EverQuest - Not Just For Geeks?

DJPenguin writes "In this article at the BBC, a respected psychologist has co-authored a study into people who play games online, which breaks some of the stereotype of online gamers." This is similar in the results as the survey data we did of open source developers. The stereotypes and realities are often *very* different.

Comments

Re: Respected

[iconian]

In this article at the BBC, a respected psychologist has co-authored a study into people who play games online, which breaks some of the stereotype of online gamers.

Respected no more.

Debunking popular myths

[dtolton]

It's good to see a study that debunks the myths being propagated in
the media. Those of us who play online games know that the vast
majority of the player base are not teenagers, rather they tend to be
older, in their mid-twenties and up. I've known a few teen-age kids
that played, however they usually weren't very successful and didn't
stick with it long. Although not all teen-agers are this way, many
of the ones that I've seen play were very impatient, they just wanted
to level really fast and get all the "uber" weapons so they would
have an "uber" character.

Most of the MMORG's that I've played require a significant amount of
patience, diligence and some amount of strategy in order to develop a
highly successful character. The few teenagers I saw playing these
games didn't seem to excercise those traits in abundance.

I'd like to see them extend this study to "computer" games in
general, and maybe compare those results to the demographics of
people who play console based games. I suspect that console based
games have a significatly higher population of teenagers than
computer or desktop based games.

Re:Debunking popular myths

[madgeorge]

I have to disagree with you. True, the image that every MMORPG addict is a pimple-faced, immature brat needs to be addressed because it's just not accurate. I have a lot of friends my age (32) and older that I play with, but I also play with the teenagers. And some of them are quite mature. You recognize the teenagers who give themselves away as little turds, but the ones you don't know are the mature players who really know how to play and enjoy the game. What's more, I have more friends (my age) that own an Xbox than own any MMORPG. If there is any difference between player base it will be based on subscription based games versus games that are only a one-time hit on the pocketbook. But with game cards available for most subscription based games, credit cards aren't a barrier any longer. As long as your allowance or job at the mall gives you $10/month, you can play EQ.

Now, whether gamers are geeks or not, I think it's tautologous. Geeks are people who, among other interests, enjoy video (PC, console, etc) games. All of us have a little geek in us. If not, want one? :)

--madgeorge (little geek)

Re:Debunking popular myths

[JohnFluxx]

Just because someone is immature, doesn't mean they are young.

For work, I would "hang around" on a mobile adhoc network mailing list - not really the sort of place where you would expect to get kids. But the emails of people asking for information etc were sometimes unbelievable - rude, demanding, ignorant - often all at once. And I don't mean foreigners with just a poor grip on english.
I honestly cannot picture the kind of person that sends such emails..

Re:Debunking popular myths

[Erik Hollensbe]

I agree. I don't subscribe (literally) to the "you must pay to play" section of video games out there, but the games I do play a lot (Counter-Strike and NWN), are riddled with older and younger groups alike.

Counter-Strike, a skill-based game that requires a *lot* of time to be "good", is comprised highly of a group of people between the ages of 16-22, that is, the group that is most likely to be jobless and not going to school. Playing on a sick day or when I was out of work, I noticed the people during the day (especially during the summer), were a much lower grade of player on a personal level, but were significantly more skilled. The converse, was that (I have trouble with insomnia, when I was out of work it was particularily bad) the people during the nighttime in the servers on the N.A. continent were full of intelligent, but poorly skilled people. Most of them worked graveyard, or was your stereotypical "night owl" hacker type. A good portion of them were computer savants. 5-10pm was the best time to meet the players I enjoyed the most. Playing on the right server is the ultimate way to find the best players. Our clan server (We are not a competing clan, in fact, my wife and several others' wives are in the clan as well) pretty much only has activity during that time. The majority of our group is 22 and older, our oldest is >40, IIRC. A lot of them hold well-paying positions in the bay area.

NWN, on the other hand, seemed like a lost cause to me at first. NWN doesn't really encourage the persistent world concept, and tons of people were trying ot build them, but the fact that it's so hard to make long-standing quests or quests that aren't very repetitive left a lot of well-designed but mostly powergaming servers. A lot of the players were good people, but still, there wasn't a lot of questing and role-playing being done.

I found another server, City of Arabel that really shines in the role-playing department. You'll never get banned for not role-playing, but you'll get bored really quick. The quests are designed to get you up to around level 3 on your own -- after that, you pretty much have to role play and be involved in DM-related quests (several are run a day) to enjoy it at all. I don't believe there is a character above 15, and then, there aren't many of those guys anyways.

However, my foray with Diablo was crap indeed. Sure, you had a lot of fantasy-loving geeks there, but when you don't really have any goal other than to get your character up to the highest level with the best items, there's not much to guarantee you're going to be with good players.

what a coincidence...

[DeadSea]

• About 85% of players were male.
• A "significant minority" (15%) adopt a character gender opposite to their own.

Could it be that the 15% of female players take on guys names?

My college roommate played one of these games as a female for a while. He got hit on so much that he said he didn't see how anybody could play as a female.

Re:what a coincidence...

[Babbster]

I think the problem is that there are so many people playing. If there are 100 people in a particular zone (discrete area of the world of Norrath in EQ) then according to the study 40 of those players will be under 19. Just as significant would be the fact that older players are going to tend to stick with their primary character longer, thus an even higher percentage of players in a low-level area will be kids - boom, you've got a breeding ground for sexual harassment.

Of course, even if the study is way off, all it takes are one or two kids being jerks to ruin a person's experience in the game.

Re:what a coincidence...

[JaredOfEuropa]

I have played both male and female characters, and I never noticed much of a difference in other people's attitudes towards me. There was some difference but not a lot. I guess it all depends on the crowd you hang out with.

I do know a case of a female playing a male character. I was rather surprised when I met her in real life, expecting a 'him' instead.

But, what is a geek?

[villain170]

I admit, I agree with the article that it's not just "pimply-faced teenagers." However, this does not reconcile the geekiness factor of the players. Last year, I had a CS professor who always talked about playing this game and I have to admit, he was a loser -- great teacher, but loser nonetheless.

Just because a lot of people are taking part doesn't mean it's not just all the geeks. In fact, the world probably has more geeks in it than non-geeks.

Hmmm

[Tyreth]

I may be the odd one out, but I never considered EverQuest players to be largely geeks.

I imagined them to be ordinary people who use computers in their spare time, not those who make a career out of it.

Geeks, Normal People, and MMORPGs

[Vodak]

I would have thought that the sale figures of Everquest subscriptions would have broken the geek myth, The numbers should have shown by now that there aren't that many geeks in the world so normal people have to be playing MMORPGs.

EverQuest is for everybody!

[Rylfaeth]

Haven't you all seen the commercial for the PS2 port of EverQuest? The players appear to all be friends from different racial backgrounds, know martial arts in real life and like to strike dynamic poses when making affirmative statements such as 'Let's do this!'

It all seems to work out too:

The white guy plays the archetypal white male barbarian character.

The asian girl plays the underdressed yet powerful female wizard character.

The black guy plays the dirty green ogre barbarian character.

Everybody has their place! LET'S DO THIS!!

-Rylfaeth

Money?

[CptSkydrop]

I may be horribly wrong but I beleive everquest costs money to play, you have to pay a subscription to the game?

If so I think everquest maybe a little miss-representative of the set of people that this research found less of.

why? money... People under 18 don't have credit cards, which is a big barrier in getting money out of them and younger members of society generally have less income, or none at all (intermitent at best).

Therefore, no regular flow of money, no everquest?
Take a game you pick up off the shelf and pay once for, the games that teenagers can afford...

I don't mean to troll, just pointing out an observation

Re:Money?

[Rylfaeth]

Young members of society generally have less income but tend to spend far more on entertainment products than older members of society. This article (mcommercetimes.com), for instance, "predicts that five-to-24-year-olds will spend 13.4 billion euros ($14.24 billion) on mobile data services this year, and more than 20 billion euros ($21.26 billion) in 2006."

Lack of credit card is almost a thing of the past with new types of cards aimed specifically at young people that require parental cosign or are fixed-limit debit cards or linked to a checking account.

-Rylfaeth

Re:Money?

[Babbster]

Actually, Everquest doesn't even require a credit card anymore. You can pick up a three-month pre-paid game card at a computer store for $40. Obviously, it still costs more to play that, say, Civilization, but there's no banking barrier to entry anymore.

Re:Money?

[Casca]

Eh, I don't know. When I was in high school, I usually had more money that I realistically knew what to do with. I just worked weekends at a video store to earn it. I imagine I could have come up with the 12$ a month EQ costs.

Credit card? Who says a teen can't get a credit card these days? The way credit companies are handing them out these days I'm not sure you even need a pulse to get one. EQ will even let you buy a gamecard, commonly sold at computer game stores in malls, which you can then use to enable your account.

I would definitely consider myself to be a geek, but the majority of the people that play EQ that I have gotten to know to some extent in real-life do not appear to fit many definitions of geekdome. Most are just middle aged folks that found something interesting to do.

Could time be a factor?

[ewanrg]

Perhaps the reason the game extends far beyond the "geek" community is that "real" geeks don't have that much time to devote to playing games?
Or perhaps I'm just showing my age again... :-)

Re:Could time be a factor?

[seanadams.com]

"real" geeks don't have that much time to devote to playing games

Yet somehow, there's always time for Slashdot...

Re:Could time be a factor?

[simong_oz]

... Or perhaps I'm just showing my age again... :-)

It's all right - I'll join you. :-)

I used to play computer games all the time when I was 15-21. I could actually pick up one of those rpg games and play the entire game the whole way through and discover everything there was to discover ... all in a week (or less). Now, quite a few years later, I find I just don't have that sort of time to devote to games - either to learning the controls (I used to love my flight sims and micro-managing turn-based strategy games) or just in getting anywhere in the game.

I'm not trying to say gaming is not having a life, but I just can't fathom how people find the time to play these games that require a lot of time devoted to them. I spend most of my work day looking at a computer screen of some description or other - I can't think of anything worse than going home after work and sitting down in front of a computer. Much less spending my weekend doing it as well.

yeh, I think I'm just getting old ...

Where do these steriotypes come from

[asciimonster]

I was just wondering where these steriotypes come from? Are they based on real people which are extapolated to include the masses?

In my opinion, steriotypes are a way to visualize the unknown. It give you the false impression that you know everything about something you have never seen before, thereby removing the fear of the unknown.

(I'm throwing a ball here, please feel free to reply :) )

that's interesting...

[chillax137]

I always thought that stereotypes were accurate. It's kind of a shock to find out that they are different from the truth.

Re:that's interesting...

[Mr Guy]

Stereotypes, at some point, are accurate. That's how they get to be stereotypes. This doesn't become a problem until you imply cause and effect to your stereotype in order to perpetuate it long after it is no longer accurate.

What I mean is, "Knives are sharp" is a good stereotype, and one you'd better heed if you want to learn to juggle. All you are doing is assuming because something is a knife, it is most likely sharp. Knives are a fairly static entity design wise, and most likely will remain largely sharp objects.

People, however, are not largely static, and stereotypes ought to change more. "Black people are uneducated" is an example of this. This is a bad stereotype, because, while it was true at least in the United States for some time, the CAUSE and effect wasn't accurate. A better stereotype is that "Poor people attend less qualified schools". (A rich black man doesn't have any more trouble getting his kids into Harvard than a rich white one.) Hopefully, this is also a stereotype that will outlive its usefulness.

My point of that ramble is that stereotypes are good; they are what protect you from needing every peice of information about all situations in order to make a reasonable decision. You'd never be able to get through a stoplight without stereotypes ( Most people will obey the law and stop when their light is red, so it is probably safe for me to go when my light is green). Stereotypes are bad and innaccurate only when they are making improper assumptions. Like pure logic, the equation can be valid, but if the assumptions are wrong it is still useless.

not geeks?

[Jason Mark]

I don't know... how do his findings prove the Everquest gamers aren't geeks (see snip below).

And did you see this guy's picture. You just have to look glance at him to know that he's a gamer geek. I can safely say this b/c I'm a computer/gaming geek with a goatee.

The gist of this article is
"According to Dr Mark (who's a single guy that plays video games over 40 hours a week), all the single guys who play video games 40 hours a week weren't geeks."

I guess he figures he can get plenty of support on slashdot. Maybe a sort of revenge of the nerds type thing???

---snip---
Its key findings included:
* Over 60% of players were older than 19.
* About 85% of players were male.
* Fifteen percent of people play for more than 50 hours a week.
* A "significant minority" (15%) adopt a character gender opposite to their own.

Professor Griffiths said: "There is an image that people who play online games excessively are nerdy and geeky... This is not the case."
---/snip---

We needed a study why?

[Chris_Stankowitz]

From the article:

"The findings dismiss the stereotype of a pimple-faced teenager locked in his bedroom.

Instead, today's player is just as likely to be a well-paid professional - male or female - aged in their 40s.

OK, so we all knew that those pimple faced kids that played D&D in their basements grew up and got good jobs. We didn't need a study for that. The sterotype still holds true, its just that the first generation of "Geeks" are all grown up now. And Still geeks.

The Geek Shall inherit the earth....of Norath that is. This is

The Rogue in Diablo II kicks it

[DeadSea]

Actually, come to think of it, I usually played Diablo II as the chick with the bow. The long range weapon really suit my style of play.

If you dropped the bow so you weren't carrying a weapon, the default attack for this character is the high kick. I ran into some bug where the rendering engine woudn't know you were carrying a weapon but you still could shoot arrows. You'd do a high kick and a arrow would shoot out your crotch.

and sometimes they're not that different at all.

[goldcd]

MMORG are mainly played by men. A significant number of whom can quite happily spend a significant amount of time playing, without anybody missing their social input into civilisation.
(Oh and that attractive elfish maiden you've been chasing after IS probably a 43yr old oracle dba - you should listen to those little voices of doubt in future).

I wonder why the myths happen...

[Vodak]

Why would the media be creating such myths saying that geeks are the only ones spending their countless hours on the internet playing games?

Let us take the great folks at CBS/Viacom/Infinity for our example. This is the same company that brings you Howard Stern, MTV, VH1, Nickelodeon. Why would they want people to be on the internet? Young kids should be watching Rocket Power, teenagers should be watching TRL and everyone else should be watching I love the 80s. That is unless you have work, then damnit you should be listening to Stern.

It's not just for geeks

[esanbock]

It's for nerds and dorks, too.

Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics

[sielwolf]

Am I the only one who saw no collelation between the stats in the article and the "its just not geeks" results?

The first was that it was overwhelmingly male. Um, isn't that a classic "geek" stereotype? Maybe if the numbers were more 50/50 (like I assume The Sims are) I'd be a little more swayed.

Secondly is the predominance of "19 and older". Well gee, what do a lot of people do when they turn 18? Go to college and live with a fat broadband connection. I'd be more impressed if it said the mean age was 32 or something. But then age has nothing to do with geekiness.

In truth I can't think of a statistic off of the top of my head that could prove the geekiness of a gaming community. Probably the only one would be if the statistics were more normal (more ethnic, gender, income diversity, instead of being primarily white, primarily male, primarily middle class like most things geeky). It wasn't like this guy bugged a High School football lockerroom and heard them talk on and on about their 40th level elf sorcerers.

Re:Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics

[IIRCAFAIKIANAL]

It wasn't like this guy bugged a High School football lockerroom and heard them talk on and on about their 40th level elf sorcerers.

I bet the coach would freak out if he heard them talking about "buffing" each other though...

these games are the devil.

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, these games deserve fda regulation more than say crack cocaine. I recently managed to break free and sell my account for dark age of camelot (www.darkageofcamelot.com). Finall tally? 142 DAYS played. (3408 hours). In this time i could've gotten a phd in nuclear phisics, or made 25 thousand dollars working at mcdonalds for minimum wage!

Friends don't let friends play these games....

Glad he doesn't think that it's a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

with 15% of the respondents playing for more than 50 hours a week, and around 40% playing for 40 or more hours a week. When does it become a problem? When it hits 60 hours a week? 70?

Gaming: Also for strippers!

[CTD]

Boy do I not feel vindicated. Ok, so all gamerrs are not geeks. How much did this guy get paid for this "study"? Sheesh.

Simple logic tells you this. Look at the console explosion. Over the years more and more people brought games into their homes. Usually through consoles. Not all of these people are "geeks". Some are too stupid to deserve that honor.

Still, we've had gaming in the household for over a generation now, it's plainly obvious that it's not just for geeks anymore. In fact, I know a stripper who plays MMOG's. Whenever I see her character online I can't decide if I should see if she wants to hunt loot, or if I should start masturbating and giving her all of my loot, but I digress...

Games make as much money as the movies, we are beyond the saturation point, and this is not news to anyone save for geeks and nerds who are certain that nobody understands them.

I'm a geek. I get a nice paycheck. Women are shallow. They like money. Come on guys, simple logic. Go score some snapper!

3 to 4 hours of TV per night?

[handy_vandal]

From the article:

A quarter of those questioned said they played for more than 41 hours a week.

But Dr Davies does not think this is unhealthy.

He said: "Most people I know spend about 3-4 hours a night watching TV... so in many cases it is just a substitution of entertainment rather than some unfortunate development in their lifestyle."

Most people he knows watch three to four hours of TV per night? Sheesh! Get a social group!

Three to four hours of TV per night will turn your brain to cheese, people!

Everquest

[Quill_28]

Is anyone starting to see EQ as a problem?

I don't/won't play EQ because I know I could easily spend way too much time playing this game.

I don't many people who play EQ(I am married with children) But I do know a few, and from them and what I can tell

Are people getting serious addicted to EQ like a drug? I know people joke and call it EverCrack but
how big of a problem is it?

Are marriages, grades, family lives failing because of this game?

Ho-hum

[Dark Lord Seth]

The stereotypes and realities are often *very* different.

Someone give Hemos a medal for this one.

Seriously, what's this all about? Someone just proved that EQ doesn't only spawn 16 y/o with a record of sexual harassment. Of course EQ has sane people, normal players and a whole wad of "John Doe"s running around, having fun (or not) in a non-offensive way. Same thing with CS. A bunch of people I know IRL play CS and lo and behold: They aren't complete idiots. One of them is probably one of the coolest and calmest people I've met thus far. Yet I myself still do associate CS with 14 year olds struggling for online acceptance by being creative with the english language and various symbols and numbers, while EQ still is a stereotypic hunting ground for 16 y/o kids suffering from pure hormone rage. It's not because things are like that; it's just because of the vocal majority of a game/community or the bad part which has been highlighted by others.

There's a difference between making fun of/using stereotypes and actually believing them.

Similar studies

[Anonymous Coward]

here.

The thing is

[Apreche]

As others have pointed out the reason only older people play Everquest is because younger people don't have credit cards. If its pay to play you needs dough and a job.

Also, of course it's not only nerds playing. Video gaming has been mainstream since the NES. People from all walks of life have been playing video games since the 80s. That's not news. Tell me when non-nerds are using linux and I'll be shocked.

Lastly, Everquest does indeed suck.

this old slashdot article tells it like it is. End of story.

The problem with MMO games is that social factors directly influence gameplay. The people who make games only know how to deal with technological and game design problems. I strongly believe that there are no technological solutions to social problems.

Selective Addiction

[GeekDork]

The single most important thing that - IMHO - makes EverQuest and other MMORPGs differ from chemical drugs is that it's far more selective. You really have to be inclined towards that type of game for it to become a problem. Me and others I know started playing some of those games, be it Ultima Online, Everquest, Dark Age of Camelot or whatever and then just quit it after some time because we just didn't find the fun part in it in spite of being the exact stereotype (male single "nerds" with too much time on our hands).

A chemical drug that causes physical or psychical addiction does so far more indiscriminately; unless you've got a very strange metabolism, it'll get you. There surely are people that fall for the massive timesinks MMO games are, but I think their number is far less alarming and their problems are far easier to cure than, say, those of alcoholics. It's far less painful. You don't suffer pain or shiver all the time. You just feel like something was missing until one or two weeks later it's all over. I know there are "reports" of people deliberately having their credit card invalidated to make them quit, but there always are some nutcases that just can't stop.

I meet more married couples than teenagers

[greyfeld]

On the Everquest server where I play, I tend to meet more adults than teenagers. Most of the the people I have made aquaintance with are over 30, many are single, but some, like myself are married with children. I tend to find more instances of single over 25 adults, married couples playing or parents and children (yes that includes mother's and sons) than I do lone teenagers.

Many of us are geeky, sure. But we lead real, productive lives where we are IT security admins, high-end speaker designers, reps for Coca-Cola, nurses, health food store owners, etc. To dismiss us as geeks because we play Everquest fails to get to the heart of the matter. We live in disparate places, yet have come together from across the world to PLAY.

That's what we are doing, playing. That's it. When you are playing Everquest, you get a sense of accomplishment, companionship, even friendship that many times is lacking in real life. Now, many of you will say, why aren't you out doing things to help society and other such drivel; get your feeling of accomplishment from that. I can't speak for anyone else, but I have my hands and mind full all day from saving my own little corner of the world. Let me enjoy my freetime a little, okay.

EQ Players - Geeks vs. Normal People

[goldspider]

It's pretty easy to separate the geeks from the 'normal players'.

The normal players have 1 account with maybe 3 or 4 characters.

The geeks have multiple accounts with multiple characters, which they use to help each other out. This requires the use of multiple computers, but hey, what geek doesn't have that?

Time, Well, Spent...

[virg_mattes]

> A quarter of people who responded to the survey said they played for 41 hours or more. If that's the usage of a quarter, how many are playing the game for 20 hours a week or more? What else are you doing outside of your job if you're spending that much time on there?

Substitute television for Everquest and ask the question again. A large percentage of the population of the U.S. watches 40+ hours of TV per week. I personally watch less than an hour of television a week, and so does my wife. We spend our time together after the kids go to bed playing Everquest instead. It's actually much more social than what she did before, and if we feel like talking instead of playing, it's easier to turn away from it because you don't miss anything if you stop.

> Whatever anyone says about the skills developed by games such as EQ, there are important ones that may (that's "may", not "will") be allowed to wither on the vine, like the ability to interact well with others in social situations.

See above. it's a lot more interactive than what many people choose for relaxation.

> Having been one of these people who spent every waking hour in front of a monitor, when not at work, in the past I can't overstate too much the importance of getting out and interacting for real. The geeky stereotype comes about when you really are using EQ as a replacement for more social activities.

Agreed, but be careful about how you say that. As I stated above I and my wife (and most of our in-game friends) use it as a replacement for less social activities, and that's one of the things that this study is trying to put forward.

Virg

Healthy, Normal

[barryfandango]

"Most people I know spend about 3-4 hours a night watching TV... so in many cases it is just a substitution of entertainment rather than some unfortunate development in their lifestyle."

I'd say 3-4 hours of TV/Everquest a night is certainly an unfortunate development in anybody's lifestyle. My God! I would have to break up my band, dump my girlfriend, stop riding my bike and sever ties with my family to make this much time.

Re: Respected

[Vexar]

Agreed. I'm trying to imagine the parents of this respected psychologist saying "darn that kid, he should get outside and play with other kids." I have no respect for any psychologist who finds it acceptable for someone to sink 40 hours a week into a single video game. There's so much more to life than what comes on a 15-21 inch glowing screen with stereo speakers. I wonder whether the guy would say it is healthy for people to spend 40 hours a week having sex? I mean, "it's not an addiction, they just really like it?" 40 hours a week drinking or watching porn "it's not an addiction, they just really like it?" Okay, this guy obviously didn't read the slashdot article about the kid in Asia who died from dehydration/sleep deprivation/constipation because he played video games for 80 hours straight. Let's not forget that psychologists around the world think pedophilia is healthy for both parties. Is it any wonder that people who first get into psychology do so because of the "profound effect it has had on close family members?" A case has been made that this psychologist is a nutcase. 40 hours a week playing Yahoo! Towers is not an addiction, it is a nightmare. If you want social interaction at odd hours of the night, get a night job at a gas station. Pick the right neighborhood, and I guarantee you it will be exciting. -- Vexar (the original)

Re:Money? -- Make money

[uwbbjai]

Yeah it may cost money for subscription of the game, but I also know a lot of people who trade/sell their characters, armours, and other items for money. In fact, they are making quite a bit of money from selling their goodies. Keep in mind, teenagers have lots of time to play. The more you pay, the more items you end up collecting. The more you sell, the more you make. I know some people turned to play EQ as a "part time job" because it is an entertaining source of income.

Stupid

[PyroX_Pro]

I know many adults, teens, and kids that come home and watch TV straight away after work, school or whatever. They eat, fold laundry, ect in front of the TV, at 6 hours per day on average.

So if I think that there is nothing good on TV and decide to play everquest instead, an online game which actually allows me to interact with other people for 40 - 50 hours a week, this is a problem?

I do not think that the majority are geeks playing either. Last week I played with an 11 year old, and he was actually keeping up with our group of 23 year olds. I have also played with several 30+ players.

The point is you cannot just apply a general label and age class to anything in life without actual raw data. If sony would give you their demographic information, THEN you can make an argument on that data. I am not talking about the article I am talking about all you "non geek" slashdot readers, ( isn't that an oxy moron ) , that thing that geeks / dorks / virgins are the only ones playing games a lot, ( you forgot crank addicts, they game 280 hours a week ) .

my take

[DenOfEarth]

I used to play video games quite a lot, while I was growing up. It was just a way to pass the time, and I thought the technology was cool enough that I was interested in whatever new stuff came out.

the game playing continued until I went to grad school, where a significant amount of my time is now spent at my computer terminal (my thesis is computer focused). Now I find that when I go home I don't want to sit in front of a screen, even if the games graphics are nice and shiny and all.

I wonder if anyone else is like me and thinks that those people who spend more time on computers during their work-day are less interested in sitting at the computer when they come home, or if it is just the opposite?

Broot! Warning! Geek objectivity in question.

[ianscot]

Excuse me, doesn't it seem like the author of this "study," by playing the game himself, calls his findings (which read pretty much like simple opinions here) into question? If they'd done a story about a Zoloft study, do you think they might have asked some serious questions about the fact that the head scientist was taking Zoloft himself? Okay, so this is just a fluff story, but still, it's weird -- what stereotype is this debunking, anyway?

Let's see, what did the study find?

1. "today's player is just as likely to be a well-paid professional - male or female - aged in their 40s"
2. "some players are spending a great deal of time on the pastime" (a quarter said more than 41 hours a week)
3. "if you are married with three children, it probably will not go down so well and could cause immense problems... But it is okay for someone who is not in a relationship and does not have other responsibilities"
4. 85% of players were male
5. A significant minority (15%) adopt a character gender opposite to their own.

Is the big "shattered" stereotype that this person is supposed to be a "pimply teenager"? If you met a 40-something man without a significant other who spent 42 hours a week playing a female character online -- he's a Gnome illusionist who wears fetching custom chain mail ensembles -- what would you think? Would you think he wasn't a "geek" or a "nerd" because of his age and income?

(The BBC science staff seems to reprint press releases and call them reporting pretty often. I once told them a story about the anniversary of Prozac was uninformed, and they said "thanks" and promptly reworded the story -- as if they'd never heard of any other antidepressants until I mentioned it. On the one hand, they're responsive, but it makes you wonder about their editors...)

Words of Wisdom with Dr Eternal

[nounderscores]

GET REAL GET SMART GET A BREASTPLATE OF THE VOID

We now return to the tavern where respected psychologist Dr Bloom Eternal helps everquest players through their personal difficulties:

TODAY'S SHOW: When having your pants stolen by your friends after you're dead hurts.

Dr Bloom Eternal: ...And you have to come to a point where you can say "I steal pants because I am too lazy to buy them on e-bay."

Gorak_munchkin: I'm sorry Regolath! You were dead and I needed your pants. I couldn't just buy some because I only earn a pittance an hour at Chuck-e Cheese. I can't believe it's come to this. Me, over 19 and playing everquest for more than 50 hours a week as a woman even though I'm male and I still can't earn enough pp to get pants of my own! Bwahhaaaa!

Regolath_the_third: I accept that you need pants. You could have just asked for them. After all we were going on that quest to find Baldric Slezaf, or kill Baldric Slezaf or something so that you could get some platinum to cover your bare behind. I mean, waiting till I got killed by a barnacle bones was pretty low.

Dr Bloom Eternal: So you feel you're a victim?

Regolath_the_third: I HAD MY PANTS STOLEN!

Gorak_munchkin: If only I could kill some monsters. You'd think that after sacrificing so much simpsons watching time I'd be ok at combat.

Regolath_the_third: I should have stuck to progressquest

Dr Bloom Eternal: Now we're getting somewhere!

Gorak_munchkin: The bottom line is I just suck.

Dr Bloom Eternal: You do need to step up you guys need to negotiate. Obviously you're a good guy....I think you're just lazy, and you like to do things that feel good... I wouldn't care if you had 50,000 hours behind you if you could actually stay alive long enough to start the first part of a quest and you were taking care of your responsibilities as a party member. Isn't that the issue?

Regolath_the_third: Damn straight.

Gorak_munchkin: Hey! I resent the lazy tag. I'm not going to wear it.

Dr Bloom Eternal: In summary - it's not about the pants. It's about why are you not being any good.

BUY Dr BLOOM'S BOOKS AND TAPES: :CHARACTER MATTERS
Change your life with Dr Bloom's step by step advice.

Next Week:

Party dynamics: Could your party makeup be affecting your questing life? Maybe you shouldn't be entirely composed of bards.

mmoRPG = role playing

[BobRooney]

The reason a lot of "geeks" like MMORPGs is the ability to be someone else; anyone else. While good role-playing isnt always easy to find online, there are a significant number of mature rpg fans that actually portray a character, not themselves. There are some "powergamers" that run around and just want to be the biggest and the baddest, but there are a substantial number of Dungeons and Dragons converts that value a well role-played [ read "acted"] scenario. Good role-playing is acting. Moreover its an creative and psycological outlet where you can express yourself through a persona you adopt, no strings attached. While some of the kiddies that like the MMORPGs will run around being 1337 Ub3r d00ds you'll find a more substantial community that value the social interaction, and even some combat with other mature role-players with distinctive characters.

Re:I Play EQ

[j_zero]

You ask this of us, and yet you post as a.c.?!?! KNAVE! Thou shouldst be drawn and quartered (in butter of course)!

Re: Respected

[PD]

I heard he has a vorpal couch.

What IS a geek anymore?

[dledeaux]

What is the definition of a geek anymore? I consider myself to be somewhat of a geek. I love technology, I'm always jackin with software, hardware, phones, PDAs, etc.

Are geeks pasty faced teenagers, that rarely bath and wouldn't know laundry detergent if it hit them in the face?

I think everyone is a geek in their own sense. I think geekyness is good.

EMBRACE GEEKYNESS! =)

I'll never forget ...

[detritus.]

I had a college instructor for a writing class once, and what she said the first day of class i'll never forget:

"I will try to get your assignments graded and back to you ASAP, but I must confess I am an avid gamer and Diablo II addict, so please, let me know if I forgot to get something back to you."

My jaw immediately dropped, along with my stereotypes of gamers (especially in the RPG/adventure genre) only being geeky males. A late 20's/early 30's female instructor with no telltale signs of any gaming/geekiness threw me for a huge surprise.

Star Wars Galaxies

[jafuser]

I'd bet that Star Wars Galaxies will attract a whole new crowd of people into MMO games who may not have considered them before. SWG puts less emphasis on fighting, since loot from MOBs are less valuable than crafter-built items. A lot of effort has been invested in the game's economy, making activities like harvesting resources, farming, and crafting all full-time activities which can be done exclusively or as a part-time activity in addition to "blowing things up".

Also there are a couple of new classes which I haven't seen in other MMORPGs. There are two "entertainer" classes which heal "mind" wounds. They are dancers, and musicians. People in these classes can even group up to multiply their healing effects.

I can see perhaps some aspects of this game attracting a much broader audience who don't fall into the traditional AD&D/fantasy geek crowd. It should be interesting to note how the gender/age numbers differ between EQ and SWG once SWG has a couple of years on it.

[goes back to checking email to see if he got an SWG beta invite yet]

Re: Respected

[bluesangria]

How about 40 hours a week reading? Or 40 hours a week painting? Why are these activities - which are arguably LESS social - seen as better than 40 hours a week chatting with friends. That's basically what online RPG's amount to.
If you are going to argue that 40 hours a week at BLAH is too much, then please start lobbying for those 25 hour work weeks. After all, I can't think of anything that interferes with my life more than those blasted 40 hours/week at work. :P

blue

Synthetic World Economics

[pk001i]

Edward Castronova wrote a paper a while back concerning emerging economic theory within virtual worlds.
The paper goes into much greater detail about the type of people who play MMORPGs than the BBC article. In addition to a short history of MMORGSs, he also gives his thoughts on the future of avatars as our means of shopping/working/interacting.
"Journal entry, 18 April. I have called my avatar 'Alaniel.' I land in Norrath for the first time, in a town called Freeport. I am standing in a stone courtyard behind a gate. I see several lean-tos and a firepit. All around I hear the sounds of footsteps and I see humanoids of various shapes and sizes running back and forth, names like "Zikon" and "Sefirooth" over their heads, wearing odd costumes, carrying strange implements. Are they people? Or merely beings created by the software? Statements flow into my chat box at a rapid rate. "Galadriel shouts: Looking for bind at gate." I see a being with the name Galadriel. Is he talking to me? What is he saying? "Friitz says out of character: brt -omwb." What? No sign of anyone named Friitz. "Ikillu auctions: WTS bone chips." An auction. What should I do? I feel the presence of humanity, but I suddenly feel like a stranger in a very foreign culture. I become afraid of breaking some taboo, of making a fool of myself. Clumsily, I maneuver Alaniel toward the nearest lean-to and hide behind it. No one can see me here." (Castronova, p.2, Virtual Worlds, 2001)

Curt Schilling plays

[sker]

Major League Baseball star pitcher Curt Schilling and OF Doug Glanville have a highly publicized EverQuest feud... from Jayson Stark's ESPN.com column:

"But just when we thought this scene had quieted down, along came the folks from Sony Online, the corporate father of EverQuest, to fire it back up again. Inspired by Week in Review's coverage, the Sony people invited Schilling and Glanville to battle each other last week in an official Event, with actual witnesses.

So the next thing we knew, Glanville reported to Week in Review he'd just finished "mopping the floor" with Schilling on the computerized battlefield, with an assist from Phillies catcher Todd Pratt, whom he'd invited along.

Sounded simple enough -- until Schilling's version was a slightly different: 'Doug got the beating he deserved.' According to Schilling, Glanville induced him into a battle with Pratt -- and only then 'backstabbed me like the true, leaf-eating wuss he is.'

There was something in there about how Glanville did later beat him one-on-one. But that, Schilling alibied, was due to a 'computer glitch.'"