Slashdot Mirror

The average age of a gamer in 2016 was 35. http://essentialfacts.theesa.c... . I realize that what constitutes a gamer can differ widely based on who you ask but what this assuredly says in that adults play lots of games.

In other words getting older does not equal too old for video games. Sure, your personal tastes have changed over time, mine have too. I have no use for pro sports anymore and I used to love that stuff when I was a kid. Some one starts rattling off team and player names at me now and my eyes just glaze over. (My favorite is when some one asks me if I caught "the game" last night. What the hell are you even talking about?) Do I think pro sports are childish and for kids? Of course not, tons of adults enjoy them. Pro sports just arent to my taste.

I still enjoy video games however and am well into being a responsible adult (although I have less time for them nowadays :( ). Don't confuse your own experience with everyone's reality.

Your bias is showing.

In many parts of the world, the majority of people don't need to use tax software or "do their taxes". For example, here in the UK many basic taxes are deducted at source and then reported and paid by the employer/merchant/bank, so many people never have to file a return at all. Those who do typically use an on-line system provided by the tax authority or work with a professional accountant who can then file on their behalf. None of these people needs to run the kind of tax software you mentioned on their own computer.

In the US, you are not required to file taxes period unless you owe money. The government is more than happy to keep any extra that may have been submitted via employers/etc on your behalf. Also, you can typically pick up the forms at a local post office.

So no, there is no requirement to use a computer to do your taxes in the US. It's just that there is a very large majority that is a lot larger than the U.S gaming market that do use software or on-line services to do their taxes. I wouldn't be surprised if it was similar elsewhere too.

Now it doesn't help that Intuit and others mail out copies of their software anticipating people will use it; it comes with some free access (typically Federal taxes) and then some paid access (typically States support). Nor does it help that the software is basically free even if you do pay for it as you can add the cost of paying someone to your taxes as a deduction.

Also, your stereotypes about gamers are way out of date. For example, the ESA's 2014 report suggests that interest in entertainment software is roughly equal between the sexes.

That doesn't change the reality that those using software to do their taxes are still a larger group than those playing games on their computers. However, you'll probably also need to look at the difference in there between (a) computer vs console games, and (b) whether there is a significant difference in the genders for those who will build specialized systems for their computer gaming. My guess is that the results of both will show a skew in computer gaming towards the males.

Or possibly not. Don't let the facts stand in the way of your grumpy-old-fart prejudices, though.

Your bias is showing.

In many parts of the world, the majority of people don't need to use tax software or "do their taxes". For example, here in the UK many basic taxes are deducted at source and then reported and paid by the employer/merchant/bank, so many people never have to file a return at all. Those who do typically use an on-line system provided by the tax authority or work with a professional accountant who can then file on their behalf. None of these people needs to run the kind of tax software you mentioned on their own computer.

Also, your stereotypes about gamers are way out of date. For example, the ESA's 2014 report suggests that interest in entertainment software is roughly equal between the sexes.

I have two thumbs. What the hell am I going to do with four controllers?

That depends. Do you have a wife? Girlfriend? (Stereotypes exist.)

At my age, there really aren't a lot of people of my age cohort that are still playing computer games.

I don't know how old you are, but last time I checked, ESA said the average gamer was 31. There are likely clubs for that in your home town.

FYI, 48% of gamers are female. http://www.theesa.com/facts/ga... [theesa.com]

Does it break down by genre anywhere? My mom loves to play Solitaire, Solatile (sortof like Mahjong ), and some other similar types of puzzle games, but as much as I love my mother, I'm not sure I'd classify her as a "gamer," and certainly not an a multiplayer gamer.

"undisputed skew in the gender of gamers"? Are you really still trying to flog that dead horse?

Too bad for you that the Entertainment Software Association (for one) disputes the hell out of that tired old pile of bull.

FYI, 48% of gamers are female. http://www.theesa.com/facts/ga...

Older gamers are a minority of the market.

For one thing, that depends on how you define "older". The average age of a gamer is early thirties. For another, a lot of these first-person shooters are rated M by ESRB because they're so violent. This means responsible stores won't sell them to minors and warn parents about buying them for minors.

I think the best that we, as a community, can hope for is that enough people exercise impulse control and wait to buy the game until the price is reduced once or twice.

That doesn't help if the only reason for a discount is that the sequel with an updated roster is out. How many people are willing to buy a sports game whose rosters are outdated and whose multiplayer matchmaking servers are due to be turned off soon?

But there is a persistent console fan on Slashdot

That would be me, I think.

who likes to tell me that local multiplayer with friends is obsolete.

It is, for most genre's. Oh sure, you might have some school age kids, college guys in a dorm room, or people pulling out a Wii at holiday get togethers...but haven't you noticed how much people are playing games online? Oh, that's right, you got your PS2 late in it's life so never did much online gaming.

He claims that the vast majority of gamers are adults,

They are, and have been since the PSone days. The average gamer is 31 years old. Didn't you read the ESA's 2014 report? Head to page 5.

http://www.theesa.com/facts/pd...

Remember, once you're past 18, you're an adult, and there are a lot more people older than 18 than under it.

and the vast majority of adult gamers have moved on to online multiplayer

They have. I don't do PC gaming, but check the steam stats for what's being played sometime. But in the online console games I've played over the years, you could pretty much find someone to play with 24/7.

with pickup groups of strangers.

I didn't exactly say that. I said that you CAN play with whoever is online at the times you are, but you also CAN friend them. Most online games and game networks like PSN and Xbox Live have "friends lists" or guilds or clans, so you can friend someone that you enjoyed playing with and play more regularly with them. You know how have built up onine friendships over USENET, IRC, Instant Message, and message boards? Gaming works the same way. people have been forming online friendships via gaming ever since the BBS, Quantumlink and Compuserve days.

Where have you been the past 20 years, playing SNES games with babysat kids on a SNES and obsessing over the Tetris infinite spin thing?

Since there aren't as many women and girls in Video Gaming

Who says there aren't? The ESA begs to differ with you:

http://www.theesa.com/facts/pd...

Adult women are a larger gaming demographic than teenage boys!

You do realize that majority of gamers are adults, right?

True, only 18 percent of gamers in 2011 were under 18, but I'd guess a not insignificant fraction of the other 72 percent are gaming with their kids. And if the majors continue to tailor their first-person shooters and gangster simulators to the M-rated market, this leaves the E, E10+, and T markets open.

Let's shed some more light on the subject here with some more data.

Market research on computer games by studios:

http://www.theesa.com/facts/pd...
- "Women 18 or older represent a significantly greater portion of the game-playing population (31%) than boys age 17 or younger (19%)"
- Women make up 45% of the gaming population

Compare with this Time Business article about women in competitive jobs:

http://business.time.com/2010/...
- "...anecdotally at least, it appears the industries and positions with the most competitive work environments tend to pay the most."
- "Females were more likely to pass on the job once they found out part of their pay would be based on their performance versus a co-worker."

Women come to gaming later in life than men. Studies have shown that fast action gaming develops the areas of the brain associated with rapid decision making, so taking into account the predisposition for young boys to play games with big guns in, neurological development means men will be inherently better at the kind of games that come under the e-sports umbrella. Case closed.

Grown men who play with children's toys are creepy.

You almost have a point there. I mean, the average age of game players is 30 years old, so by that definition, if you're a gamer, you're creepy.

An occasional animated show is fine; making it the center of your life is weird.

An occasional football/baseball/basketball/foosball game is fine; making it the center of your life is weird.
An occasional movie is fine; is fine; making it the center of your life is weird.
An occasional book is fine; making it the center of your life is weird.
An occasional opera is fine; making it the center of your life is weird.
Eating the occasional meal is fine; making it the center of your life is weird.
An occasional comic book is fine; making it the center of your life is weird.
Collecting the occasional stamp is fine; making it the center of your life is weird.
Playing the occasional guitar is fine; making it the center of your life is weird.

Anything is weird if you take it to some crazy extreme. Who are you to be the gatekeeper of what hobbies are weird and which ones aren't, based on some arbitrary scale of weirdness?

You're missing the point.
The occasional sports game is fine. But if you're standing in line at the local 6th grade sports game begging for autographs and hanging pictures of 10 year olds on your wall, it's fucking creep.
An occasional movie is fine. But when you're obsessing over a show most children lost interest in years ago, that's fucking creepy.
An occasional book is fine. But when you spend hours reading Dr. Seuss it's a little weird.
An occasional concert is fine, but when you're fighting off a crowd of 10 year old girls to get an autograph from the teenage heart-throb, that's really strange.
Eating applesauce is fine, but when your shopping list consists entirely of baby formula, it's gross.
An occasional comic book is fine, but when you find yourself identifying with plot lines which are easily grasped by 3 year olds, you've got developmental problems.
I'm having trouble with the stamps analogy, as it's not very good to start with.
Playing the occasional instrument is fine, but when you're trying to perform on stage with a Fischer Price band plastic guitar for ages 2 and up, it's very odd.

I agree that anything to the extreme is weird. But it's not an arbitrary scale we're discussing here. We're talking about shit that is specifically tailored for the limited mental, physical, and emotional state of young children or developing teens. When an adult obsesses over such things it's a very strong indicator that he/she has some severe emotional development issues and is literally a child in an adult's body. And yes, that does indeed manifest in a person's ability to work in a Professional environment. So take off your My Little Pony underwear, put down your Smurfs lunchbox, and pick up something which reflects a little better on your ability to deal with real life. Otherwise people are going to assume that you're going to act like a child in other ways, and nobody likes dealing with a grown man who deals with difficult problems at work by crying, shitting his diaper, and hiding under his desk with a pacifier.

Grown men who play with children's toys are creepy.

You almost have a point there. I mean, the average age of game players is 30 years old, so by that definition, if you're a gamer, you're creepy.

An occasional animated show is fine; making it the center of your life is weird.

An occasional football/baseball/basketball/foosball game is fine; making it the center of your life is weird.
An occasional movie is fine; is fine; making it the center of your life is weird.
An occasional book is fine; making it the center of your life is weird.
An occasional opera is fine; making it the center of your life is weird.
Eating the occasional meal is fine; making it the center of your life is weird.
An occasional comic book is fine; making it the center of your life is weird.
Collecting the occasional stamp is fine; making it the center of your life is weird.
Playing the occasional guitar is fine; making it the center of your life is weird.

Anything is weird if you take it to some crazy extreme. Who are you to be the gatekeeper of what hobbies are weird and which ones aren't, based on some arbitrary scale of weirdness?

Maybe you are very mature, but let's face it, most gamers do act like 13 year old boys.

Maybe the 13 year old boys are acting like 13 year old boys, but that just means they are acting their age. But for the rest of the people out there that play video games I doubt that statement is really that valid any more. Don't forget that the Atari 2600 came out in 1977 and that means that even if you were born the same year it came out, you would be roughly 36 years old. Those that grew up playing that console are likely in their mid-40's at this point!

I think the problem is that we really need a better definition of what a "gamer" is anyway. Sure there might be a limited market of hard core players, but the even the ESA says that the average age of players these days is 35 years old.

Lets get past this whole idea of "gamers acting like 13 year old boys" and admit the fact that the vast majority of players are in fact adults and would like to be treated as such, thank you very much.

Only 18% of people who play video games are teenage boys. That argument doesn't make any sense.

You seem offended that someone would have different hobbies than you. This report from ESA (I didn't actually read it, found it through Wikipedia) claims that the average video gamer is 37 years old. Playing computer games is not just for the teens.

I'll pass on the cookie, but thanks for the offer.

They have only reduced their support, rather than fully withdrawn it.

According to Destructoid they are still members of The ESA which still supports SOPA.

Wow, Who would of thought the Entertainment Software Association Would support open source?

Heres the original pdf of the study.

http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2011.pdf

its up from 34 last year apparently. So gamers are ageing 3 years for every 1.

That's nothing! As a father, I age 10 years for every 1.

When I originally submitted it, the post looked like this. However, the link was lost somehow when it was officially posted. Not sure why. In any case, the link to the story is at this link and originally from this site

Oops! I linked Neilsen instead of the ESA document here: http://www.theesa.com/facts/gameplayer.asp

You need to be a subscriber to get the raw sample data information, but their summary is listed here: http://www.theesa.com/facts/gameplayer.asp

I'm not sure why, but my original submission source link did not carry over to the actual post on /. for some reason. First time submitting, so I figure I'll figure it out next time.

In any case, all of these stories out there from C|NET and TIME originate from an ESA Subscriber document posted Monday with analytic data in it. However, you have to be a subscriber to see the raw data. Their official summary of the data is posted here if you are interested.

Personally, I found the data intriguing and since I too fit within their specified demographic (as do many of you), found it news worthy.

The report itself can be found here(pdf). If you look on page 2 you'll see that they claim 29% are over the age of 50 - a demographic that dwarfs the 18% under 18.

I would however take the numbers with a grain, or truckload, of salt. The report nicely avoids explaining it's methodology and likely uses a broad definition of games (Farmville and minesweeper anyone?) and gamers (usually based on the age of the person doing the buying). Moreover it's an industry study which has an interest in projecting the idea of a mature audiance given certain legislative and legal challenges on the horizon.

Oh God dammit I'm an idiot. I did find the original source, it was right on that page. I'd now like to point out, however, that the "study" appears to be a bunch of market research tidbits, for which even the ESA's original presentation doesn't provide a concrete source other than crediting them all to the NPD group. At least, with a few dozen random facts on every page they stop every three pages or so to attribute a particular graph to NPD; other than that and about a million quotes, they don't source anything at all.

This so called study is nothing but the ESA trying to spin a bunch of market research babble into a factual narrative about gamers. They're trying to create the story and history of gaming as it's still developing rather than let it play out naturally.

So now we're posting submissions without sources that try to make an entire discussion out of a single alleged factoid? Seriously?

Most links I can find on this topic point to CNET, but this is the closest thing I can find to the original source. One website high in the google results links to pdf of this supposed study, but the link is dead.

Heres the original pdf of the study.

http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2011.pdf

its up from 34 last year apparently. So gamers are ageing 3 years for every 1.

Why don't you just follow the link to the story to find out how they came up with that figure? It's... right... huh.

Dammit, I've been Soulskilled!

(Thankfully /. 2.0 links to the original submission, and you can get the link from there: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-20069682-17/a-childs-hobby-average-gamer-is-37-years-old/)

Anyway, reading that story, you're probably right, because it turns out the study is by an industry group trying to prove that kids don't play violent video games. They're not exactly what I'd call impartial.

Anyway, since CNet is useless, here's the link to the original study: http://www.theesa.com/newsroom/release_detail.asp?releaseID=147

Yours is a common viewpoint, but it's not true.

"While the average age of a gamer is 35, over a quarter (26%) is age 50 or over. The bulk of gamers are in the 18 to 49 year age range. "

http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2009.pdf.

The 'average' gamer of 35 was 11 when Ultima IV was released.

Also I suspect older gamers are more likely to pay money for their games as opposed to cash strapped teenagers/students.

The average game player is 34 years old and has been playing games for 12 years. At least according to the ESA. http://www.theesa.com/facts/index.asp

Considering the ESA claims the whole industry was worth $11.7 billion in 2008, and that was 22.9% growth form the year before, this does not seem to be a very plausible number, since it nearly amounts to the sum of the value of the whole industry over the five years of this "study".

and are more popular then open source models.

If you believe that, you're a bit out of touch with reality

You've got to be kidding me. Console games almost completely crush PC games in market share these days, with the only thing keeping PC games afloat being The Sims and WoW. And that's before you include the iPhone as a "console".

See: http://www.theesa.com/newsroom/release_detail.asp?releaseID=44

you said "indie developers who want to develop a local multiplayer game are screwed". They're not, users just have to buy the gamepads, just like with a console (none of my consoles came with more than one gamepad).

People already own consoles. They don't already own HTPCs; instead, the PC and the TV are often in separate rooms. So each indie developer that self-publishes for the PC would have to persuade customers to buy not only a $19.95 game but also a $429 computer[1] and a $40 SDTV adapter just for one game. If the major labels also published AAA games designed for gaming HTPCs, it would be easier for a home user to justify buying a gaming HTPC to play indie games, but they don't. ObTopic: Likewise, if there aren't a lot of major label games for an Android phone, it'll be tough to convince gamers to buy one instead of an iPhone.

VGA to TV Converter: $0.99

From the page you linked: "Only works with VGA cards that have TV-Out functionality through the VGA connector. Check your Video Card manual to make sure that your VGA card has TV-Out capability." I researched this cable before when another Slashdot user told me about it. But this cable does not do any signal conversion; instead, it assumes that the video card is outputting SDTV on one of the pins. Some video cards are capable of this, but given the negative reviews I read for a cable nearly identical to the one you linked, popular integrated graphics chipsets are not.

if you can afford a HDTV, you probably can afford a non-integrated graphics card as well)

What laptop computers support non-integrated graphics cards?

[With my HTPC and emulators, I use] Usually N64 or Genesis games I can't find on auction sites

These games are still copyrighted. True, there are authorized emulators that come with ROMs, such as Midway Arcade Treasures, but Project 64 and Kega Fusion are most commonly used with ROMs downloaded from the Internet. Makers of gaming HTPCs aren't going to advertise their products for use with infringing copies of copyrighted games for fear of retaliation from a trade organization representing the games' copyright owners.

[1] Price from Dell.com for a Dell Inspiron slim PC with a discrete card and no monitor.

That doesn't account for younger generations taking up gaming.

It also doesn't account for the fact that it it likely that through any adult generation, the gaming population is falling, not rising, as we have less leisure time. Work, school, kids, relationships... I know of a lot of folks who simply don't game any more because of their lives have changed since they were younger. I suppose that it's likely that gaming populations are rising for those above or near retirement age. But I would imaging this rate to be trivial, and only to be rising because it has nowhere to go but up.

Now compound that with the fact that the population is growing. Each younger generation is larger than the older generations before it. That means that on top of the 5-14 year old generation having a higher percentage of gamers than the 15-24 year old generation, they also have a higher population. Further pushing the average age downward.

This is why I find it hard to believe that the average gamer's age isn't in the 20s somewhere. I don't deny that it's possible, but I'd like to see some real data.

Searching google, I keep coming across this "Fact sheet" by the Entertainment Software Association. It cites no sources, nor does it mention survey methodology. It's further suspect, because it's an industry trade agency. It can be argued that Electronic Gaming as an industry wishes to shed it's image as something just the young do. If it's true, then older people represent an untapped demographic, and shedding that image can go toward correcting it. There is also a more detailed version here (PDF). This version does mention:

The annual research was conducted by Ipsos MediaCT for the ESA. The study is the most in-depth and targeted survey of its kind, gathering data from almost 1,200 nationally representative households that have been identified as owning either or both a video game console or a personal computer used to run entertainment software.

But still no definitions.

A British group also did a survey. Unfortunately, again, no methodology data. Their numbers are quite different too.

I'd love to see some numbers where the questions asked and survey methodology are shown. Especially for a poll that so many have parroted for so long.

That doesn't account for younger generations taking up gaming.

It also doesn't account for the fact that it it likely that through any adult generation, the gaming population is falling, not rising, as we have less leisure time. Work, school, kids, relationships... I know of a lot of folks who simply don't game any more because of their lives have changed since they were younger. I suppose that it's likely that gaming populations are rising for those above or near retirement age. But I would imaging this rate to be trivial, and only to be rising because it has nowhere to go but up.

Now compound that with the fact that the population is growing. Each younger generation is larger than the older generations before it. That means that on top of the 5-14 year old generation having a higher percentage of gamers than the 15-24 year old generation, they also have a higher population. Further pushing the average age downward.

This is why I find it hard to believe that the average gamer's age isn't in the 20s somewhere. I don't deny that it's possible, but I'd like to see some real data.

Searching google, I keep coming across this "Fact sheet" by the Entertainment Software Association. It cites no sources, nor does it mention survey methodology. It's further suspect, because it's an industry trade agency. It can be argued that Electronic Gaming as an industry wishes to shed it's image as something just the young do. If it's true, then older people represent an untapped demographic, and shedding that image can go toward correcting it. There is also a more detailed version here (PDF). This version does mention:

The annual research was conducted by Ipsos MediaCT for the ESA. The study is the most in-depth and targeted survey of its kind, gathering data from almost 1,200 nationally representative households that have been identified as owning either or both a video game console or a personal computer used to run entertainment software.

But still no definitions.

A British group also did a survey. Unfortunately, again, no methodology data. Their numbers are quite different too.

I'd love to see some numbers where the questions asked and survey methodology are shown. Especially for a poll that so many have parroted for so long.

I bet they will never push for a law against violent MOVIES, what with Hollywod present in the state. Games, however, are mostly made out-of-state, e.g. Austin TX has a lot of video game companies.

I think the general thrust of your comment is correct. The video games lobby is nowhere near the Hollywood lobby. However, I live in Los Angeles and within a few miles of my house are offices of EA, THQ and Activision. According to the ESA, California companies employ the most people, accounting for 40% of the employment in the US video game industry. Texas is also in the top 5. I think this kind of brouhaha has more to do with relative age. Movies have been around for as long as our baby boomer overlords can remember. Video games (particularly in their current form) have not. They are newer, so they're a more convenient scapegoat.

you are so woefully wrong about that.

75% of gamers are over 18.

26% of gamers are over 50.

43% of gamers are women over 18.

your argument is quite inadequate

http://www.theesa.com/facts/gameplayer.asp

So they'll be directing the ads for lovers of painfully loud music to 50-year-olds, while the gaming ads will go to children despite the average gamer being 35. May I suggest a few more surveys before they roll out their new tech?

In 2006, the video game industry contributed $3.8 billion to the US GDP, not to mention $1.7 billion to California's economy (our friendly representative's home state). The industry also directly and indirectly supplies over 80,000 jobs nationwide. Source (something this bill conspicuously lacks.)
Although some economists remain optimistic about the continued success of the industry, I can't help but wonder how restrictive, unwarranted, baseless legislation like this and other "nanny" bills will affect the health of not just the video game industry but the US economy as a whole. Care to address that, representative who has no business talking about video games, ever?

On another note, this bill would have all games rated "T" or higher branded with a warning. For some perspective, according to the ESRB, video games rated "T" include:
SingStar ABBA - "A karaoke music game in which players sing along with music videos featuring the disco group, ABBA." This one got its "T" rating because of its lyrics.
Better slap that warning on every ABBA cd too.

Commander In Chief - Geo-Political Simulator - "A political simulation game in which players can assume the role of the head of state or government of a real country. Using text-based menus, players can enter military alliances, monitor political party activity, make economic and social decisions, and retain overall popularity."
I'll be damned if my kids ever get near this travesty.

Prinny: Can I Really Be the Hero? - "A 2D side-scrolling action game in which players control a talking penguin on its whimsical quest to retrieve a fabled ultra-delicious dessert."
Just... wow.

Thank you, Joe Baca, for not only wasting everyone's time but actively distracting from any of the real problems facing this country.

http://www.theesa.com/

http://www.theesa.com/policy/antipiracy.asp

Next time href it.

http://www.theesa.com/

http://www.theesa.com/policy/antipiracy.asp

Next time href it.

Re-entry vehicle? Getting a little far away from our core competencies are we, the ESA? Oh... we're not talking about videogames.

I'm 25, and that's old in the gaming world

I recently read that the average age of a gamer is 35 years old. You've got a ways to go yet!

http://www.theesa.com/about/members.asp

Fuck 'em. You say that like they'll actually take it into account, but pandering to those retards isn't going to do us any good. They'll always find something to moan about because it's some new kind of media, they're always 'bad'. The truth doesn't matter to them. Meanwhile, we'll be stuck with our kid-friendly happy touchy feely games even though gamers have an average age of 35 god damn years old.

Killing children was never an objective in the game, if you did it people hated you. They hunted you down and killed you. It added to the game's "shit happens and it happens bad" atmosphere; children die in movies all the time because it's emotionally powerful. Nobody would complain if it were any other medium but a computer game.

Link to TFR: http://www.theesa.com/about/ESA_2008_AR.pdf

Google it my friend, It's not hard. Here's a quick search. Would you care to back up why being lazy is acceptable... ;) http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Wii+%2B+development+cost&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Read this article about how the Wii costs about half the price of the other toys to develop for, it's fun:
http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/features/cost-of-development-greatly-favors-wii-say-publishers/69714/

There's nothing marginal about 50%+ less for Wii dev cost.

And $2000 for a SDK is not an arm an a leg. Here's another link to save you the aggravation of searching:
http://www.warioworld.com/apply/wii.html

As noted by the other response to your post, the Wii shares many similarities to its predecessor, which make it easier and cheaper to develop for, especially for the studios that put their time in on the Cube. And just to clear something up, there's nothing last-gen about a Wii's performance or the tech it uses, which is 6 years more advanced.

A publisher doesn't need to sell nearly as many units on a Wii as it does on the PS3 or 360 in order to see a return on their investment. This this is do to the lower development cost and simpler hardware configuration. **Namco stated that it needs to sell 500,000 PS3 games to make a profit as an example. Compare this to 165,000, which is what I've read is needed for the Wii.
** http://www.gamespot.com/news/6162509.html

So just because a game sells more units on a 360 as an example, that doesn't mean it has made a profit for its publisher/developer. With the Wii's HUGE user base for its relatively short life on the market along with its "significantly" lower development cost, publishers/developers have a better chance of seeing a profit on a Wii game than the PS3 or 360.

OMG!! I'm using this 12 year old kid term, because you used HARDCORN -- now I must rant. First off, let me present you with a link that disproves your myth that kids that like to aim with their thumb and deem blood as mature, buy more games. The supposed hardcore gamer is a joke. I've been gaming since the age of pong. There's nothing hardcore about most console gamers, since they're used to games that have generally been dumbed down do to the limiting nature of a gamepad. Compared to the games I played in the eighties and ninteies, games now days are a walk in the park. Sure, they look way better, but they're way less sophisticated... I loved the complexity that is SYSTEM SHOCK, I hated the simpleton that is BioShock.

Anway, here's the link, read fact number "4."
http://www.theesa.com/facts/top_10_facts.php
The average age of the most frequent game buyer is 38 years old. In 2007, 92 percent of computer game buyers and 80 percent of console game buyers were over the age of 18.

Also notice that the average gamer is age 33, not the teenage kid publishers have been marketing to for the past 8 years, so guys hat are in their twenties now. ;) :p

Kids won't have access to a flash cart -- unless they have parents like my friends. Guys my age buy our games and on that note, buy your DS games you pirate! :p

<]=)

Ten million World of Warcraft subscribers would disagree with this assertion.

Take a look at the revenue and unit sales graphs here. Ten million is a lot for a PC game. It's a minority for the total gaming market.

Certain genres of games work best on the PC. As a fraction of the total gaming market, however, those genres aren't the majority anymore, and haven't been for a while, and aren't growing as fast as the rest. Hey, I'm not saying I'm happy about it, but that's what the data looks like to me.