Quantification of EQ Players

Nick Yee writes: "As part of a psychology thesis project, I collected data from about 4000 individual EverQuest players who together filled out about 25,000 surveys that focused on many facets of personal and social dynamics in real-time 3D immersive virtual worlds, such as: gender differences, gender-bending, addiction, friendships, romantic relationships, people who play with romantic partners and so on. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected. "

Comments

I didn't find any of this especially...

[mystery_bowler]

...surprising. Students seem to be the largest demographic, which makes sense because students (especially at the college level) tend to have more free time on their hands (assuming they are providing their classes with the average level of ignoring). Which lends itself to the lowest household income being the highest demographic, since students don't tend to have a lot of income.

What surprises me so much about EQ (I'm a former EQ'er myself) is how much the game appeals to housewives and stay-at-home moms. My mother, who is in her 50s, has been playing for two years now and has gotten no less than two other housewives into EQ. My mother may not be a fair example, after all, this is a woman who bought a Playstation just for Final Fantasy VII, but the other housewives are prime examples of people who had never played a PC game in their lives (and few console games). Yet, something in EQ's mechanics and social structure hooks them and won't let go. I'd like to see a more in-depth analysis of that demographic, simply because I don't think anyone, including Verant, foresaw them becoming a significant portion of the crowd.

Just as a snide/side note: When I read that a good percentage of the EQers in the survey said they play with a romantic partner, I wondered aloud how many of those EQers are playing with a romantic partner they met through the game and never in real life.

Re:I didn't find any of this especially...

[Kirruth]

Well, alot of women (including myself) get into these games because the men they know in real life are playing them. Of the three women in my guild, two have husbands - you know, real ones they sleep with - who play the game.

When I was doing alot of IRC, the stay at home moms were a big proportion of the people in the chat-room I opped. Not surprising, really: the computer provides a lifeline to adult conversation. These games provide a 3D interactive environment in which to chat and meet people - what's not to like?

Re:I didn't find any of this especially...

[dswensen]

Of the three women in my guild, two have husbands - you know, real ones they sleep with - who play the game.

Married people, sleeping together? Okay, now who's living in a fantasy world?

Addictiveness of videogames

[autopr0n]

You know what's interesting about this, is how 'addictive' these games are. A lot of people playing them seem to joke about it, and those who no longer do say they've 'quit' the same way a smoker would. A poster here a while ago mentioned 'nerfing' the game - making advancement based on repetitive tasks rather then pure skill - and how doing so makes the game more addictive.

Now, I'm sure ever quest was designed the way it was to be fun, not purely addictive, but suppose a game truly were? It might be an interesting thing to do, design a game purely for its addictive qualities, maybe a little immoral though :P.

I also wonder if perhaps as interactive entertainment becomes more pervasive if we aren't going to see something truly addictive... so much so that it could ruin someone's life (not that EQ hasn't. There are a couple instances of marriages being ruined by the game/ jobs lost, etc). Would the government step in and regulate the games industry? Should it?

Personally, I'm against the 'war on drugs', but I don't think a totally unregulated drug market would be a good thing either. Are non-chemical psychological 'drugs' really that different?

Re:Addictiveness of videogames

[Rogerborg]

• Personally, I'm against the 'war on drugs', but I don't think a totally unregulated drug market would be a good thing either. Are non-chemical psychological 'drugs' really that different?

Different from some chemical drugs, but not the ones you might think.

Alcohol, nicotene and caffiene are all highly toxic and physiologically addicting. When you come off them, you suffer physical (not just psychological) effects. That's what makes them so hard to kick.

Cocaine on the other hand, is not physiologically addicting. You'll miss and crave the hit it gives you, but you have to go through the sweats and shakes. You might start using it again, you might even take to crime to do it, but you'll do it through conscious choice.

In that respect, EverQuest's nickname of EverCrack is quite appropriate. You'll miss playing it. You'll miss the good feelings and memories that you associate with playing it. But you should be able to come off it quickly, and with no harmful effects in the short or long term, if you want to.

Incidentally, if this sounds like I'm advocating cocaine over alcohol, nicotene or caffiene, I am. Ask a casualty doctor about alcohol, or a ward doctor about nicotene. Caffiene in the same quantities as cocaine will kill you stone dead. We only tend to think of it as harmless because we take it in small and well controlled amounts, and it's cheap and uncut with random crap.

In fact, it's binge abuse of any drug that damages you (physically and socially) and over use of an expensive drug (note: the illegality causes the cost) that damages society through crime. There's a similar argument to be made for game playing. Small and regular never hurt anybody. It's when you play for hours or days, igoring friends and family (and perhaps work) and your health, that it becomes a problem. Unfortunately, immersive and flat fee games like EverQuest are exactly the sort of games that can facilitate this damage.

Note: facilitate. I'd no more try to ban something like EverQuest than I would cocaine. The problem is the people with addictive personalities, not in the addicting substance. However, I would (given World Dictator powers) try and encourage light use. Bells and reminders, a need for characters to sleep in real time, perhaps (maybe, possible) even an enforced daily, weekly or monthly time limit, although that would be a last resort and probably counterproductive.

oh geez....

[vex24]

...and I thought playing EQ was a waste of time! ;)

Not EQ, but a precursor...

[Iffy Bonzoolie]

Just as a snide/side note: When I read that a good percentage of the EQers in the survey said they play with a romantic partner, I wondered aloud how many of those EQers are playing with a romantic partner they met through the game and never in real life.

Just to flag myself as lame: I met my first girlfriend on a MUD. Actually, I met her while hanging out in real life with other people that I met through the MUD... but whatever... once I had a girlfriend, I stopped playing the MUD. I used to spend hours and hours (and hours) on that MUD, but during the time I was dating her, I quitmud, and never went back to any MMORPG (4 years so far), even after we broke up.

I guess my point is that I used MUD as a substitute for real-life interaction. When I finally had the opportunity to be with other people IRL, MUD didn't interest me in any way, and, in general, I was much happier.

On the other hand, it's not like I would be out clubbing at night without MUD... it was at least some sort of social interaction, one I was actually comfortable with, and one I wouldn't have got otherwise.

Anyway, your last comment reminded me of them old days.

-If

Looking at the numbers

[BelDion]

Though I`m not a whiz at math or statistics, my rudamentry understanding of both leads me to two conclusions:

1) There's only a 16% chance that HotBabe13 is female.

2) There's only a 13.5% chance that if she is a she, she is single and not dating..

So, for anybody I meet, I have about a 2% chance that they a single female. Leaving out other variables, I like those odds! :)