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.
most games are played from 5pm to 11pm
And what happens at 11pm? Oh yeah... Cinemax starts their quality material.
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
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.
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.
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
Yes, but most of those people are multi-tasking with a TV show in the background.
Very popular slashdot journal for adul
Who would miss Family Guy and Futurama for a game?
8==8 Bones 8==8
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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*
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
If you want to look at a naked Richard Hatch through a scope, you go right ahead.
*shudder*
.. 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.
"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.
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.
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
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.
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.
"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
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.