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.

81 of 291 comments (clear)

  1. Cinemax still reigns supreme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    most games are played from 5pm to 11pm
    And what happens at 11pm? Oh yeah... Cinemax starts their quality material.

  2. Results: by Vo0k · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From 5pm to 11pm I go watch TV, read some book or do anything but websurfing, as due to all the online gamers my shared connection slows down to a crawl and you just can't do anything reasonable online.

    --
    Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
  3. Must be students by Lev13than · · Score: 5, Funny

    The 5-11 slot must be just for students.

    I have to go to work every day, so most of my video game playing is restricted to 9am-5pm.

    --
    When you have nothing left to burn you must set yourself on fire
    1. Re:Must be students by smellygeek · · Score: 5, Funny

      Is your company hiring?

    2. Re:Must be students by rokka · · Score: 5, Funny

      This is Leviethan's boss posting. Yes, as a matter of fact we just got an opening.

      --
      I could be wrong. I'm always wrong...
    3. Re:Must be students by dthree · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Good one!

      My boss used to come around the office around 6 or 7 and say "stop working, its time for a Marathon game." There's nothing more stress relieving than stalking around claustrophobic hallways with 2 shotguns, waiting to blow your boss's (eh, his character's) head off. When we switched to UT, he couldn't really keep up and stopped gathering games.

      --
      "I forgot my mantra."
  4. Simple Reason by jtwJGuevara · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Simple reason - the quality of video games is consistently improving, and the quality of television material is consisently regressing. What kid wouldn't want to play the latest Final Fantasy/Legend of Zelda/id first person shooter when the other option is watching American Idol.

    1. Re:Simple Reason by AbbyNormal · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hear hear! Same sense for me and my wife. Nothing good on TV at night or all re-runs because "sweeps" is starting/ending...Tired of it all. We just started playing multiplayer James Bond on the XBox during the regular TV time.

      In my own very jaded opinion, the only thing worth watching nowadays are the occasional PBS/History Channel specials,Mythbusters (gotta respect the "Scientific" blowing up/smashing of stuff), Simpsons. I guess I just don't get the draw for the Reality Shows?

      --
      Sig it.
    2. Re:Simple Reason by adamruck · · Score: 2, Interesting

      right on

      I hate tv(dont play games either but thats a different story)

      Here is a clip from an essay I am working on.

      -----

      The average American watches about four hours of television a day. Annually Americans spend two hundred and fifty billion hours in front of the tube. Some people might argue that there is good quality content available to watch. Over 80 percent of television is devoted to commercials and stories about violence and war. Content that contains public service announcements only consists of .7 percent of the total (A.C Nielsen Co). Television has a massive affect on our society. These affects include behavior due to prolonged exposure to violence, materialism due to the ridiculous number of commercials, and health problems due to the sedentary nature of watching television.

      -------

      television is shit

      --
      Selling software wont make you money, selling a service will.
    3. Re:Simple Reason by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      well the fact that many people that have PVR's like a myth tv or a tivo are not chained to the networks anymore. missing a show's air-time is nothing as it's available for viewing later.

      In fact cince I built my mythTV box, nobody in myu house has watched regular broadcanst CAble tv for 2 months. we watch the mythtv, specifically shows we wanted and then have multiplayer bouts of gaming.. (this rules for family interaction.. nothing like a 4 player mariocartGC race to get the family trash talking each other and interacting.)

      it's amazing how much actual TV is 100% worthless and getting worse every day.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    4. Re:Simple Reason by FatRatBastard · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Simple reason - the quality of video games is consistently improving, and the quality of television material is consisently regressing.

      I don't know if I quite buy that, at least on the TV side. People have a tendency to look back at the past as some "golden era." TV today is just as good/crap as it was before. And while games have been getting technically better I remember wasting A LOT of time back in the 80s on my friend's Atari 2600. By today's standard technically crap, but we were still glued to it.

      So what's driving the change? Shifting demographics: children of the "video game age" (i.e. the 80s) are now adults, and have continued to play. There's still good TV out there (and I TiVo it to watch when convenient), but just as often than not if I have an hour to kill I'll do it killing Haitians (oops.. whatever they're being called now) on GTA:VC.

    5. Re:Simple Reason by ogreinside · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly. The generation of tv is passing, as evident by the lack of actual actors in the bulk of tv shows now.

      I'm not sure what the number are, but where are women in this figure? Why do they only report men? I know my wife will watch anything, anytime, anywhere, as long as it is mindless. I, on the other hand, need something that stimulates my mind. Interactive worlds, strategy, puzzles, and blowing shit up.

      No matter how hard they try, television shows will never be as interactive as an online gaming experience. I mean, really, is calling a number in response to a bunch of talentless morons trying to sing really that interactive?

      On another note, did anybody watch the "Test the Nation IQ" show? That was a better direction in something that can stimulate your mind. Oddly enough, you could go *online* and take the test...eliminating the need for watching the program. More shows like this, less midgets racing animals.

      --
      "The more you suffer, the more it shows you really care, right?" -Offspring
    6. Re:Simple Reason by tekunokurato · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't think he was saying that demographics weren't changing as well. He didn't say "what person...?" He said "what kid...?"

      Also, you, me him -- we're NERDS, y'know? Pong and adventure weren't enough to draw the average person away from TV, even if they dres US away from TV (well, I'm a bit younger, so let's say FF1 and Dragon Warrior for me). GTA, on the other hand, IS good enough to draw the average person away from TV. Trust me, I and my friends have plenty of little brothers, and they and their friends watch The OC and a little bit of Real World, but not much else, anymore; they play way more games. Very different from the family sitcom gatherings when we were younger.

    7. Re:Simple Reason by jazman_777 · · Score: 2, Funny
      I guess I just don't get the draw for the Reality Shows?

      You must not be a mindless idiot.

      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    8. Re:Simple Reason by lambent · · Score: 2, Informative

      Interesting topic to explore, but there are some issues i think you need to address.

      "80 percent of television is devoted to commercials and stories about violence and war." : Lumping together a History Channel documentary about WWII along with the latest infomercial about Ron Popeil's juicer/dehydrater/rehydrater doesn't seem fair or accurate.

      As for 0.7% of airtime for public service announcements ... that averages 10 minutes a day. Frankly, when I watch tv, I don't see ANY public service announcements, unless you count the crawl detailing the latest winter storm advisory. At any rate, I get the feeling that 10 minutes a day might be adequate air time to announce any public emergency information.

      As for 250 billion hours in front of the TV annually ... for 250 million people in the US (that's an outdated figure), that's 1000 hours a year. About 2.75 hours a day per person. Seems reasonable to me.

      Additionally, commercials don't cause materialism. People still have free will, mind you. The TV isn't that bad.

  5. what is considered the younger generation? by Em+Emalb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Those born in the 70s like me? The 60s? I mean, I know a lot of "older" people in their 30-40s who play games.

    It's not just a younger generation thing. Unless a 44 year old is considered younger.

    --
    Sent from your iPad.
    1. Re:what is considered the younger generation? by hobbespatch · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Those born in the 70s like me? The 60s? I mean, I know a lot of "older" people in their 30-40s who play games.

      My grandparents have a ColecoVision that they play all the time. But being a 30 year old - and generation X - it seems like a lot of us have gaming addictions.

      As always - it comes down to doing things in moderation (coffee, sex, cigars, games) just don't be like the gamer in China who died after 20 straight hours online.

      --
      Still Mud? Try www.phoenixmud.org!
    2. Re:what is considered the younger generation? by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 2, Informative
      Hey, I'm pushing 30 and the sole reason my computer still has a TV capture cards is for my PS2.

      My wife and I just had a baby, and I tell you this, TV is vorboten. I have the entire Robotech series on DVD. Friends have other anime series. My mom has every Disney movie made on VHS.

      Folks, we don't need TV. Between us, our friends, and our extended families we probably have several childhood's worth of programming.

      Outside and play if it's a nice day. Movie or video game if it's nasty out.

      I plan on collecting a ton of educational (or just plain cartoony cute) games for her to play. And if I can't find anything decent I'll write it myself, damnit.

      If you can't control when it stops and starts, you don't have time for it.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
  6. I guess its about more interactivity. by Bilange · · Score: 3, Insightful

    With games going more and more realistic, I dont see whats the problem with games beating TV, which is kind of dull: turn on and watch. Hell, its not about Pong anymore.

    --
    "...a generation of kids has grown up thinking Trance is the shittiest music since country and western." - Paul van Dyk
  7. TV *and* GAMES by $$$$$exyGal · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes, but most of those people are multi-tasking with a TV show in the background.

    --
    Very popular slashdot journal for adul
  8. REAL wastes of time... by JBMcB · · Score: 2, Funny

    I prefer to play games where I get to watch TV. Or I play the Sims and watch virtual people watch virtual TV. Fun!

    --
    My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
  9. Just in time for Adult Swim by Bones3D_mac · · Score: 3, Funny

    Who would miss Family Guy and Futurama for a game?

    --


    8==8 Bones 8==8
  10. It's too bad we don't hear things like.... by thesadjester · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:It's too bad we don't hear things like.... by frankthechicken · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Reading amongst young kids is up here in the UK.

      Admittedly this is taken from an article in 1999, as unfortunately I can't quickly find a more recent article, though I do remember hearing that reading is especially bouyant amongst young boys compared to previous years, mainly due to the power of Potter and his magical ways.

    2. Re:It's too bad we don't hear things like.... by Bobman1235 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I've heard book sales are up, but not reading, which is highly interesting

      Based on this article, maybe all the book sales are strategy guides?

    3. Re:It's too bad we don't hear things like.... by AbbyNormal · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm a little confused by your statistics? Statistics on people buying books are easy (Sales receipts) but where did you hear about the Reading statistics?

      Personally, I don't have time to read much (except on airplanes)...too much video game time is out there.

      --
      Sig it.
    4. Re:It's too bad we don't hear things like.... by ebob9 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yknow, not to be offtopic.. but people complaining about the level of reading now today tend to overlook the obvious.

      My neighbor has a daughter, and complains that she is on the Internet all the time. She's constantly surfing the web, posting to message boards, and hanging out in chat rooms.

      What is her complaint? "I wish that she would get off the computer, maybe sit down and read something."

      Sheesh..

    5. Re:It's too bad we don't hear things like.... by minus9 · · Score: 5, Funny
      YeAh bUte WTF iS ShE rEAdiN oNe tHe MasSag BoRed!!!!!!!!111111one ROFLMAO

      Judging by the illiterate content of most chat rooms , she would probably be better off not reading anything.

    6. Re:It's too bad we don't hear things like.... by TGK · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I concur.

      My wife teaches 10th and 12th grade Social Studies. Most of the kids she teaches have never read a book for fun in their lives. Every peice of reading they do that comes on dead tree media is assigned to them by a teacher.

      This astounds me. I have been working on one book or another since I could read simple sentances. Here these kids are, about to go to college, and they've never read anything just for the hell of it!

      The Internet argument is well and good, but that raises another problem. Because these kids haven't read much of anything, they are totaly unable to determine which sites are legitimate resources and which are some half cocked crackpot spewing his dimwited theories about whatever the topic at hand happens to be.

      Years spent in chat rooms and expecting instant answers to all questions leads these children to trust whatever source pops up first from their yahoo search, and if the text is too in depth for them, rather than puzzeling it out, they find someplace where it is presented in simpler terms. In short, they're more likely to cite something from geocities than a .gov domain.

      These children of the internet age are approaching the greatest informational tool in human history with no reservations whatsoever. Unfortunately, everythig you read on the internet should be taken with a grain of salt [except of course this post].

      I think that while the internet and chat rooms do encourage reading to a point, the net result is that your average child is damaged more than helped by the content and format these places encourage. My wife has graded papers, formal papers, with LOL, OMG, ROFL, WTF, and STFU written as if they were actual words used in human conversation.

      When your child's history papers can trigger a spam filter there's something wrong with your child and what you've done to educate that child. If this is happening in high school it is probably too late for your child's teachers to save him or her. I'd like to say we're learning from our mistakes, but I don't think we are.

      Note: I'm posting from a public terminal. Spell check I hath not. Mis-spell things I have. Write my disclaimers as Yoda would I shall.

      --
      Killfile(TGK)
      No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
  11. Great by YuppieScum · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just great... now we're going to get product placement in video games.

    --
    This sig left unintentionally blank.
    1. Re:Great by NinjaPablo · · Score: 3, Informative

      We already do. Played SSX3 at all? 7-Up dnl boards, banners, balloons, and other equipment all over the place. This just means it will become even more blatant.

      --
      SmashTech - No smashing of tech involved
    2. Re:Great by leifm · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nothing but THPS games have always had placement, and billboards at a skateboard event don't seem out of context. Now if Halo2 has a Nokia ad on the side of a Covenant dropship I'll be irritated.

      --

      "Windows Me offers tremendous reliability and stability improvements..." -- Paul Thurott
  12. Not just the "younger generation" by southpolesammy · · Score: 5, Informative

    I've nearly completely switched from TV as an entertainment mechanism to video games on my PS2 and my PC. And I'm 33.

    Besides, wasn't there just something published that said the average gamer is around 29-30 years old?

    --
    Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
    1. Re:Not just the "younger generation" by buford_tannen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've nearly completely switched from TV as an entertainment mechanism to video games on my PS2 and my PC. And I'm 33.

      I've done the same, and I'm 21.

      When my TV died in college about 3 years ago, I didn't bother replacing it. Now I just listen to the radio and play games on my PC.

      If domestic radio gets boring, I switch to shortwave. I actually invested in a $150 Grundig radio instead of buying another TV.

      And I can't say it was a bad choice.

      --
      Buford "Mad Dog" Tannen
    2. Re:Not just the "younger generation" by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Allow me to add my vote to your anecdotal evidence. The fact that this is /. is guaranteed to skew any results anyway, so I might as well pipe up. I own a 1978 Sony front projection television, the kind with the green and purple tubes, and the mirror, and we had cable television for a while but comcast gouges you hard so we just shut it off. The cable modem service is cheaper by $15/mo if you have digital cable television ($45/mo for the most basic of basic digital cable plans) but even so it wasn't worth $30 because even with three people in the house at the time (myself, my girlfriend, and her cousin, who no longer lives here thank god) we didn't watch enough TV to justify it. Why? Because I've got a cable modem, we have several video stores in town, and I have a netflix membership (though if I don't get some money and pay them soon, they're going to terminate it. sigh. Time to start modding X-Boxen for money or something.) My television exists as a monitor for the watching of assorted media, the Panasonic DVD-S35S I often crow about around here plays standard and nonstandard VCD/SVCD, and DVDs, so that's most of what I watch; The rest gets piped into the bedroom to the Xbox and played on Xbox Media Player over the network or off CDs/DVDs. Television has gone straight into the shitter and my favorite shows tend to end up on DVD sooner or later, like Babylon 5. THAT was a show that attracted me strongly to the television, proof positive that you don't have to have the highest production values to make a show worthy of devotion. The problem today is that TV studios throw money instead of talent at a problem, and they end up with slickly-produced schmaltz. This has always been true, but it seems like it's gotten a lot worse lately, for example ABC is crawling with the "home and family feel good" kind of material, they're laying on the religious angle really hard and I just can't stomach it.

      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.'"
  13. Makes me wonder by onyxruby · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Makes me wonder, without sports and the likes of the Discovery and History channel if there would be any males of that age category watching TV.

  14. Lesser of the two evils? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Don't know about you, but I would prefer my kid to play competer games than watch cartoons, especially if he was gaming with a friend.

    It is far less a passive activity, reactions, planning and memory all get a work out whilst playing games. Though of course I would still rather them outside running around or reading a book, but in the event of a rainy day there's nothing wrong with a bit of gaming.

  15. Nope by iibbmm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's simply because there isn't much on network television in that timeslot that is entertaining to men 18-35. Most tv on the networks is completely geared towards women or 'metrosexual' men that want to watch crap with a laugh track.

    Cable, luckily, is noticing this problem and is now working towards more tv that appeals to men, though 90% of it is overdone crap (new manshow). Look to Discovery for an example of how to provide decent male programming. We are all watching Cnn, history, tlc, discovery, speed, spike (not me!), comedy central, or HBO.

    Oh yeah, or playing Video Games.

    1. Re:Nope by lazypenguingirl · · Score: 2, Informative

      My boyfriend and I do not watch TV (we're in the early to mid-20's age bracket). In the evening if we want to kick back instead of working on the computers, we usually play a game together in front of the TV. However, I'd love to have Discovery, CNN, History, Comedy Central, but I'm not willing to pay $40 a month here for cable for all the crap when I just want that small set of channels. Therefore, it's no TV for us, which surprises many people. And I can't say we miss it all that much either. It's much more fun to play a game together, interacting and talking strategy rather than staring mindlessly at the screen.

  16. Good by DrugCheese · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I get a lot of crap from people who say I play to much video games. These same people then turn around and sit their ass on the couch the same ammount of time and watch TV. I think it's better for you to be playing video games then watching TV, at least you're participating in something.

    --
    *DrugCheese rants*
    1. Re:Good by 0123456 · · Score: 3, Funny

      "These same people then turn around and sit their ass on the couch the same ammount of time and watch TV."

      But they're improving their social skills. How will you pick up chicks if you don't stay up to date on the plot-lines of trendy soap operas?

    2. Re:Good by Psiren · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Passive entertainment is mush, and forces your mind into the mold of the creators of that entertainment. Gaming puts you on an equal footing with someone else, the designer - or even better, the people you play a network game against.

      Utter bollocks. There is certainly a lot of crap television, no argument there. But I can happily sit down and watch a documentary, or wildlife programme and actually learn something. What do you learn by running around in a virtual environment shooting other virtual characters? Okay, it's an extreme example, but you're making it out to be black and white, TV bad, games good, when it's a far more complicated issue.

  17. Interaction by somethinghollow · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  18. We do hear things like that. by Bilange · · Score: 2, Insightful
    --
    "...a generation of kids has grown up thinking Trance is the shittiest music since country and western." - Paul van Dyk
  19. No TV by Voxxel · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I honestly don't even watch TV anymore. I download a show if I want to see it, commercial free. TV in general just blows.

    --

    If a million monkeys randomly pounded on keyboards, they would all log into AOL.
  20. Most, but not all gaming between 7-11p by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Civilization and Sim City, whoo boy. I would start playing those in the evening after work and not stop until I noticed (to my surprise) the sun coming up.

  21. Fo damn sure... by Dracolytch · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm one of them. Being able to game on-line, and talk to friends over the 'net while gaming is a very satisfying passtime. It's more interactive, more social, and more exciting.

    You never know if the game will end in your favor or not... You really have to work with your friends to make it happen!

    ~D

    --
    This sig has been enciphered with a one-time pad. It could say almost anything.
  22. What a very fair study that is by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:What a very fair study that is by redune45 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Sony, a manufacturer of consoles,"

      Sony is also a manufacturer of TV shows and movies

      --
      redune.com: The World 3.2 Megapixels at a time
    2. Re:What a very fair study that is by Moraelin · · Score: 2, Informative

      Very funny. Now sit and think about it a little.

      Your average adult goes to work for 8 hours a day. They also usually sleep for 8 hours a day. They also spend some time commuting, fixing breakfasts, etc. They're not watching TV during that time.

      Unless you're unemployed, that 6 hours slot is not just a quarter of the day. It's practically _all_ the time they have to feed you ads and faked news through the idiot box. Erm... I mean through the TV.

      There's a reason why that's TV prime time. Because for a helluva lot of people that's the _only_ time when they can possibly watch TV. (I don't know about you, but I'm not watching TV at 2 PM. My employer would have a fit if I did.)

      If you've lost those 6 hours to video games, you've just lost the viewer. That's it.

      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  23. G4 - Gaming Channel IS Growing Strongly by mcwop · · Score: 2, Informative
    The Gaming Channel "G4" is rapidly growing too, which means that when many gamers do watch TV - the G4 channel may be what is being watched.

    G4 Growth Story Here

    --

    "I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX

    1. Re:G4 - Gaming Channel IS Growing Strongly by shadowcabbit · · Score: 2, Funny

      Parent post is clearly a troll.

      Nobody would willingly watch G4.

      --
      "Why Subscribe?" Good question...
  24. Ad-supported Video Games? by G4from128k · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Ad-supported Video Games? by Eil · · Score: 2, Funny


      I'm not nearly the gamer I used to be, so this doesn't affect me like it would have 5 years ago. Back then I was seriously opposed to product placement, since I viewed games as pieces of art first and games second. (And still do, to a degree.) How long before these advertisers generate so much revenue for the developers that they begin to dictate the content of the games?

      No, no, no, you guys got it all wrong. Duke should say, "Slim Fast replaces two daily meals and contains 24 essential vitamins and minerals yet is still 99% fat free," chug a whole can, and then say, "Damn, that's good!"

      As long as they just stick with product placement and don't try to put actual commercials in the game, that's fine by me. I don't want to pay $40 for a game and then have to be subject to ads. (Which is the main reason I don't watch TV.)

      Another concern is that the vast quantity of games out there take place in completely fantastic worlds that you just can't easily inject ads into. Most movies are still filmed in live action and take place in environments that at least look to some degree like the real world. If I'm meserized by WarCraft 7 and I'm trying to concentrate on kicking the enemy's ass, one thing that's sure to create a large mental disconnect with the game is to suddenly see a teeny little Mountain Dew truck enter my village from the west and back up to one of the barracks.

  25. Sony? They must be playing EQ :) by stephenslashdot · · Score: 2, Funny

    So yes, they're online and counting that way, but if you've ever played Everquest, you know that the downtime and the waiting around are so bad you NEED a TV to watch between kills :)

  26. Not really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not really since console users are using the tv to play their games on. Those on PC with a tv nearby are too focused on their game to be bothered with endless commercials and brainless sitcoms. PC gamers would rather just turn the tv off.

  27. The day they let you shoot Survivor "contestants". by mobiux · · Score: 4, Funny

    is the day I turn off the computer.

    Maybe they could have a virtual survivor, where they still have to swim and get the flag, but I get to crouch on the beach and snipe at them the whole time.

  28. In other news... by Decaffeinated+Jedi · · Score: 4, Funny

    Sony's study also suggests that gamers who play ganes on the PS2 experience nearly 70 percent more "fun-itude" than XBox and Gamecube gamers.

    --
    DecafJedi
    my weblog: apropos of something
  29. Inevitable by Myopic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No one really thinks t.v. is a great medium, anyway. It's passive. That was the complaint all along -- people rotting their brains watching a passive medium for hours and hours. It should be no surprise that other exciting electrical mediums like games and (more important to me) the internet will supplant television. I don't think t.v. is going to go away because sometimes a passive video medium is appropriate (sitcoms and dramas as we know them can't really be interactive; movies; etc.), but viewership will shrink (in terms of average hours watched).

    Nobody thinks this is a bad thing. Yo, if someone is going to waste their time consuming hollow, useless things they may as well do it actively, interactively, rather than watching produced, linear shows.

  30. Another benefit... by Dracolytch · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You can play any game you want, any time you want, unlike TV. There are no ads that are annoying or break up the action (Just load screens, but those are usually pretty quick). You don't have to pay for games you don't play (Unlike TV where you pay for channels you don't watch).

    With the added challenge and social aspects of on-line gaming, it's honestly not a big surprise that it's catching on...

    ~D

    --
    This sig has been enciphered with a one-time pad. It could say almost anything.
  31. I don't even really watch tv anymore by d3am0n · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  32. No surprising by st0rmshad0w · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Especially considering that networks are doing such brilliant things as cancelling their highest rated shows and generally screwing up everything else that's worth tuning in for.

  33. Re:The day they let you shoot Survivor "contestant by Cruciform · · Score: 3, Funny

    If you want to look at a naked Richard Hatch through a scope, you go right ahead.

    *shudder*

  34. shocking by andih8u · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The networks put out absolutely nothing but reality shows about "My Big Fat Stupid Fiancee" or "The Mightiest Midget Survival Wedding Swing Dancing Sensation" and can't figure out why people are leaving in droves. Here's a hint...they're sick of it. Make more shows like Alias, X-Files, or La Femme Nikita that are/were actually interesting and you might retain some viewers. Otherwise I see no reason to switch off my monitor just to go watch some crap.

    --


    slashdot, news for crazed liberal socialist zealots
    1. Re:shocking by 0123456 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Make more shows like Alias, X-Files, or La Femme Nikita that are/were actually interesting and you might retain some viewers"

      But making good drama costs money. "Reality TV" is basically free in comparison, and the drones will continue to watch since they have nothing else to do.

  35. It may have something to do with.. by Channard · · Score: 3, Insightful

    .. every damn other programme being reality TV. Why watch a show about someone living a life - or more often than not, staying in a big house with other z grade celebs - when you could actually stick a game in and have some level of interactivity going.

  36. Is it any surprise? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Most people are home and awake between 5pm and 11pm. So, when would most people playing games play them? Could it be? Naah...

    --
    The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  37. Older Generation, Too by handy_vandal · · Score: 3, Interesting

    of course the real point of all this is that the younger generation is turning away from television and turning to games.

    Not just the younger generation. Tomorrow is my 43rd birthday. When I was a kid, I watched plenty of TV ... but for the last decade it's been nothing but games, games, games.

    -kgj

    --
    -kgj
  38. I have to plead guilty to this. by MoronBob · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I buy no less than 2 unix, linux, or technology related books a month. I also have a wife and two kids that keep me from getting much reading done. I try to read at work in between puting out fires. The end result is that I have a great library which I dont use much. The upside is that I don't have to go far to get answers when I need them. I also have a PVR to record TV programs and can now selectively watch what I want which leads to much less couch time and more Joystick time.

    --
    Telecommuting! What about socialization?
  39. Commercials by ShortedOut · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When will the networks learn that 20 and 30 somethings are tired of commercials? There has to be another way for a TV network to make money.

    Just like HBO, sure you pay for it, sure it doesn't have any commercials for OTHER companies, but damn they love to plug HBO every chance they get. I already bought the damn channel, I don't need to know how great you are.

    I think gamers and nerds are just tired of the constant stream of bullshit that is coming from the media. This especially goes for all the half-truths and demonizing of opponents in the upcoming elections.

    We'd rather hang out with friends and frag each other than sit still on the couch and be force fed bullshit and editorialized news.

    Martha Stewart, Michael Jackson, Kobe Bryant, I couldn't give less of a shit about, but they're on the news every day because that is what advertising firms say that the US is interested in.

    We've got a freaking WAR in Iraq that we only hear about in blurbs. We have TROOPS in Afganistan that we're lucky to hear about once a week. And we have diplomatic issues with France and Europe that we NEVER hear about. What about that whackjob over in North Korea? Why is China so quiet about everything? That's what I want to hear about, not how many kids Michael Jackson touched or how this woman is missing in Minnesota, hell people go missing in my local area every day, why did she rate?

    That's why I get my news here, and other online sources. It's because it's on demand, and what I want to read about. And best of all, I don't have to watch any commercials.

    1. Re:Commercials by aynrandfan · · Score: 2, Interesting
      this woman is missing in Minnesota, hell people go missing in my local area every day, why did she rate?

      You actually raise a valid question; why is the dissapearance of some blond, cute white girl being made into such a big deal compared to the dissapearances of others? As a UND student (where Dru went to school) and resident of Grand Forks, one reason is perhaps that this shit does not happen around here often. Dru's dissapearance (and, likely, murder) scared the shit out of everyone around here; the local stores were sold out of mace and pepper spray in an instant, and UND had to revise it's policy concerning mace/pepper spray on campus. It was like a bomb dropping.

      The fact that it was such a freak incident may have made it "newsworthy."

      If people in your neighborhood get kidnapped and killed every day, people, including the news media, may (I say may) get desensitized to it, and not treat it as "news."

      Not the best explaination, just my $.02.

      --

      ----

      "Ours was a free culture. It is becoming much less so."-Lawrence Lessig

    2. Re:Commercials by ShortedOut · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I only meant to use that as an example. It made National News for *weeks*.

      Like the Jean Binet Ramsey case, children get murdered every day, why did that case make it?

      I guess the formula is:
      If victim = pretty white blonde girl then hype the dogcrap out of it
      else
      Let local news carry it

      It's just like the Scott and Laci Peterson Case, why does it get so much airtime? The trial isn't even over and they've already had a made-for-TV-movie about it for goodness sakes.

  40. Survey Says: Nothing by MoreOrLess · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The statistics in the survey are pretty useless without more context. While it may be true that people (more specifically 18-34 year old males) are abandoning TV for online gaming this article says nothing. Is there anything that shows that [increased video game usage] is related to [decline in TV viewing by 18-34 year olds]

    1. Peak online usage from 5-11, which includes TV prime time. This should hardly be shocking because there has to be a peak period, and because TV prime time would tend to correspond to viewer's free time.
    2. 65% of online users between 8-11 pm are men 18-34. Says nothing about what percentage of PS2 owners are between 18-34, whether that percentage is dramatically different than other periods, or what the reason is. Perhaps proportionately more 10-18 year old PS2 owners are watching Idol... or that they have real friends that come over to play live
    3. TV viewership in 18-34 year old demographic is down 8-12%. Fine, could be for any reason, but of course this data is from another source (Nielsen). Sony's survey (or what was quoted in the article) did not demonstrate any increase in gaming activity from year to year, nor any statistics to show it was drawing from anything else.

    This is why their conclusion basically says nothing - "increased video game play could be among the many factors leading to the decline in TV viewership by young men". Why stop there? I think we could also generalize that [increased video game usage] must also be related to [lower CD sales] since I heard that CD sales were lower too.

  41. if you do it right, though... by rbird76 · · Score: 2, Funny

    you'll only have to look at him once.

  42. total OT digression by mapmaker · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  43. Same excuse as everyone else uses! by swordgeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Kids aren't buying music--it's because of file sharing!"
    "Kids aren't watching TV--it's because of computer games!"
    "Our software isn't selling--it's because of Microsoft!"

    How hard is it to figure out that YOUR CONTENT SUCKS!!!? Maybe those other things play a part. Maybe the competition for your audience has become stiffer. Producing ever-increasingly BAD content and blaming the competition isn't going to fix anything!

    --

    "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
  44. Young Male Demographic by ThisIsAnExampleAccou · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I remember a similar story running on /. a few months ago that was about a study that showed that young male viewship is way down. After seeing this story, I started to really examine why I personally had reduced my TV viewing.

    To give you some background, I am an upper-middle class male, married, age 25 to 29, lots of disposable income - one of the "money" demographics. Currently, my television habits are limited to Laker games, some discovery channel, and the Simpsons. Once the basketball season is over, I watch about 2 hours of television per week. I spend roughly three times that playing video games.

    My reason for hardly watching television anymore is simple - I am sick and tired of being told that I am an idiot because I am male. 99% of sitcoms are based on the premise that the husband is a complete screwup, and his wife has to come save him from himself. In commercials, we see men who are unable to perform basic tasks, while their wife smirks knowingly, before doing it for him. We have shows like "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" that in essence give the message that masculinity is bad, and that the only way that a male can be worthwhile is to change his entire life to meet his wife's whims.

    Anyway, that is just my $0.02. YMMV. HAND. .

  45. Guys dont Like Prime Time Television by Dak_Peoples · · Score: 2

    Gee, lets think a moment here. What gender plays a majority of video games. Males. What gender is prime time programming geared towards? Females. Why in the world would any straight male want to watch these lame ass reality shows that are geared towards women. Guys who generally watch this crap probably have a gun held to their head (figuratively speaking) or they have a large amount of estrogen pulsing through their veins. There is nothing on TV worth while watching anymore. Can someone name somthing on Broadcast television that isnt crap? What do we have to watch. Spike TV and ESPN on cable/dish. What is the prime demographic that Television tries to encapsulate? Males 18 - 35 Guys play games. Guys own the TV. Why in the hell do we want to watch shows such as Friends and Queer Eye? So, we turn to our games. For example, a last night from 5:00pm till 11:00pm, tried to finish up Balders Gate. The last Boss, is a pain in the ass.

    --
    This is my signature.
  46. It's about the content, stupid. by humankind · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why is it that the major broadcasters and Madison Avenue have to turn to other corporate parasites like polling companies to try to understand the dynamics of an issue such as this?

    Maybe it's because they don't want to acknowledge the truth? Or are they truly that stupid?

    Television used to be about entertaining and educating. Now it's hard to tell what is content and what is advertising. The constant barrage of interruptions and marketing messages have turned off their audience. Things are so bad now, commercial breaks are so long, that when the networks return from a commercial break, they have to recap what the actual show was about!

    Hollywood seems to think that shows like, "The Apprentice" or "Survivor: All-Stars" are actually "hits". The truth is we watch those shows to see how much of an ass people can make of themselves, not unlike your average motorist cranks his head out of the window to see a wreck on the Interstate. We don't think the shows are very good; instead we are amused by the extent to which these producers manufacture conflict and make people look like idiots. Yes, it's entertaining, but only in the most shallow way, which means there will be no longevity. Hell yes, it's fun to watch Donald Trump's ego spiral out of control, but make no mistake that at some point this will get incredibly boring if it hasn't already. And then we get to see how creative they'll be in blaming everyone but themselves for the loss of ratings.

    In addition to an overwhelming amount of advertising, the content just plain sucks, WHEN you can actually find it. Most shows are little more than superficial Pavlovian plot lines with one-dimensional characters and predictable twists, bad remakes or sequels, or else they're reality programs that are edited out-of-context to over-dramatize every nuance of conflict and embarassement.

    Hollywood seems to think that most people, even your average brain-dead couch potato can be played with formulaic programming. And when it doesn't seem to pan out like that, rather than admit their stupid ideas aren't working, they start commissioning research companies to pull another explanation out of thin air. Video games are killing TV. NO. It's just that TV is so bad, it's more desireable than sitting through a zillion SUV commercials.

    It's the content, stupid.

  47. TV viewership in decline for 1 reason only! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    One hour of tv has 44 minutes of content and 16 minutes of commercials.

    One hour of gaming / dvd has 1 hour of content.

    Imagine if the TV ads said "Watch show X and waste 1/4th of your time".

  48. TV, Music, Movies... all becoming JUNK by aca · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Music nowadays? JUNK...

    Where are all the beautiful riffs... the edge... the songs about people, about you and me... about our feelings... anger, love, sacrifice, pain, angst, passion... Most of what we get is noise now... no content, no meat, no soul.

    Remember the music of the Beatles, Bread, Journey, Led Zepplin, Scorpion, Carole King, KLF, Tears for Fears, Devo, The Police, Queen, John Couger Mellencamp, etc etc... the list of the great ones, goes on and on...

    What do we get nowadays? Britney Spears, N'Sync, P Diddy, Celine Dion... What do they sing/crow about... gangs, 'dissing', hoes, pimps, themselves...

    And TV? Crap. Reality Shows. 5 Gays dressing-up 1 Guy. The sometimes mundane, and often poison-laced scheming and dealing in 'Survivor'-like reality shows. Too many advertisments that are too loud and shallow.

    Granted, there is good material, but mostly on paid cable, like HBO. Broadcast TV sucks, big time.

    And movies, other than a few notable mentions, most movies produced in Hollywood are shallow, slapstick, overdone, over-budget, drivel... and to top it off, ticket prices are getting more and more expensive.

    And they (the 'Execs') wonder about declining sales of music CDs, declining numbers of TV viewship and falling theatre attendances. Clueless morons, blaming p2p music-sharing, DVD burners, gaming industry, etc...

    Give me a good game anytime, and don't waste my evenings, thank you.

    pEE-oHHed