_facts.php

Let me inform you on something that everyone should know at this point. Games are not just for children.

"I bet most of the time parents do not know what games their children are playing."

Eighty-seven percent of game players under the age of 18 report that they get their parents' permission when renting or buying games, and 89 percent say their parents are present when they buy games. http://www.theesa.com/facts/top_10_facts.php

"This is why both Nintendo and Sony do not allow AO games and that gives a peace of mind to millions of parents who do not want to go through their children possessions to look for 'adult' games."

Well parents really shouldn't have to go though their child's possessions to look for them. Where was the parent when the kid was buying the game? How did the kid get money to buy the game? Where is the kid playing the game? Now if you are worried about your child earning enough money themselves to buy the game, getting to the stores without relying on you, only play the game when you are not around, well then perhaps you could talk to them.

"Gaming consoles are used mostly by children"

That is an outright lie. The average game player is 33 years old and has been playing games for 12 years. http://www.theesa.com/facts/top_10_facts.php

Let me inform you on something that everyone should know at this point. Games are not just for children.

"I bet most of the time parents do not know what games their children are playing."

Eighty-seven percent of game players under the age of 18 report that they get their parents' permission when renting or buying games, and 89 percent say their parents are present when they buy games. http://www.theesa.com/facts/top_10_facts.php

"This is why both Nintendo and Sony do not allow AO games and that gives a peace of mind to millions of parents who do not want to go through their children possessions to look for 'adult' games."

Well parents really shouldn't have to go though their child's possessions to look for them. Where was the parent when the kid was buying the game? How did the kid get money to buy the game? Where is the kid playing the game? Now if you are worried about your child earning enough money themselves to buy the game, getting to the stores without relying on you, only play the game when you are not around, well then perhaps you could talk to them.

how's the hole?

You're assuming games necessarily cost $50. You're forgetting cell phone games, as well as various online games.

Sixty-nine percent of American heads of households play computer and video games.

Dear Ivan Pereira, Michael Saul, Alison Gendar,

"In previous incarnations [of the Grand Theft Auto series], players advanced through the game by killing cops, selling pornography to children and killing prostitutes." http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/2007/03/3 1/2007-03-31_pols_rage_as_vid_game_takes_shot_at_c ity-4.html

After reading the above-linked article, I believe there are some discrepancies that need to be brought to your attention. I have extensively played Grand Theft Auto 1, 2, 3, Vice City, and San Andreas, yet I have never encountered any opportunities to sell pornography to children, nor is there is no way to advance in the game through killing police officers or prostitutes.

In every game in the Grand Theft Auto series, killing a prostitute within view of a police officer will cause him to try to subdue and arrest you. If you kill a police officer, more will come in squad-cars, attempting to stop you. If you continue to kill officers, SWAT teams will attempt to subdue you. Eventually, the National Guard will arrive to subdue you. When your character is subdued by law enforcement, he returns to the game outside of a hospital, without weapons and with a hefty monetary fine. Similar to real life, attacking police officers has consequences, none of which are good, and in the end, you can't win.

I am not a lawyer, nor am I making any sort of threat of legal action (I am in no way connected to Take-Two Interactive Software), but making false, harmful claims about a game's content sounds like libel to me. As I can not trust the New York Daily News to provide accurate, unbiased information, I will never purchase an issue, and advise my friends and family likewise.

If I am wrong about selling pornography to children, please tell me in which games, and in what location it is found. I would like to verify the content, and if it is present, I will gladly inform everyone who will listen.

To close on a slight tangent, Liberty City is modeled after New York City. On November 15, 2005 the video game True Crime: New York City http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/adventure/truecrime2/i ndex.html?q=True%20Crime was released. Surely you can guess where this game takes place. Yet, there was no public outcry regarding True Crime: New York City's setting.

Like it or not, video games have become an art form, just like movies. When such movies as "Escape from New York" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082340/ are allowed to exist, the average age of video game players is 33 http://www.theesa.com/facts/top_10_facts.php , and games have ratings with more depth than movies http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_guide.jsp , why are games held to a different standard?

In 2006, 93 percent of computer game buyers and 83 percent of console game buyers were over the age of 18.

...the quantity of games played by a gamer decreases with age

But aren't the over-30's more likely to pay for said games?

According to the ESA, parents of children under 18 are present 89% of the time when games are purchased or rented. Presumably most of these parents have dinged 30.

But this law is silly for all sorts of other reasons.

I'd be disturbed about the governmental agencies getting their hands on this, given the general climate of misapprehension that video games are a major cause of actual, physical violence (thanks a bunch for jumping on the bandwagon, Hilary :( ). Without some assurances that the ratings system won't be held over a barrel for any number of spurious motivations, such as the unfortunately credible possibility of lobby groups complaining that fantasy games teach witchcraft and should therefore be kept out of the hands of children.

The ESRB has been running quite nicely for over a decade and, though not perfect, seems pretty on par with the MPAA in terms of hits and misses. Rating World of Warcraft Teen works great, and the more violent, disturbing Prey is properly rated Mature, though there are certainly younger folks who can deal with games like Prey (and certainly the old Ultima IX, which is also rated Mature).

I would surmise most of the issues people run up against are things like Parents or Granny buying Junior M-rated games (perhaps even because Junior asked for the game in question, as Juniors are wont to do), and totally missing the meaning of the rating.

That's not equivalent to the ratings on going to the movies, because people don't go to video games - they bring them home. However, when buying movies for someone, you have to pay attention to the rating on the movie; buying Body Double for your 9-year-old isn't a good thing, but the salesperson isn't going to stop you at the till to ask who you're buying it for. With games, salespeople are more likely to ask than with movies, especially if you're a senior who has just picked up an M or AO-rated game, but if you're 40 or under and don't look confused, they will properly assume that you've done a modicum of homework (and if you look nerdy, the chances of them asking trend towards zero :) You can always ask the people behind the counter, though - ESRB ratings are not hard to puzzle out.

It's the "not necessarily for me" part of video game purchasing that tends to lead to more oopsies. I don't see how any FTC oversight is going to help that issue in the slightest, unless it's to bend the needle to severe overprotection. Who amongst us can imagine what form that would take? No video games except Barbie and Veggie Tales in Wal-Mart? A tiny front section at EG with a beaded curtain dividing the FTC-approved-for-public-malls part from the vast majority of titles (perhaps an exaggeration, but if other legislation came down the pipe making sure minors had no access to even looking at a likely increased number of rated titles, how would EG and other retailers have to respond?)

...or would the effect be simply more insidious and behind-the-scenes? Vaunted games that were developed that the FTC simply prevented from being sold, or games being horribly watered down just to get to the wide audience that could have handled it in the first place?

Have these folks proposed a content rating system on books in the last little while?

Support the ESA in their fights against jokers like this.

You forgot to mention they are also members of the Evil $oftware Alliance
http://www.theesa.com/about/esa_members.php

I thought the target demographic for gamers had long since switched to 18 to 23 years old, and that game players were getting to be a pretty old lot. [citation]. Yeah, kids are important, but they don't matter as much as they used to.

I know you're going for the funny angle here, but it just isn't true. "Forty percent of most frequent game players are under eighteen years old." In other words, the majority of frequent gamers is over 18.

Who says older folks don't play games?

Statistics do. Here's some research done by the ESA on the subject http://www.theesa.com/facts/gamer_data.php . Only 25 percent of the 50+ age group plays games and you can bet the bulk of that group is clustered towards 50 years of age and less around 64. Certainly in the future there will be more older gamers but right now the number of people 64 or older playing games is fairly small.

After all, video gamers themselves are predominantly young, which means either they can't or won't vote, so we're free to alienate them for political gain

Apparently the average gamer is in his (don't know if stats for female gamers are different) early 30's, well able to have a vote?

The problem is that computer games are still seen as an activity for children, despite what the ESA has said based on their research. Therefore, any violations are judged much more harshly and it's easier for accusations of obscenity find a willing audience. After all, it's all impressionable 13-year olds watching Hot Coffee, not 33 year olds able to handle content that's less racy than what you find on premium cable channels.

Unfortunately, there's not much to be done to change opinions. We'll have to wait out the current generation, letting them die off before people in power realize that computer games aren't just for children.

Have fun,

Speculation is great, but I think the answer for this question already exists. And I believe the answer is simply that as gamers age, they spend less money on games.

The average gamer is now 33 years old (according to the ESA). People at this age have kids and a mortgage. They aren't straight out of college with disposable income anymore. Blaming your problems on the hot new thing is always fashionable, but I believe the true answer is much simpler.

I'm not sure what you mean. The Illinois law was struck down as unconstitutional, just like the others - so that's another win for the ESA. The Maryland one, on the other hand, was actually supported by the ESA because it only concerned itself with explicit sexual content rather than vague terms like "unsuitable" or "violent". As far as I know, there are no games published in the US which would even qualify under the Maryland law (including Hot Coffee), so it seems more like it's simply trying to bring existing "don't sell porn to kids" laws up to date by including video games as well as existing media like DVD. Seems sensible to me. To quote the ESA:

"The ESA has always been supportive of the inclusion of video games to 'harmful to minor' statues that meet the Supreme Courts obscenity standards. We believe that video games should be treated in the same way that books and movies are treated under the law."

And with that statement, you just justified the entire episodic content business model.

Personally I'm in favor of anything that helps break the stereotype of all gamers being 14-25 year old males who enjoy nothing but naked women, loud music and "doin' the dew."

The ESA has released data to the contrary, in fact.

While I'll agree that the combination of calm, rational discussion and gaming is mostly unprecedented, rather that "doubt[ing] this podcast will be successful," I'll say "it's about time." I hope there are more people like me out there.

Or maybe they're targeting children since the average gamer is an adult. http://www.theesa.com/facts/top_10_facts.php

But neither Xbox360 or PS3 are being sold with "junior" as the primary market. They are being sold to your average US gamer, http://www.theesa.com/facts/top_10_facts.phpwho happens to be ~30 years old. As prices for the consoles drop that is when you start getting them selling to large numbers of parents, but that's probably at least a few years out.

Man, I'm with you on the topic of pushing the social bounds that a video game can touch. Why is it ok to write books, plays, film movies and TV shows about horrible events - but you depict it in a video game and suddenly your an amoral asshat?

For some of use, we would like to see video games mature into interactive media that conveys a message with more clarity and depth than any of the current one dimensional media vehicles available. This game is a step in that direction. Hell, some people call it art.

Anyone see that film Capote? Critical acclaim everywhere. The movie was about a self indulgent asshole who basically wrote a "true Crime" novel. Whoop de dooo. I don't see anyone flipping out over that.

Lets take a look at the book now. In Cold Blood. Read the reviews on that page, they're ridiculous. Capote's writing is boring, typical, and worshipped by those who couldn't handle Tolstoy. The subject of a book, a murder. A REAL murder.

Where is the outcry there? Hell, where is the outcry on the "pulp true crime" novels written about serial killer after serial killer? It's pretty damn small and has NO face.

People can't handle media if they haven't been ingesting it for 20 years or more. This "kiddie" media is mostly being purchased by people over 18. This is knee jerk reaction to an overhyped statistical anomonoly.

This is not an attack on those who still might have very deep pain over this event, I feel for you. But this game is NOT demeaning you. This game is NOT trying to foster this behavior in others. The very people who are demeaning this game should take a look at it, see how it makes you feel. My guess is repulsed. And every time you re-enact a slaying you should be asking yourself "what kind of monster can do this?" That, ladies and gentlemen, is the point. What does it take to make two confused youth transform into heartless killers? What is the aftermath? How much pain does not understanding or ignoring the early warning signs cause after all is said and done?

No, who cares about those things. Sweep that shit under the rug and turn on the tube - I wanna see who's gonna be the next American Idol. As long as I'm not starving or suffering - I try not to worry too much abouth the specifics. If this stuff didn't exist the problem might just go away.

This is old news. We've had stats like this for a long time from the ESA: http://www.theesa.com/facts/index.php

They have more interesting stats than these guys managed to come up with, too.

Because there's no such thing as the Old Video Games That Don't Generate Incomes For Our Member Companies Anymore Association Of America

O rly?

Most console users are adults. (detailed statistics) (another article)

The older you get, the less you play games. .

Sorry. The average age of a gamer is 28 -- or at least it was three years ago when I needed that stat for a story. The Entertainment Software Association has been showing a steady increase in the average age of gamers for years, due to the fact that the original Gen X gamers are getting older but actually don't stop playing games, according to the head of ESA (who made this point a centerpiece of his keynote address at E3 in, oh, 2001), so I'm willing to bet the average age has risen by a year or two already. The ESA's current stats indicate that 39% of frequent players are over 35 years old. So if the majority of gamers aren't over the age of thirty already, it won't be long before they are. Therefore, by your own logic, it'll be even more important to hang on to designers in their thirties.

just because I'm cynical, it doesn't necessarily mean I'm wrong.

It doesn't make you right either. :)

You misunderstand me. I'm all for informing the parent, and letting the parents of the child parent the frickin' child. But what he was doing was refusing to sell games to kids (it was implied the parents weren't there). It is perfectly legal in most states to sell M rated video games to kids and therefore the store should stay out of it.

What I'm against is retail stores trying to enforce their morals on their customers at their own behest.

And this applies to the parent poster how? He didn't say these titles should be banned, he said the parents should be informed. I disagree with Walmart pulling music, but that's their right. There is nothing wrong with being informed prior to purchase as to the type of material on a CD or in a game.

It applies because it's another example of a retail store inflicting its morals on its customers.

And this applies to the parent poster how? He didn't say these titles should be banned, he said the parents should be informed. I disagree with Walmart pulling music, but that's their right. There is nothing wrong with being informed prior to purchase as to the type of material on a CD or in a game.

He said nothing of informing parents! He said, "We had the ESRB ratings posted on big signs as well, and we carded people who wanted to buy an M game."

Laws against selling video games of [rating] to [demographic] are being declared unconstitutional left and right. ("In a decision that drew upon the judicial rulings of cases where similar legislation had been deemed unconstitutional, Judge Whyte wrote that "games are protected by the First Amendment and that plaintiffs are likely to prevail in their argument that the Act violates the First Amendment.")

Since your personal attack on me seems to have been based on a misconception of my point I'll let it slide saying only this: I'm not going to let my kids (assuming I ever have any) be complete shitheads like you seem to think they would be. I'll let my kids choose their own path alright, as long as it's not a foolish path.

The bottom line is, stores should not be telling us how to raise our kids. I don't believe there is any correlation between playing violent video games and criminals, I blame bad parenting.

ESA = Entertainment Software Association. Their Website: http://www.theesa.com/

(ratings aside, they know their primary audience)

Yes they do, and it isn't children.

http://www.theesa.com/facts/gamer_data.php
"Who Purchases Computer and Video Games?

Ninety-five percent of people who make the actual purchase of computer games and 84% of people who make the actual purchase of video games are 18 years of age or older. The average age of the game buyer is 37 years old. "

These games are marketed towards adults, purchased by adults and played by adults.

The 'what about the children' is a red herring.

They seem to be ironically promoting piracy of a companies product just because they wouldnt use starforce.
thats clearly illegal so...
http://www.theesa.com/piracy/index.php
I've already reported them, the mroe who do so, the better.

Maybe I'm missing something....

http://www.theesa.com/facts/top_10_facts.php

The average player is 30, 43% are women, 18% are over 50 and revenues exceed that of movies.

How much more mainstream does gaming need to be?

I'm also wondering who thinks "games" are just for kids? Not many kids playing Bridge, Shuffleboard, Bingo, etc....

Why do you assume that video games are "family entertainment"? Are you not aware that the majority of video game players are adults(65% as of 2004)? I'm sorry to inform you that video games are indeed an "adult" industry, and as such, game producers will increasingly target older audiences.

If the parents continue to view video games as children's entertainment, perhaps we should be educating the parents on the nature of the market.

ESA Player Data

Truth be told, the average age of the Gamer is climbing, in fact, 70 years old isn't too old to be a Hardcore gamer. If games are just for kids, then shouldn't most modern pasttimes be for kids only?(ie. Hockey, Football, Basketball, Golf, Movies, etc)

Here's more info, via the ESA's press release. There still seem to be a lot of questions to be answered regarding their methods, however, such as how those 501 families were chosen.

You're right, I left that aspect out. According to The Entertainment Software Alliance, 105M units were sold in 1996 (the furthest back I could find data), compared to 248 million units sold in 2004. If we generously assume that the market was half that size in 1987, then ~55M units were sold in 1987.

A quarter of the games were sold, to cover development budgets of approximately 1/80th of modern development.

[The MPAA's CARA division] tacked a rating onto each movie that asked for one

Really? Is CARA's film rating process structured that it is affordable for studios other than MPAA members (Disney, Time Warner, Sony, Viacom, News Corp, or GE)? Is ESRB's video game rating process structured that it is affordable for publishers other than ESA members?

I'm male, and like almost all of you, I HATE g4. I actually find watching that channel to be mildly insulting (to me) and highly stereotypical. 43% of gamers are female, and only about 35% are under 18. (http://www.theesa.com/facts/gamer_data.php) The dialog is mildly retarded, who exactly are they trying to appeal to, maybe they never checked out the demographics. Whoever is running that network needs to go watch every episode of The Screen Savers and Call for Help ever made, apply that formula to their video game shows, and stop dicking around, it's not funny and everyone (I hope) hates it.

It shouldn't, because they didn't donate that money to their own charity -- they donated it to this one.

From http://www.theesa.com/archives/2005/07/video_game_ indu_1.php
"It's illogical that video games would be treated more harshly than R-rated movies or music CDs with parental warning labels, both of which can be legally viewed and sold to minors. We should be treated the same way as those industries." - Douglas Lowenstein, president of the ESA

It is NOT illegal to sell rated R movies to kids. Most retailers have methods to prevent this from happening. The video game companies aren't trying to get special treatment but rather semi-equal treatment.

You're right, the major target demographic is not kids... nor is it 28-35 year olds.

1) the target demographic is not necessarily the purchasing demographic -- people buy games for their kids. This is going to shift the average purchaser age up by a lot.

2) according to your sources, the average gamer age is 27 -- which still lies below the range where you assign the target demographic.

I agree that the kids demographic is not the major target of a lot of games, but 28-35 is quite a bit high...

Also, one of your sources is justa chop of another of your sources.

If you read the article from the economist, you'll see that 61% of gamers are adults... being 18+. If you look at the ESA figures, 18-49 year-olds make up 43% of the game-playing population, 35% is under 18 -- and that's for all games. For consoles, the largest demographic is under 18. For PCs, the largest demographic is over 35.
http://www.theesa.com/facts/gamer_data.php

I'm not disagreeing with your statement that a lot of games are not being developed for the sub-adult population. But saying that 28-35 is the target demo, well, that's plain wrong.

It will regulate content, whether directly or indirectly. Consumer pressure will be enough to get adult-themed games off the shelves in mass retail shops, which means that no one will develop those games.

Sorry, it will only regulate content that isn't neccesary. If the creators of that content are not directly prevented from creating that content, then they are not censored. If they decide to change their content in order to sell more games, then they made a marketing decision that either compromised the original intent of the game or alludes to the content being a marketing tool in and of itself. If a Game or Movie or Song NEEDS the adult content because it's an integral part of it and the creator has intergrity, they will accept the loss in revenue for creating the work that they wanted.


"The major target of video game companies are 28-35 year old's"

Not true, you've got to shift that range lower considerably. A quick Google of video game market demographics will help you clear that up.

It did, and I'm still right. The major demographic IS NOT kids.

Source 1
Source 2
Source 3

Legally, he can go purchase Scarface at a store. The MPAA rating system is voluntary, just like the ESRB. The difference is that many parents are not as aware of (~concerned about?) adult content in games as they are of adult content in movies.

I think you're correct about this.

Just as re-enforcement of what you're saying, the ESA's latest "Essential Facts" (Warning: PDF). It's consistent with their papers from past years indicating that the vast majority of gaming purchases (~95%) are made by individuals over the age of 18, and individuals 18 and under make up roughly a third of all game players.

There's still a lot of money to be made tapping into minors, but this all rides on the purse strings of their parents. And parents are probably more swayed by which consoles are getting a nod on the morning news and in papers and magazines than the likes of SpikeTV's event. Which leaves me wondering why nobody's bothered to capitalize on this with parent-targeted gaming publications...

Half of them are sports clones...Why not just release the 4-5 decent games and have a stellar-rated lineup then filling up the shelves with crap?

Why are sports games necessarily crap? Maybe this hasn't occurred to you, but lots of people like sports games and there are a lot of good sports games. They were the second-best selling game genre last year, and four of last year's top 10 selling games were sports titles. Obviously popularity does not equate to quality, but people wouldn't keep buying these games year in and year out if they didn't have any redeeming value. Like in any genre, some sports games are garbage and others are great. Just because most people on Slashdot dislike sports games doesn't mean they are worthless or that no one else likes them. Omitting sports games from their lineup would have been downright foolish.

And what's wrong with releasing all the games and giving the consumer a choice? Choice is good, right?

Actually, according to the ESA you are part of the minority, as more than 60% of video game players are over 18 years old.