Slashdot Mirror


Interest in Console Gaming on the Decline

An anonymous reader writes "The results from a teen shopping behaviour and branding survey by Piper Jaffray & Co state that teen interest in playing video games is on the decline, as well as those that do play video games saying that they spend less time playing them." From the article: "The students were also surveyed on video game products and other consumer electronics. Results of the survey point out 79 percent of student households have at least one video game platform and 58 percent of students stating that they are occasional game players (playing at least monthly). In addition, 65 percent of student households own Sony's PS2, 50 percent own Microsoft's Xbox and 26 percent own Nintendo's GameCube. GameStop was recognized in the survey as the leading retailer for pre-owned video games with 60 percent market share and 29 percent market share for teen video game purchases. The survey also pointed out that 75 percent of teens say their interest in video games is declining and 78 percent indicated they spent less time playing in 2005."

3 of 115 comments (clear)

  1. I've seen the decline. I don't mind. by yagu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Up front disclaimer: I am not a video-gamer, and have never been one.

    I can add only anecdotal experience, but that experience jives with the article. I've had many friends who children were video game freaks. About ten years ago I was befuddled and bemused at the length of time they played and their intensity. Today, different friends, different generations... what I've seen has been that video games for today's kids is more of a diversion among many rather than a life style. I think video games were largely a fascination with "look what we can do with computers and graphics" emerging technology.

    Video games will always have a market, but I would agree with the observed trend they don't hold sway today as in the past. I think a number of things factor into this:

    • no creative quantum leaps in game technology since its emergence (better graphics alone don't cut it -- I still see kids playing ten year old console games because they simply like the old games better, regardless of inferior graphics)
    • emergence of so many other distracting technologies (mp3, video on-line, chat, cell phones, digital photography, cable/satellite 200+ tv channel selection)
    • a more mobile generation/society where a typical 16th birthday gift for kids is at least a used car. (that was virtually unheard of when I was a kid). today's generation is more likely to hop in the car and go somewhere rather than hole up in their room with video games.
    • the failure of real-time on-line video gaming (too much latency)

    Today, when I see kids playing video games at friend's homes it's typically a end-of-the-day diversion after all other activities have been exhausted.

  2. Is this what Nintendo is talking about? by PhotoBoy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If people are starting to lose interest in gaming, is this Nintendo's chance to shine with the Revolution, and its ideal of more accessible games and simple/intuitive controls?

  3. Or maybe it's just 2005, or maybe something else by Moraelin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    1. The tactic to release most stuff for christmas isn't new, but in 2004 it got ridiculous and in 2005... well, let's just say there was almost nothing released the whole summer. (Followed by a rush to release unfinished stuff in September, presumably because everyone realized the case of all demand and no supply on the market.)

    You know it's a bad year when Penny Arcade makes a strip about them buying Barbie Horse Adventures because nothing else got released in months. You know it's even worse when you actually take that as a hint to go to the shop and look for Barbie Horse Adventures. I swear to god, I actually did.

    So, well, I'm not surprised a bunch of people have said they've played less in 2005, simply because there was a severe drought of stuff to play.

    2. Additionally, one thing you need to understand is the way people answer in surveys. The answers invariably reflect the way people would like to be, or the way that would make them more socially acceptable, not the way they really are.

    E.g., if a community publically values helping each other and stuff, people will invariably tell a surveyor "oh, yes, we help each other on the farm all the time and we even help each other build a house"... even when the last time that's actually happened was in the 50s. E.g., if a (ex-tribal) culture values being a warrior and a hunter, almost everyone will declare themselves one in a survey... even though almost all their food comes from agriculture, and most of the population has never even seen a weapon recently. E.g., at one point where meat prices went up, everyone declared in surveys that they eat less meat... even though the meat consumption has actually _doubled_.

    All three above are actual cases studied by various anthropologists.

    It's not even a case of consciously lying, it's just selective confirmation, because everyone wants to have some self-esteem. So they alter their perception of reality a little, remember the things they did right, or close enough, and quickly forget the things they did wrong.

    What I'm getting at is that you should take such surveys with a grain of salt. With the anti-games campaign by the media and politics reaching such a climax, and games being presented as pure filth for degenerates... well, I can imagine a lot of people would like to look a bit less degenerate. So they'll adjust their answers accordingly.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.