Slashdot Mirror
TV Losing to Video Games
An anonymous reader writes "Sony studies gaming habits finds that most games are played from 5pm to 11pm.
Shock! The days of the week might have been more useful..." of course the real point of all this is that the younger generation is turning away from television and turning to games.
TV is losing to reading books.
Even with the advent of the American coffee shop and the massive book retailers (B&N, Borders, etc.), people just don't read much it seems.
I've heard book sales are up, but not reading, which is highly interesting. It means people buy books with the intent of reading them but never do. Or they just want to seem smart? Who knows.
-gabe
At least the games interact with them. I gave up TV for my computer years ago. One factor, subconciously, was that I was able to interact, whereas TV, I just sat, stared, laughed on cue, and watched commercials when I was told to.
Traditional video game consoles (I know this is changing with things like XBox Live) don't offer some of the same communication builders (e.g. IM, Voice IM, message boards, creating websites, etc.), but at least you can tell it what to do instead of it telling you what to do. And something about building hand-eye-coordination. I guess that is a plus, since remote controls don't require that much hand-eye coordination.
Sony studies gaming habits finds that most games are played from 5pm to 11pm
This just in: studies show that all games are played between 00:00 and 23:59, TV networks are worried!
I mean come on, 5pm to 11pm is 6 hours, that's a quarter of a day. Even if it's a "span that encompasses TV prime time", that doesn't mean people play games for 6 hours. What if people play games most of the time during dumb shows, and during ads, and stop to watch their favorite shows?
What I'm saying is that the study seems way too coarse to deduce anything useful from it. Ideally, it should show console vs. TV usage by the minute.
Also, you'll notice that Sony, a manufacturer of consoles, did the study, not an independant, impartial organization.
In short, this article doesn't bring much useful information.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
With the fall-off in TV ratings, it seems that ads will soon be creeping into computer games. This will include product placements in traditional games and free games that market products. I notice that EA already has a director of advertising sales.
With no "fast forward" in games, players will have little choice but to be exposed to these product placements (other than avoiding/abandoning the game). I wonder if game makers will offer dual-versions of games -- an ad-free version for $99 and an add-supported version for $29? Given people's tendency to by the cheaper option, wonder which version will have the highest sales?
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
I'm your average 23 year old male college student. However TV is horrible lately, I just download the only 2 shows I like (angel and enterprise) and never go near the television itself. Maybe if the networks stopped with the reality shows and started putting back some well written high production value shows, i'd be more inclined to come back. As it is however, I'm not going to sit around and watch crap for days on end when I only really want to see 2 hours of programs per week.
of course the real point of all this is that the younger generation is turning away from television and turning to games.
... but for the last decade it's been nothing but games, games, games.
Not just the younger generation. Tomorrow is my 43rd birthday. When I was a kid, I watched plenty of TV
-kgj
-kgj
By comparison, games of any value whatsoever (which I believe is most of them, even though I wouldn't play most games because I think they suck) stimulate the mind and the body both, and most importantly, they are not a "push" technology. You don't have to be there when the content is delivered (I know with PVRs you don't have to either, but more people have video game systems than PVRs) and you make the choice as to what and when.
Perhaps as PVR use spreads, more people will watch television - and I suspect it will be PVRs that lead to video on demand. Content providers will be able to ensure that commercials are played. Eventually it will probably turn to a pay-to-watch model, but I guess it'll be some time before we find out.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I think I can tell by your post that you used to watch the cable channels you listed but don't actually anymore. Know how? Because you listed TLC as a "guy" channel.
See, I haven't had cable in a few years, but I used to watch The Learning Channel all the time in the mid 90's. It rocked - remember Connections and then Connections 2? THAT was quality TV! That was GUY TV! But lately I've had a few glimpses of today's TLC at a friend's house, and I've been shocked and dismayed at what has become of by beloved Learning Channel.
I mean, Trading Spaces? WTF? TLC is now some kind of hybrid between Better Homes & Gardens and The Real World.
They've even gone all "Kentucky Fried Chicken" with their name - no more mention of "The Learning Channel" at all. They're just "TLC" and they have nothing to do with Learning or education at all.