http://www.gameslice.com/features/reviews/index.shtml

A colum by Mark Walker
What do people think of this guy's opinion? I remember him giving Combat Mission a low score and liking some bad games.

Billy

Well, I disagree with this statement in his column:

"Nevertheless, the number of hypercritical reviews seems to have reached a crescendo...."

I don't really think there are too many hypercritical reviews, so his entire argument is defeated before it even begins, IMO.

He says he's seen editors lower scores. I'm sure he's also seen editors raise scores too. It may just be his perspective. If he's the type of reviewer who, when he really enjoys a game, wants to give it a 10/10, then he's probably been frustated by editorial intervention. If one game a year warrants that score, that's a lot.

From the article:

"Our goal should not be to hyper-criticize games, spending our time searching for minor problems that matter not, but to pop in the game, play it, and answer two questions: What�s this game about? Is it fun?"

Is it fun? I dunno. Tom Chick, please pick up the white phone in the lobby.

I agree with everything Mark (Asher) says. I also disagree with this:

"The audience is the gamer -- the true, casual, everyday type of gamer boy, girl, man, and woman."

No, it isn't. Our audience is the obsessive. The casual gamer never bothers with the web. Most gamers don't bother with reviews.

Of all the email I get about stuff I write, it seems like 99% of my correspondents are reading my review AFTER buying the game. It seems that people are reading reviews looking for validation of their game purchase (or confirmation of their anger and frustration) rather than making purchasing decisions. So the answer to that editorial is that his premise is invalid and the audience he claims to serve doesn't read his reviews.

I agree with Bruce's post - but only to a point.

I think our audience is indeed the obsessive (a descriptor which, incidentally, includes us) unless we are reviewing for a mainstream publication like USA Today, Newsweek, Entertainment Weekly, Playboy or a newspaper.

If the latter, then a different reviewing style is probably appropriate (and usually mandated in the reviewers guidelines). Maybe more softball, certainly more succinct and brief, and with more of a focus on nebulous namby-pamby concepts like "fun".

But that goes without saying, any freelance writer who doesn't know how to serve the pub's audience is also failing to serve their real client, which is actually the editor.

-Andrew

"Of all the email I get about stuff I write, it seems like 99% of my correspondents are reading my review AFTER buying the game. It seems that people are reading reviews looking for validation of their game purchase (or confirmation of their anger and frustration) rather than making purchasing decisions. So the answer to that editorial is that his premise is invalid and the audience he claims to serve doesn't read his reviews."

I agree with this. I like to read reviews to see if the reviewer's opinion coincides with my own. The vast majority of the time I won't read a review if I haven't tinkered with a game myself. The exception to this is for the highly anticipated games. If for some reason I don't have a copy, I will check out a few reviews to see what people think. Of course Usenet is a good place to get an initial reaction to a game.

As far as influencing potential buyers, I think previews probably have the biggest impact. All the more reason to de-fluff them.

One of the biggest factors in my purchasing decisions has always been the playable demo. I'm pretty damn carefully with my game buying money and I generally don't buy any games that aren't really, really good. And even then I'm usually buying used or 9 months after a games release once its price is down around $20. So I like to play a game before I buy to see how well it runs on my computer, see if it is any fun, to see If I am board by the end of the demo. I read reviews too. I don't lay any money down until I've seen a good 3 or 4 opinions on the finished product. I gauge the buzz on the net too. Look at blurbs on news sites, see the reaction on message boards and stuff. But I'm probably more carefully with my money than most. But I just can't imagine dropping $50 on a game without knowing anything about it...

Brad Grenz

"The audience is the gamer -- the true, casual, everyday type of gamer boy, girl, man, and woman."

Yeah, that's BS. And you could make the argument that it SHOULD be those people if we want to make the industry mainstream, but I don't think that would be true either. In print or on the web.

Everybody drives, but Car & Driver is for car ENTHUSIASTS. Everybody goes to the movie, but movie mags are for movie buffs.

Our coverage isn't for regular Joes. It's for people who care about games enough to seek out info on it, or even shell out a few bucks for a magazine once a month. It should be readable enough that a regular Joe could understand it, but that's another issue.

---

Quote:

But I'm probably more carefully with my money than most. But I just can't imagine dropping $50 on a game without knowing anything about it...

---

No, can't! That should say "I can't afford to buy every game released...!!!"

Bingo, Bruce--that's one of my mantras: too many gamers are looking for validation, not information. It never ceases to amaze me how many gamers can't seem to enjoy a game if anyone criticizes it, or can't stand it when someone else likes a game they hate....

"It never ceases to amaze me how many gamers can't
seem to enjoy a game if anyone criticizes it, or can't stand it when someone else likes a game they hate...."

No kidding. Derek Smart threads excepted, I think you just described about 95% of the posts in the strategic newsgroup.

Gamers aren't all that discerning in my experience. They have a herd mentality. If your pals aren't playing the game you are, you limit your multiplayer and conversation about the game to next to nothing. With the net, we now have this huge group meeting up more regularly than before. So it seems like there's even more of a need to be a part of the crowd or just be left behind.

I really despise Space Empires IV, but if I voiced that on .strategic, I'd be run out of town for not liking an independent company that makes "gamer's games". All SEIV is to me is one big pile of data with no organization and little enjoyment. I'll take Apezone's Starships Unlimited for my space empire building, thank you very much.

It all reminds me of my favorite dumb joke...

Why'd the monkey fall out of the tree?

"Because it was dead."

Why'd the second monkey fall out of the tree?

"Because he was stapled to the first one."

Why'd the rest of the monkeys fall out of the tree?
.
.
.
.
.
.
"Peer Pressure."

--Dave

"No, it isn't. Our audience is the obsessive. The casual gamer never bothers with the web. Most gamers
don't bother with reviews. "

Oh, really? Then who are you writing for? Even if you don't agree with the second part of the statement, the "casual" bit, what about the front portion? Aren't you writing for gamers? If not, who? Each other?

I've worked customer service for years. 90% of our work comes from 10% of our clients. You receive lots of mail from obsessives. What a shock. Aren't they the only ones motivated enough to post a message over the average review? The only ones with enough emotional investment to care what you thought?

Careful, guys. You'll judge the world based on the cries of a few obsessives. Consider how many people read a magazine like CGW. Then consider, VOLUME of posts aside, how many names really appear in most of these messages and mails. I'd be surprised if you hit 1% on average.

"I've worked customer service for years. 90% of our work comes from 10% of our clients."

This is true of many such industries, and certainly games is one of them. Sure they've sold 70 million Playstations, but 7-10 million of those buy 90% of the games. You're going to write your Playstation coverage for those people. The guy who just buys the latest Madden game every year doesn't care enough about the system to read what you write anyway.

We see the 10% = 90% in action at CGM as well every day with the letters from readers. When we get feedback, it's a tough balancing act between taking what our readers say into account and the knowledge that they're a vocal minority--does the majority feel the same? Or is one side of an issue the only one bothering to write in?

People are 100x more likely to give feedback to complain about something than to praise it or express indifference.

"Aren't you writing for gamers? If not, who?"

I should have made it more clear: I feel like I'm writing for the obsessives, since that's what I think the audience is. And from reading the gaming press, it seems to me that that's who others are writing for, as well.

"I've worked customer service for years. 90% of our work comes from 10% of our clients. You receive lots of mail from obsessives."

Yes, but you at least know those people are actually using your product. I absolutely agree that the most obsessive of the obsessive are those motivated to write or complain. But my assertion is that the vast majority of casual gamers don't even use the product (magazines, websites, whatever).

This is just an impression based on my own experience, but in the absence of more comprehensive data, that's what I have to base my conclusion on. I know plenty of "casual" gamers. None of them have the faintest idea what GameSpot or Gamecenter is/was. They have never heard of Daily Radar. They know there are computer gaming magazines in the checkout line at the store, but they don't read them.

One of the guys in my department once asked me to recommend a game for him. He and his friends had been playing this game for several years, and wanted to try something similar but maybe a bit more current. You know what that game was? Blood. This was in the winter of 99/00. I gave him several URLs and told him to check out the "action" genre at these sites, but that seemed to be more than he wanted to do. Finally I just told him to get Blood 2 because due to a complex mathematical theorem its title meant it was twice as good as the original.

Another friend (casual gamer) has been playing since about 1980 but in the past ten years has sort of dropped the hobby due to lack of time. He did really like Myst, though, and bought Riven without reading any reviews. Last month he asked if Myst III was worth buying. I told him I didn't know and gave him a website to visit. He emailed me back saying that the review sounded like it was written by and for eight-year-olds, and were there any "adult" gaming websites. I told him that was pretty much the standard. Needless to say, he doesn't read the gaming press, either.

This is all anecdotal evidence, so it doesn't really count for much, except that when combined with the feedback I get it reinforces a general feeling I have about who reads reviews. Maybe someone can do a detailed study of website and magazine readership and game-buying patterns. Sounds like a sociology thesis. I'll have someone get right on that.

Bruce

P.S. The part about Blood 2 was a joke, but only that one sentence.

"People are 100x more likely to give feedback to complain about something than to praise it or express indifference."

I don't know about that -- I get a ton of feedback about the wargaming stuff I write, and I'd say 99% is praise (not praise for my writing, but simply general agreement, or "Right on!" or whatever). But I definitely agree that people are far more likely to respond with an extreme reaction than one of indifference.

I saw the film "Trekkies" tonight at someone's house over dinner. My view of the gaming press is that it serves the gaming equivalent of a Trek convention. There is a far larger audience that likes Star Trek, but only a fraction attend conventions. A lot of people play games, but only the Trekkie-equivalents read the game press. I think Bob's Car & Driver analogy is excellent.

Bruce

"I should have made it more clear: I feel like I'm writing for the obsessives, since that's what I think the audience is. And from reading the gaming press, it seems to me that that's who others are writing for, as well."

That's who I think I'm writing for too. I can't imagine someone subscribing to a game magazine if he or she wasn't keenly interested in games.

If I was writing for a mainstream pub I'd try to write differently.

Keenly interested in games...
Writing for the obsessives...

Well, that could account for the paucity of gaming magazine work out there, anyway.

I've had to read a lot of analysis over the years, and run a lot of statistics, measuring target audience versus feedback audience. I can tell you that, day after day, getting the same kinds of calls or letters from clients (or readers), you think you have a pretty good handle on them. I can also tell you that this thinking is usually dead wrong. Most of your clients, even the ones who give feedback, are just neutral. The ones wailing at you are the ones you remember, but if you cater to them, you lose. Just because the vast majority of people are too busy with other things to whine or bitch about what you wrote does not mean they didn't read it.

Want some examples? In all fairness,I will have to say that I am, in Mark's words, keenly interested in games, but also in the gaming industry. Really, I'm less interested in most games than I am with the soap operas that their development and release cycles usually turn into. I've found that in the past couple years gaming magazines have cut way back on that sort of coverage, and my interest has waned. Nowadays, I mostly just read the editorials and wait for my subscription to run out.

Now, with the above caveat, I've read CGW since, oh, '85 or '87 I guess. CGM I started with back when it was Strategy Plus, maybe in the late '80s or early '90s. I remember a B-29 or maybe a B-17 on the cover of my first one.

In all that time, there are only two editors I've written to (not counting solicited survey-type stuff): Johnny Wilson and Jeff Green. To their credit they both returned my mail and were very personable, and I even managed to have a pretty good discussion with Johnny over journalistic ethics. We didn't even talk about games directly. I wrote to mark to tell him I thought his first GameSpin was funny, and that's how we met. That's it. No ranting, no raving. Gaming magazines for me are an investment of time as an effort to save an investment of money and time. You guys forget that most of us have to very careful picking our games. We don't have the time or cash to waste on crap. Kids do. Grown-ups don't. I want to have fun with my precious free time, and spend the rest of my money on the usual suspects (booze, women, cigars, cars, etc.). Just because I'm keenly interested in games and business does not make me obsessive, eh? So why write differently for people like that? I read mainstream pubs. Hell, Maxim has an electronic gaming section each month. It's about as shallow as it comes, but in what way, aside from volume, does their style differ from yours (that's a group "yours" guys)? It looks to me like they just take the final paragrah from one of your reviews and use it as the entirety of their own review. does someone here not think that Maxim is a mainstream pub?

I can't help wondering if this niche thinking is what has prevented PC gaming from going more mainstream. Yes, game magazines are a nich, but the gaming industry is now quite large. Lots of niches do very well for themselves, but computer gaming remains the niche of the hardcore geek male. Blech. Let me try one last example: The Sims. The only advertising the game had that I ever saw prior to release was in gaming magazines. Yet it took off like a rocket out of the gate. Huge mass market, cross-gender and cross-culural appeal (I personally don't like the game). It wasn't in McCall's, so where did the women come from?

Betcha $5 it was all those unheard-from non-obsessive readers that went out and bought it right off the bat, then told all their friends. The hardcores are too small a group to generate that much buying frenzy that fast. Hardcores generate long-term buzz, not short-term rocket sales.

"Just because I'm keenly interested in games and business does not make me obsessive, eh?"

Actually, I'd say that it does. Or at least it puts you in the category I was talking about: the people who are really "into" games. Obsessive has derogatory connotations so perhaps it wasn't the best word to use, but as you say, you're "keenly interested in games" -- far more than a "casual gamer." Mark and I are talking about the same group of people.

"Betcha $5 it was all those unheard-from non-obsessive readers that went out and bought it right off the bat, then told all their friends."

Absolutely. That's exactly my point. They never read any reviews. They just saw it in the store and bought it. That was the original point of my first post in this thread. The article said that the audience is the casual gamer. I disagreed. Judging by the above statement, it seems you agree with me.

There's this much larger pool of casual gamers. I was at Office Max yesterday and I was just looking at their bundled up discount games for a minute and the assistant manager came over. He started telling me about this great game he and his friends play. It was the original Command and Conquer. This guy probably has no idea what Earth 2150 is, or Kohan, or any one of a dozen other RTS games. But he knows Blizzard and Westwood RTS games.

As to reviews, I've seen little evidence that good or bad reviews have much of an impact on sales. Are bad reviews going to keep Pearl Harbor from grossing $200 million?

Reviews probably matter much more to the little guys, like Strategy First. Kohan will probably sell a few thousand extra copies due to the good reviews and good word of mouth. For EA, a few thousand copies is meaningless. To Strategy First, it might be the difference between breaking even and making a profit.

Let me also add, that I don't really know how you can have a magazine dedicated to computer games that's aimed at a casual gaming audience. Incite tried to do that, but I think they had no idea how to reach those people -- certainly multiple graphs attached to each review was no way to hook casual gamers. It probably sent them screaming away.

Casual gamers will not buy a magazine devoted to games. You have to have something else, a lifestyle magazine, perhaps, that also covers games. Heck, it's hard to even do a mag that covers both video and PC games. You'd think that would be the biggest seller because you'd be drawing from two hardcore gaming pools, but I see no evidence that mags that have split coverage have done all that well.

"As to reviews, I've seen little evidence that good or bad reviews have much of an impact on sales. Are bad reviews going to keep Pearl Harbor from grossing $200 million?"

Sure, there are plenty of examples of movies with 'legs' due to word of mouth and critical success. Pearl Harbor won't make as much as it was supposed to-- because it really sucks, evidently. Haven't seen it myself, and have no plans to based on what I've seen here and elsewhere.

"Kohan will probably sell a few thousand extra copies due to the good reviews and good word of mouth."

And deservedly so. Despite my complaints about the design, it is a great game. It's just not as great as it SHOULD be. I've recommended it to a bunch of people-- and if you're reading this, and you haven't tried the demo of Kohan, you should.

"Casual gamers will not buy a magazine devoted to games. You have to have something else, a lifestyle magazine, perhaps, that also covers games. Heck, it's hard to even do a mag that covers both video and PC games."

Compare gaming with other hobby activities; people who enjoy going to the movies and watching TV may buy Entertainment Weekly. Why not Gaming Weekly?

"Last month he asked if Myst III was worth buying. I told him I didn't know and gave him a website to visit. He emailed me back saying that the review sounded like it was written by and for eight-year-olds, and were there any "adult" gaming websites."

Where the heck did you send this poor guy? Voodoo Extreme? I'm a huge fan of CGM, and I think the writing there is top notch. Why didn't you send him there for a review? There are still places to go for discerning gamers. The problem is that the internet drastically lowered the barrier to entry, and as a result we have a huge influx of mediocre sites. But that doesn't mean everything is a vast wasteland.

"I can't help wondering if this niche thinking is what has prevented PC gaming from going more mainstream."

The more mainstream things become, the better it is for all gamers. More money, more developers, more audience.. 90% of everything will still suck, but a 10% slice of a larger and larger pie is acceptable to me.

wumpus

"Compare gaming with other hobby activities; people who enjoy going to the movies and watching TV may buy Entertainment Weekly. Why not Gaming Weekly?"

Maybe. That's what newstand sales are for, and the gaming mags do get some of that market. I'm not sure what you can do to make newstand sales increase for gaming mags, besides spending more to print up additional copies and paying more for prime retail exposure.

I don't buy Entertainment Weekly, though I've skimmed it at the grocery store and it seems like a nice magazine. It also seems aimed at people who are pretty serious about movies and watching TV. If the people who typically buy it watch 20+ hours of TV and movies a week, that's a hardcore audience I think. Compare that to the casual game fan who might buy three games a year and average no more than a few hours a week playing games. If you just watch TV or movies a few hours each week like I do, you're not going to buy Entertainment Weekly.

"If I was writing for a mainstream pub I'd try to write differently."

You'd have to. The editors aren't really interested in geek praise or geek complaint. They don't want to hear about framerates, AI or even "replay value". They basically want you to say it is cool, or not cool, fun/not fun and do it in less than 75 words.

"If you just watch TV or movies a few hours each week like I do, you're not going to buy Entertainment Weekly"

Oddly, EW isn't particularly hardcore nor obsessive. Meaning, casual viewers (like you Mark) will find more to enjoy in EW than the PC game reader equivalent. Have you seen the true geek Entertainment magazines? (I don't mean Variety, that's an industry mag).

-Andrew

Movies and TV are far more "universal" too than PC games are.

Bub: "Have you seen the true geek Entertainment magazines?"

What would you consider geeky entertainment mags? Would Film Threat count? Because that's the one film mag I can think of that can be compared to many gaming mags, ie. it was very fanboyish and often really poorly written.

It's possibly unfair for me to say that, because I worked at LFP when Film Threat was under Sr. Flynt's management. There were some good writers there (I liked Paul Anderson, Mark Altman, and David Williams was always good).

-Ron

"Meaning, casual viewers (like you Mark) will find more to enjoy in EW than the PC game reader equivalent. Have you seen the true geek Entertainment magazines?"

I might find more to enjoy, but I don't really enjoy reading about TV or movies all that much. That's my point. People who like to watch TV and movies and do so 20 hours a week are more like hardcore gaming fans who play computer games 20 hours a week. I'd have to think that the people who read EW are quite interested in TV and movies and the people who make them, just as hardcore gamers are interested in games and the people who make them. What makes EW a mainstream pub? How does it appeal to a non-TV watcher like myself?

The only thing that makes EW more mainstream than a computer game mag is that TV and movies are more mainstream than computer gaming. It's not their approach or anything else -- it's the subject matter. If anyone wants to make a gaming mag mainstream, I think it's impossible until gaming itself is a mainstream activity.

Mark: "What makes EW a mainstream pub? How does it appeal to a non-TV watcher like myself?"

Well, for starters it's circulation rate makes it one of the most mainstream mags in the business. I'm not sure of the exact numbers but it's in Time and Newsweeks league.

Also, the coverage. Rarely will you find much about how films are made and the coverage they throw in about foreign films are for a small part of their audience. The pace is brisk in every issue and they strike what I think is a great balance between puff (People) and hard (Variety, etc.,)

Mark: "The only thing that makes EW more mainstream than a computer game mag is that TV and movies are more mainstream than computer gaming. It's not their approach or anything else -- it's the subject matter."

Good point, but not really true.
What makes EW more mainstream than computer mags is that anyone can read it and follow it. Regardless of their interest level. It does a huge Doctor office business I'd imagine.

I don't watch much TV or many movies anymore myself... but I am still extremely interested in them. I think that's EWs true audience. People curious about entertainment but no longer geeky about it, and then there's the people looking for gossip. Oh, EW has much better, and better paid, writers too.

Oh, and, gaming is already a mainstream activity. It just isn't one that's taken seriously... yet. Statistics show that the majority of kids out there play games at home or with friends. How many of them want to read about it is the real problem. Shows like Extended Play on TechTV help.

Anyone else find it interesting that console games and systems sell better to the 20-30 year old set than computer games do, yet computer game mags offer better, deeper coverage and much better pay rates than console mags do?

-Andrew

Ron: "What would you consider geeky entertainment mags? Would Film Threat count? Because that's the one film mag I can think of that can be compared to many gaming mags, ie. it was very fanboyish and often really poorly written."

Yeah, I'd throw Film Threat in there. Entertainment Today is another, God there are so many... Cinescape, MovieTone, etc., Then you can also consider the genre specific stuff like Fangoria, Starlog, Soap Opera Digest (;>), Star Trek Communicator... ok, those last two are way geekier than Game mags.

Also, please understand everyone, I'm using the term "geek" affectionately here. I just don't like writing "obsessive" all the time.

-Andrew

"Good point, but not really true.
What makes EW more mainstream than computer mags is that anyone can read it and follow it. Regardless of their interest level. It does a huge Doctor office business I'd imagine."

That's mostly because everyone's watched TV or seen movies, so the subject matter's much more familar. If you don't have experience with computer games beyond Solitaire and Minesweeper, it has to seem a bit alien to read about many computer games.

"Oh, and, gaming is already a mainstream activity. It just isn't one that's taken seriously... yet. Statistics show that the majority of kids out there play games at home or with friends."

Mainstream with kids isn't really mainstream, though. The key is how many kids stop gaming once they get out of school and start working full time? I'd guess a lot do. My brothers-in-law were big Nintendo fans as teens when I was dating my wife. They're both in their 30's now and neither of them own a console system or play PC games.

Anyway, this conversation has wandered far afield. If you're arguing that computer game mags would be mainstream mags if only they changed their approach to covering games, I disagree. Gaming's still very much a hobbyist's activity.

"If you're arguing that computer game mags would be mainstream mags if only they changed their approach to covering games, I disagree. Gaming's still very much a hobbyist's activity."

I'm not arguing that at all!
I just saying that EW isn't on the same geek plane as PCGamer is. EW can be read and understood by regular "non-obsessive" TV and film viewers, but there are plenty of Entertainment mags out there that cater to "obsessives" and insiders. Those are a better parallel.

Can Gaming ever get an EW style mag?
Maybe, someday. TV Shows like "Extended Play" are a start I guess in that direction I guess.

-Andrew

"Oh, and, gaming is already a mainstream activity. It just isn't one that's taken seriously... yet."

Gaming is a "mainstream activity", Bub? Care to elaborate?

Gaming is still a niche hobby and is likely to remain so for a long time to come. Occasionally, things like The Sims and online bingo break out. But you're in the wrong line of business if you don't know enough to realize that this ain't "mainstream".

-Tom

Yeah,

Console games and some PC games are covered in every major newspaper. Even in small non-affluent cities like Milwaukee. Major releases are reviewed in Playboy, Sports Illustrated, Entertainment Weekly, Maxim, Newsweek, Time, etc., Console launches are covered on "World News Tonight with Peter Jennings".

Find a teenager who doesn't have some sort of at home or at a friend's house access to video games.

Now, define "mainstream" for me.

-Andrew

"Console games and some PC games are covered in every major newspaper."

So is gardening. What's your point?

"Now, define "mainstream" for me."

There's your problem. You don't even know what the word means! :)

Computer games aren't a part of popular consciousness; Brittany Spears, People magazine, The Mummy Returns, Jay Leno, Friends, and the NBA playoffs are. I don't know beans about any of those things, but I know what they are, because they're mainstream.

Computer games are a hobby followed by a handful of people in the world. Otherwise, they're hardly a blip on anyone else's consciousness.

"Myst? Yeah, that's one of those computer games, isn't it?"

"The Playstation 2? Isn't that one of those new Nintendos?"

"Tomb Raider? Yeah, that's a movie about a game about a girl Indiana Jones."

Get used to it, Bub, because that's the way it is.

-Tom

"Computer games are a hobby followed by a handful of people in the world. Otherwise, they're hardly a blip on anyone else's consciousness."

We're not talking exclusively about computer games.

"Myst? Yeah, that's one of those computer games, isn't it?"
"The Playstation 2? Isn't that one of those new Nintendos?"
"Tomb Raider? Yeah, that's a movie about a game about a girl Indiana Jones."
---------

Brittany Spears? - Teen singer, right?
People Magazine? - Found at grocery stores?
Jay Leno? - Big chin? Talk show guy?
Friends? - Is that still on?
NBA Playoffs? - Who's playing? Did the Bucks win?

What's the difference?
All the above answers are correct. (Except the NBA one.) Btw, your point was stronger than you gave it credit for. Do you really live in a world where people know that much about Myst, Tomb Raider and the Playstation 2? They sure don't here in Milwaukee. But they do know Mario and Pokemon. ;)

-Andrew

Magazines like entertainment weekly cover very little of the technical aspect of the movie - they are personality pieces. Would you want to see that on games? George Broussard, who are you dating?? Maybe he could pose for the cover shirtless while someone else's hands cover his man boobs? Did you ever read sports illustrated? It is for the most part filled with personality pieces.

Also the personalities in games only shine for a few months every 2-3 years. People on TV and movies tend to appear multiple times a year, giving people the feeling they know that person. Did you ever hear old ladies talk about the Tom Cruise - Nicole Kidman break up. You would think they are talking about their kids. People get excited about the soap opera of Hollywood lives. It is hard not to notice who stars in a film, who cares who made the game? Name someone who starred in an A movie - and I bet everyeone has heard of them - ask someone who Allen Adham is.

I get bored out of my mind reading gaming magazines - I don't care. Tips? Tricks? Do I own the game? Discussion on game genre's i don't play, added with my favorite - discussion on game genre's that I don't play that are only accessible to people who have played every game of that genre. If your show is on TV - most people can watch if they want, if you discuss that - it is accessible. Gaming refrences to other games I have never played, just don't do it. Unlike a TV show or movie where i may have picked up a casual knowledge of it, I have no idea about some/most games.

I would guess with no facts backing me - outside of the industry people and hardcore fanatics, most gaming mags have about 20% content that is of interest to each general gamer.

Adult gaming content? Double ugh. That means tits or serious articles on how if EA keeps making games like so and so, we will never get to play that game that cures cancer. These are games - a serious magazine on jacks wouldn't be a big seller either.

Chet

I think I tend to agree with Bub on this one. I could easily talk about the PS2 in passing -- granted, not an in-depth discussion -- with anyone in my office, and none of them are anything close to gamers, with maybe one or two exceptions. Everyone recognizes the name. And I'd say, percentage-wise, that the number of people who play games when compared to people who recognize the name "PS2" is probably just as good as the number of people who actually listen to Britney's music when compared to the number of people who would recognize her name or face. (And, truth be known, if she weren't hot, and least in many people's opinion, she wouldn't be nearly as well-known as she is today.) So that must be it. Games just need to be hotter to reach the mainstream. Is that what GOD's been going for?

I think that the general public has at least a vague awareness of electronic games (even computer games--shoot, you can even stumble across them at Wal-Mart!), much like the average game geek has a general awareness of daylight, the out-of-doors, and those women things. What isn't out there yet is a general *acceptance* of electronic gaming. When little ol' ladies like my grandmother can hear of adults gaming (computer or otherwise) and not sniff at them with disdain ("Games [at least, anything that's not a card game] are for kids"), or when "I played a game last night" ellicits no more comment than "I watched TV last night," then (electronic) gaming will have reached general acceptance.

It's all how you couch it with people you talk to. If they tell me about what they did last night and look for me to do the same, I'll say "I was on the PC. I'm kinda tired of watching TV. I'd rather have more interaction in my free time." That usually gets a question about what it was I was doing or "were you on the Internet?" where I can branch out into the game discussion without them batting an eye.

I also find that if you talk to a non-gamer about games, the stories or anecdotes they like to hear are about online gaming. I'll mention a friend or two that I regularly play games with and how they're "in Michigan" or "in Canada". People who have no clue about games can relate to that. That sounds cool to them.

I've found that the biggest reason most people can't talk about games with non-gamers is that they simply can't describe what they're doing in layman's terms. Don't expect an average Joe to know the acronyms or understand the concepts. First person shooters are just "3D action games". Real-time strategy is "armies fighting each other in real-time" which often gets into the idea of turns also, etc.

Gamers just typically live up to their stereotypes. No social skills, geeky behaviour, bad hygiene and embarrassing comments are the lifeblood of many of the hardcore. I have no problem with it, but our society frowns on someone who's "different". I just wish more gamers would realize they're not above the rest of the world because they can make their PC jump through hoops.

--Dave

Most of the people I work with know that I play games, and no one looks at me like I'm different, points, whispers, and stares, or runs the other way when they see me coming. (At least, no more than people who don't know that I'm a gamer...) They don't act like it's all that weird. There's maybe one other gamer around here (although one guy shows potential), but I don't think anyone considers it "freakish."

The simple fact of the matter is that PC games and console games are fringe entertainment. They are not mainstream.

BTW, "fringe" does not imply "freakish". It just means it's something not many people do. To call gaming "mainstream" simply shows you don't know what "mainstream" means.

-Tom

I think what Tom says is pretty valid, at least for adults; for kids, I think it's a lot more "mainstream" to have a game console as an important part of leisure time activities.

Despite the frequent PR squawking about how many billions the game industry rakes in and how it's overtaking Hollywood, I think the cultural penetration of games is infintesimal compared to movies, music, and television.

"The simple fact of the matter is that PC games and console games are fringe entertainment. They are not mainstream.

BTW, "fringe" does not imply "freakish". It just means it's something not many people do. To call gaming "mainstream" simply shows you don't know what "mainstream" means."

This is a very wumpus-like post. Repetition, for one thing. Assertion of the same point in a slightly different phrasing instead of coherent supporting evidence.

"When little ol' ladies like my grandmother can hear of adults gaming (computer or otherwise) and not sniff at them with disdain ("Games [at least, anything that's not a card game] are for kids"), or when "I played a game last night" ellicits no more comment than "I watched TV last night," then (electronic) gaming will have reached general acceptance."

Yeah, that's pretty much all I ask for. And remember kids-- the more people we induct into our secret society of he-man gamers, the less ridiculous it becomes.

"(And, truth be known, if she weren't hot, and least in many people's opinion, she wouldn't be nearly as well-known as she is today.) So that must be it. Games just need to be hotter to reach the mainstream."

Perhaps you might be interested in playing a new game I'm developing? It's a little something I call VAGINA.

I don't know, Tom. According to ON Magazine, from Time. Inc.,:

"Sixty percent of Americans � around 145 million people � play video games. They spent over $9 billion on them last year. That's more than they spent on going to the movies."

145 million people engaging in fringe entertainment?

http://www.onmagazine.com/on-mag/magazine/article/0,9985,108096,00.html

"for kids, I think it's a lot more "mainstream" to have a game console as an important part of leisure time activities."

Good point. I suppose Pokeman has every claim to being mainstream that Brittany Spears does.

What puzzles me is this strange need some people have to insist that games are mainstream, that they're rivalling Hollywood, that they're on their way to being "accepted", that they deserve the same respect movies get (corollary: that games are art).

Pshaw. Culture isn't quite ready for this sort of interactive entertainment, particularly with its current sci-fi/fantasy/geek milieu. The average person has no desire to build armies, find keys, or shoot aliens.

-Tom

I guess we're all arguing about different things. If you think something that sells, say, 3.5 million copies (Final Fantasy VIII) is "fringe entertainment," then -- what are most books? Setting aside Stephen King's 12 annual novels, and Tom Clancy's, and the Chicken Soup books, books don't sell like that.

But it's certainly true that there are huge pockets of people who wouldn't know Sid Meier if he picked their pocket. I have friends who don't own game systems but they have a blast getting their asses kicked by me at Goldeneye or Mario Kart 64. Maybe not a blast.

---

Quote:

Perhaps you might be interested in playing a new game I'm developing? It's a little something I call VAGINA.

---

Games just need likeable characters to go mainstream. I mean, Earthworm Jim, Sonic, Mario, etc. were all lovable characters. Lara Croft is lovable in other ways (not to me, but why else would Tomb Raider sell so damn well)... The movie won't totally flop (at least I don't think it will), and the commercials make it actually appeal to a broader audience--the same audience that enjoyed movies like The Mummy (which includes me). It looks kinda cool.

Andrew Bub: "...they do know what Mario and Pokemon are"

Tom Chick: "To call gaming "mainstream" simply shows you don't know what "mainstream" means."

John T. "145 million people engaging in fringe entertainment?"

Tom Chick: "Good point. I suppose Pokeman has every claim to being mainstream that Brittany Spears does."

Ergo, Tom Chick doesn't know what mainstream means. ;)

"What puzzles me is this strange need some people have to insist that games are mainstream, that they're rivalling Hollywood, that they're on their way to being "accepted", that they deserve the same respect movies get"

Yes, there is a whiney "strange need" as you see it. And that explains why you jumped on my post so readily Tom. But I didn't mean that. I was referring to the ONMagazine poll (thanks John, for finding it) and how, despite whining, gaming is moving into the mainstream faster than we think.

Right now, the Atari/Apple 2 generation is 30 and having kids.

The NES/Genesis generation are adults.

The GB/PSX/N64 generation are in college

The GBA/DC/PSX2 generation are on their way.

When parents start playing games with their kids (like I assume most of us will) games will become mainstream.

Also, you know something is mainstream, I'd argue, when it takes blame for societies ills.

-Andrew
PS: Tom, gardening is mainstream.
PPS: I don't think I'd ever call gaming "art".

I agree with Bub. I don't really think anything has to "happen" or "change" for gaming to go mainstream. It will happen on its own. It's not mainstream, but it will be. As Andrew said, parents gaming with their kids will go a long way. But gaming, by and large (especially as we think of it today), is a relatively young hobby. Give it ten years. Heck, maybe five. Gaming will go mainstream but it must. Everyone likes games, but they don't all know it. They don't all know that there are the kinds of games that they'd go for. But does anyone know anyone who has introduced someone to a couple of games, and not had them come back? (That's not a rhetorical question, by the way!) I don't. I have converted several people, and a couple of them have converted a few others. And my wife is getting more and more into it, so I know that it has mainstream potential.

Andrew: What do you mean WHEN parents start playing?!? My dad used to cheat at that Atari 2600 baseball game where you could steer the pitch after it was thrown. (I don't care if that was a design choice, it was cheating and that's that.) I was a young whippersnapper then.

It's funny, cause he's 59, and the XBOX/Gamecube stuff is not on his radar, yet ... he plays Links on the computer, and Hoyle games, and he loves Mario Golf and wishes he could win a game of Mario Tennis against me. If 59 year old guys are playing games, surely they are at least tip-toeing towards the heart of America.

And ... if you've seen angry parents demanding games for their rotten kids at Toys R Us, you know how important they are to some spoiled hateful little rotten kids/families ... oh sorry.

On a separate note: Does anyone else here have the guts to admit that some of these games are getting too hard for us non-kids?!?!? I'm 30 and I have to admit some of the console titles are leaving me behind (sigh). I got to the last 20% of Mario 64 and I wanted to cry at the difficulty. My wife never could do the second @#%)!@#$!@#*()$ Penguin race. My worst nightmare is that in two years I won't be able to play new games -- not because my 3-month-old computer is once again obsolete, not because I'm too busy, not because I'm bored or because I have outgrown them (right), but because I SUCK.

I never see any of you hardcore folks saying this. Maybe I, alone, suck?

John,
Your father isn't mainstream! My parents both couldn't care less about games....
But I think, even those that have abandoned gaming into their 30s, will pick up a gamepad their son or daughter has left lying around and give modern gaming a whirl.

People like your father will become the rule, not the exception. Our generation will have video games in those old folks homes, dammit! I FULLY expect to see that when we get there.

Also, I was on my doorstep playing NAMCO Museum for the GBA (Galaga and Ms. Pac Man). I think I sold the two GBAs when neighbors came over and took a look. These guys were in their 40's btw.

-Andrew

---

Quote:

And ... if you've seen angry parents demanding games for their rotten kids at Toys R Us, you know how important they are to some spoiled hateful little rotten kids/families ... oh sorry.

---

"Sixty percent of Americans � around 145 million people � play video games. They spent over $9 billion on them last year. That's more than they spent on going to the movies."

I find this suspect. I think if you got rid of the Hearts and Tetris players that number would be a lot smaller. I also bet it's inflated by tracking purchases, which in many cases can be attributed to non-gaming parents or relatives buying gifts.

My wife plays games, but it's confined exclusively to the online stuff like Hearts and other games. It's so far removed from what we mean when we talk about games that what she does shouldn't really be grouped with what we do.

Now, to get back to the argument that the game mags could be mainstream pubs if only they changed their focus, I'd ask what the hell kind of magazine would CGW have to become to attract someone like my wife as a reader? It would basically be an entirely different magazine and would shed its current subscriber base.

Dave:

Actually,

1. it was a joke, really
2. the parts of it that weren't a joke were about parents who elbow other parents to get stuff.

My life is filled with kids, I love them, etc. I plan to have them soon, but I don't plan to attempt to run over people at Toysrus to get a PS3, that's all I was saying. Please don't make a mountain out of this tiny little molehill, ok?

John

Mark:

I think it's all too easy to attempt to refute a point by dismissing statistics out of hand. But you really don't have evidence that the stats are suspect, and I have a feeling Time Inc. employs more factcheckers than the average gaming mag/site. I don't doubt that there are compromises with that poll as there are with every poll, but just saying those stats are bullshit isn't really reasonable.

I think things have changed. My sister didn't play games at all when she was young. Neither did my sister-in-law. Now they are both in their mid-20s, both active socially, both very normal (not geeks), and both big fans of AOL chat. They both also play games now, including RollerCoaster Tycoon and The Sims. Those are games. They aren't Europa Universalis, but they are games.

Bub, I play games with my kid now and have for the past several years. Just finished Serious Sam co-op a few days back.

Next up dueling vikings in Rune co-op. :)

-- Xaroc

I dunno, John. As much as I'd like to believe this sixty percent, I'm afraid I'm gonna have to side with Mark on this one. Perhaps 60% of Americans occasionally play something that could be construed as a game, or perhaps 60% own a console or PC that is frequently used for games, but that's not what we're talking about here.

There are, what, about 1.3 million subscribers to the major MMORPGs combined, right? We'll assume that no one has subscriptions to more than one, an no one has more than one account for that figure (which we know to be crap). A VERY successful game sells how many copies? 800,000 sound pretty good to you? Now, unfortunately, we know that the same people who are buying Warcraft 3 are buying Red Alert 2, and the same people who are buying Quake are buying Unreal...We'll assume perhaps 1.2 million people games per each genre. (Probably not real accurate, but there's no way to know.) Multiply that by, what, eight major genres? Ten? So, we've got 12 million people playing non-MMORPGs, 1.3 million playing MMORPGs, and perhps another 2 million people that get sucked in by games like the Sims and RCT. So, that's slightly more than 15 million, shall we call them "regular gamers" -- not necessarily hardcore, but probably more than casual -- on the PCs. I couldn't even begin to estimate consoles, and I'm not going to try to figure the overlap, but you're telling me that 130 million people -- who weren't already counted in the PC games -- play console games often enough to be considered a "regular gamer?" I don't think so.

-Disclaimer: I made all these numbers up as I went, and they could be way off, but are likely representative. I think I got my point across, anyway. But there's no need to tell me how blatantly wrong I am, or how stupid I am, for using these numbers.

Actually, that should be 230 million, not 130. It occurs to me that a lot of my numbers of PC gamers might be pretty small, but still...

I guess this has turned into a debate over the meaning of the word "mainstream", which is a convenient way to sidestep the point.

A more relevant question is this: how many people are what we would call "gamers"? Most of the studies cited will include people we wouldn't consider "gamers": someone who ended up with a copy of Myst in their CD-ROM, people like Mark's wife who play Hearts online, my girlfriend who enjoys something on Yahoo Games called Word Racer, Joe Sixpack who has a PSOne and some Madden Football game but wouldn't know Diablo if it bit him in the ass.

Bottom line: not many people are "gamers" in our sense of the word. Not many people devote any significant amount of their disposible income to buying computer (or video) games. Not many people know what new games Interplay has lined up or which MMORPG is having server problems or that the new Dune game is likely going to be a Red Alert retread. Not many people read game magazines.

Tomb Raider being made into a movie isn't going to change that (cf. the Mario Brothers movie). A misleading ON Magazine poll isn't going to change that (cf. methodology used in studies by the Yankee Group, Jupiter Communications, etc). Bub thinking that gardening is "mainstream" isn't going to change that (cf. Bub equating "mainstream" with "stuff that takes the blame for society's ills").

We're the fringe, folks. Get used to it. We're not on an imminent collision course with widespread acceptance and understanding.

At least, that's the case in the U.S. I suspect it's a bit different in Korea and Japan, for instance. Maybe even Germany.

-Tom

MARK : "Now, to get back to the argument that the game mags could be mainstream pubs if only they changed their focus, I'd ask what the hell kind of magazine would CGW have to become to attract someone like my wife as a reader? It would basically be an entirely different magazine and would shed its current subscriber base."

Don't worry Mark. I backed away from this argument right away.

Instead I think you're going to see Entertainment Weekly, Newspapers, Time, Newsweek, Rolling Stone, etc., slowly expand their overall video game coverage. That's how we'll gauge their acceptance into the mainstream I think. If a TV show like Extended Play ever makes it onto a Network, even on Saturday morning, that'll be a step - or - if we start seeing video game releases covered on Entertainment Tonight.

But CGW, PCG etc., will always be niche and hardcore. No question.

Next Generation on the other hand... I could easily imagine that turning into an EW for gaming. But I don't think it'd be "mainstream successful" doing that quite yet.

-Andrew

"I think it's all too easy to attempt to refute a point by dismissing statistics out of hand. But you really don't have evidence that the stats are suspect, and I have a feeling Time Inc. employs more factcheckers than the average gaming mag/site. I don't doubt that there are compromises with that poll as there are with every poll, but just saying those stats are bullshit isn't really reasonable."

I don't think I explained myself well. There may be 145 million people in the US who have played some kind of computer or videogame, but I suspect that those numbers include people playing Hearts, Minesweeper, and other games like that. I suspect that the number of people who play the kinds of games that CGW and Electronic Gaming Monthly write about would be much, much smaller. Just take a look at what the article cites and ask yourself if it makes sense to you based on what you've experienced:

"The average gamer, it turns out, is probably you. The vast majority (80%) aren't even kids;"

Does that really seem right? Eight of ten people who play games are adults? How many of these eight are playing the kinds of games we play, do you think?

"indeed, the age of a typical gamer is 28. Nearly half of gamers are women."

Every study I've ever seen from the game industry points out that our hobby is male dominated. Again, what kinds of games is the article including?

"Lots of people even play at work � in fact, among those who do, a recent ON MAGAZINE poll found that 1 in 10 admit to playing as many as 10 hours a week on the job (and that's just the honest ones)."

One in ten are playing games at work? This has to be Solitaire, Hearts, and stuff like that. Ten percent of the American workforce isn't deathmatching or playing Starcraft while at work. Think how inflated that number really is when you factor in all the people who work who don't use computers capable of playing games. It might be sloppy writing, but if it really is 10% of the entire workforce, than the percentage of people who actually use computers who are playing games is much higher. You might have to skew that to 50% or some outrageous figure to get the numbers to work right.

You get 145 million gamers if you expand the definition to include all the goofy games that none of us are interested in. That's fine, but it has no bearing at all on magazines like CGW and CGM. There's no way they can aim their magazine about both the Hearts crowd and the Quake crowd. They'd make neither demographic happy.

Unfortunately, the article doesn't describe how they came up with the numbers, other than that it appears to be from a poll the magazine took. It would have been revealing to have seen the actual poll, but I didn't see it anywhere.

I agree with Tom about the definition of "gamers." I think that was the point of my long-winded thread...Tom just said it better. ;-)

I'm not sure that I agree that we will never be "mainstream." I think it's totally conceivable that someday just as many people will buy consoles and games, and PC games, as buy TVs and DVDs today. I don't know how long it will be, but I dare say that we will be in the majority in ten years.

But what the heck do I know?

Tom Chick: "I guess this has turned into a debate over the meaning of the word "mainstream", which is a convenient way to sidestep the point."

I think that was sort of your doing Tom. At least that was the door you slipped through to join the debate....

Tom Chick: "A more relevant question is this: how many people are what we would call "gamers"?"

Absolutely right. That is a more relevant question and common ground you and I, at least, can agree on.

Isn't the difference between the two also the difference between a movie fan and film buff? No one calls film buffs "mainstream".

Going back to the start of this conversation (between me and Mark) PCGamer is for the gaming equivalent of a Movie Buff while Entertainment Weekly is for movie fans.

-Andrew

In our local paper, the gardening stuff goes in the Life section, along with the child rearing, dating, cooking, and other liftstyle-hobby stuff, not to mention entertainment like movies and TV.

The games coverage, when it appears at all, is buried in the Technology section.

I read Bub's gardening point as a comment on the acceptability of gaming to the American public, not as a demographic standpoint. Similarly, the above.

And Tom, games are a much more accepted part of life in Korea, Japan, and Germany, although in the latter two cases Games with the capital G are less popular than lighter fare. . . but it would be very acceptable for young adults to spend time with them and playing them together. Korea, now. . . Korea is hardcore Starcraft and Rainbow Six LAN play.

"I read Bub's gardening point as a comment on the acceptability of gaming to the American public, not as a demographic standpoint. Similarly, the above."

I suppose we can credit Bub with assuming "mainstream" means "something that's accepted". To me, "mainstream" means "part of the popular consciousness". This doesn't qualify gaming or gardening. But I'm happy to leave Bub to muddle his own definitions. :)

"And Tom, games are a much more accepted part of life in Korea, Japan, and Germany, although in the latter two cases Games with the capital G are less popular than lighter fare. . . but it would be very acceptable for young adults to spend time with them and playing them together. Korea, now. . . Korea is hardcore Starcraft and Rainbow Six LAN play."

How popular is Rainbow Six in Korea? The stories about Starcraft's success (Starcraft snack foods!) are near legendary. Are you guys lucky enough to be in a similar situation with the R6 properties?

I'm also fascinated by how widely board games are playing in Germany. (Mainstream?) Board gaming in the U.S. is not only fringe, but it's also moribund, thanks in part to CCGs. What's going on in Germany that whole families play those abstract board games with solid wooden playing pieces?

-Tom

---

Quote:

My life is filled with kids, I love them, etc. I plan to have them soon, but I don't plan to attempt to run over people at Toysrus to get a PS3, that's all I was saying. Please don't make a mountain out of this tiny little molehill, ok?

---

Just to recap, Bub, I was taking issue with this remark you made: "Oh, and, gaming is already a mainstream activity. It just isn't one that's taken seriously... yet."

If by mainstream, you mean, "publically accepted", well, then, yeah, I guess games are mainstream. I don't see gamers being oppressed or locked up or spat upon in the streets. By that definition, sitar players, cat shows, and Esperanto poetry are also mainstream.

If, however, by mainstream, you mean the sort of wishful thinking expressed in the ON Magazine poll, or the sort of wishful thinking that figures games are on the verge of being "taken seriously" (whatever that's supposed to mean), or the sort of wishful thinking that soon everyone in your office will have a copy of Quake installed on his computer, then you don't know much about gaming.

I'm glad you agree with me that not many people play games. Maybe next time you get a hankering to write "gaming is a mainstream activity", you'll include the disclaimer that a) you're inventing a new definition for the word or b) you're talking about Korea.

In the meantime, gaming is the U.S. is not a mainstream activity. I can think of no simpler way to put it. So there it is.

-Tom

"To me, "mainstream" means "part of the popular consciousness". This doesn't qualify gaming or gardening. But I'm happy to leave Bub to muddle his own definitions. :)"

Well, you do live in an apartment in sandy-soil Los Angeles. I suppose all those home and garden stores nationwide are there selling to a niche audience then, eh?

"...or the sort of wishful thinking that soon everyone in your office will have a copy of Quake installed on his computer."

Everyone in my office does have Quake installed on their computer. My office is on the first floor of my house. Still, I just got done talking to my sister-in-law. Every single student in Edith Denison's 3rd grade class at Fritsche Elementary School has a console system at home. That's an inner city school if that matters. Where does "popular consciousness" begin? You think most people can't identify Mario? Pokemon? Maybe it stops there. I recall another study that claimed Duke Nukem was extremely recognizable to high schoolers.... Certainly the majority of Americans are "aware" video games exist and most have seen them being played. At least as aware of most TV shows and probably more aware than people who know who just won the Stanley Cup.

"...then you don't know much about gaming."

Hyperbole is sort of a reflex for you isn't it?

"In the meantime, gaming is the U.S. is not a mainstream activity. I can think of no simpler way to put it. So there it is. "

Yes, definitely there's no simpler way to put it. But how many more posts will it take before you're done "putting it" Tom?

;)

You're quibbling, the truth is that "mainstream" isn't exactly a concrete term. The term is just as "muddled" as I am. Sorry my statement didn't match your personal understanding of the word. But I'm truly mystified that my statement and the "OnMagazine" poll bother you so much.

-Andrew

"But I'm truly mystified that my statement and the "OnMagazine" poll bother you so much."

My issue with the poll is that I don't think it's asking about games in the sense that you and I mean games, so it's really irrelevant. It's as if they polled us and asked it we've ever been bowling, and then declared that we were a nation of bowlers because we've been in a bowling alley once over the last five years.

If that same poll had asked if the respondents knew what "FPS" or "RTS" meant, something that just about all the readers of mags like CGW, CGM, and Gamer would know, how many would know it? My guess is that projection of 145 million would then drop to well under 5 million who knew hardcore gaming terms. That's the audience that we're writing for, not the 145 million.

Yeah, I agree with that completely Mark. Like most polls and statistics, it's flawed, especially if you consider the hardcore side of gaming. But is the hardcore side of ANYTHING "mainstream"?

-Andrew

"You're quibbling, the truth is that "mainstream" isn't exactly a concrete term."

Yes, it is. Like any other word, "mainstream" has a definite meaning. Feel free to refer to your dictionary.

-Tom

Sigh...

From Miriam Websters

Noun: a prevailing current or direction of activity or influence

Transitive Verb: to place (as a handicapped child) in regular school classes


Seems to fit the noun definition, don't you think? Each console generation reaches more homes...
-Andrew

"But is the hardcore side of ANYTHING "mainstream"?"

I don't know, but if "mainstream gaming" is playing Hearts, Spades, and all those other games you can find on Yahoo, Pogo, and other similar places, then it's so different from what we like and play and write about that it might as well be a separate hobby. And I'm not trying to place one above the other, either. They're completely separate experiences.

And the only reason why I make this point is that there seems to be this feeling that some have that computer game mags limit their audience by aiming their articles at the hardcore gaming crowd. My contention is that this is the only demographic that is likely to ever want to buy a computer game magazine, so you have to aim your content towards them.

I can't even conceptualize a games magazine that would be aimed at someone like my wife, who probably spends an hour a day playing various games on Pogo. There's nothing more that she needs to know about those games. She might buy one magazine a year if it listed and reviewed all the sites that are like Pogo, but even that would be a tough sell to her I suspect.

"Every single student in Edith Denison's 3rd grade class at Fritsche Elementary School has a console system at home."

How does Edith Denison know this? Has she visited the homes of all of her students? Or did she just have a show of hands at school? Because if it's the latter, I'm not surprised at all. It's self-reported data, which is especially inaccurate in the case of children. Self-reported data is a constant problem in sociological research because it has been repeatedly shown that even if you make surveys completely anonymous, people will still report false data. Even if people can't lie to others, they will lie to themselves. Especially children, who tend to answer in accordance with desire rather than reality. The only conclusion you could really draw from that sample data is that everyone in an inner-city grade school class would like to be perceived as having the financial ability to purchase a certain consumer item.

In any case, it's anecdotal evidence, but anecdotal evidence can be used as an internal gauge of external data, so here's anecdotal evidence of my own. Of the dozens of 20- and 30-somethings in my department and in the medical school, there are relatively few gamers. For the most part they are the geekiest of the bunch (and for the same reason the percentage is lower in the medical school than in the biochemistry department) although there are some exceptions. It's a demographic you would think would be shot through with gamers, but at least here, it doesn't seem to be. There are more people who did it "as kids" but eventually left it behind, but even they are a minority compared to the never-gamers. And even in a place where there is a lot of technology and computers, using it to play games is seen as inappropriate. There are a couple labs where I have seen people playing games late at night, but even then it's always Tetris or some puzzle game, not something you'd see reviewed in a Magazine About Games.

Someone said earlier in this thread or in some other thread on this board that one of the things that keeps gaming from being mainstream is the subject matter. I absolutely agree with this. For a lot of people, it's not so much the gameplay as the association. More anecdotal evidence: a friend's wife bought that "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire" game. My friend is a fairly committed "gamer," and he and I were making fun of it one day when she walked by. "Oh yeah, it's silly," she agreed. "You just click on the answer and that's it." But my friend reports that she did continue to play it when she was into the show (she no longer is, and doesn't play the game). It was the association with the favorite show, rather than the gameplay, which was interesting. Of course, that's the kind of thing that's only interesting for 30 minutes at a time. Which is probably exactly how many casual gamers play games.

This "associative property of gaming" is the reason more people don't play games: because very few people are really into science fiction or fantasy themes. That's one of the reasons The Sims and RCT sold so well. I know plenty of people who would probably enjoy playing a golf sim every now and then, but would have no interest whatsoever in Master of Orion, not because the gameplay is too complex but because they simply find science fiction weird and uninteresting.

"Noun: a prevailing current or direction of activity or influence"

"Seems to fit the noun definition, don't you think?"

Uh, yeah, right. Gaming is a "prevailing influence".

Thanks for making my point.

Unlike some people, I'm comfortable with the fact that gaming is a fringe hobby. I enjoy it regardless of how many/few people also enjoy it. I like doing it and I like writing about it, but I don't feel the need to validate it or make it respectable by overestimating its impact. We have PR folks, industry hacks, and studies with suspect methodology to do that.

This is a tiny corner of culture. Which, I believe, is exactly the point Mr. Geryk makes when he notes they're "just games" and exactly the point Mr. Bub misses when he says they're "mainstream".

-Tom

"This "associative property of gaming" is the reason more people don't play games: because very few people are really into science fiction or fantasy themes."

This is also exactly where gaming needs to grow up. Right now, it's largely driven by people fed on a cultural diet of anime, Tolkein, Blade Runner, Monty Python, and comics. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's all fringe.

However, I think the medium itself is still young and in many ways immature. As someone once pointed out, gaming has its own vocabularly. We all know you jump on a turtle to kill it. But how is a non-gamer supposed to figure that out? (Anyone know where I read this, as I'd love to properly credit it?)

Couple this strange vocabulary with the cultural pabulum its creators eat and you've got something that will always remain a fringe hobby. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

-Tom

"This is also exactly where gaming needs to grow up. Right now, it's largely driven by people fed on a cultural diet of anime, Tolkein, Blade Runner, Monty Python, and comics. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's all fringe."

I'd love to know just how gaming's going to grow up. I think a big part of the appeal is the escapist nature of it. It really is like this bubble we step into for a few hours that's its own alternate reality. In that regard, to me it's no different than reading or watching TV. It allows us to sink into something else for a few hours and not think about the day-to-day realities we all deal with.

People love to point to The Sims as evidence of the type of game that appeals to a mainstream audience. I'll go along with this. However, I don't see The Sims as any more grown up than Quake or Starcraft. The Sims is just about something that a non-gaming audience can grasp rather quickly. As far as the actual gameplay, it's just as inane in its own way as any other game.

Games already often deal with mature themes. I'm not sure how they'd "grow up." I'd love to see games approach art, but I think that the interactive nature of games really works against them being works of art. Does anyone expect interactive fiction to be anywhere near as satisfying as traditional fiction? I'm not convinced that art works without a passive audience. That's not to say that audience participation can't produce something fascinatiing, but will it be art?

Ok, enough philosophizing. I think I need to blow up some tanks in Dune or something now as an antidote to allowing a few "deep thoughts" to circulate in my brain.

Tom uttered:
"Unlike some people, I'm comfortable with the fact that gaming is a fringe hobby. I enjoy it regardless of how many/few people also enjoy it. I like doing it and I like writing about it, but I don't feel the need to validate it or make it respectable by overestimating its impact."

That's not why I made the comment at all Tom. Pretty big assumption there. But, if you're comfortable why are you protesting so much? I've never said hardcore gaming or even PC gaming was mainstream Tom. Those are words you're adding to the argument and Mark, bless him, is totally fixated on PC game examples. The only examples I've given here are Mario, Pokemon and console launch news coverage. These things are the stuff of feature films, television shows (Don't you know Jack?), and they're all covered in major media. The PS2 was on the cover of TIME, Mario once graced Newsweek, Columbine was "because" of DOOM. Lieberman has made a name for himself by decrying them...

Most people in the United States know who these characters are. They've heard of Pac Man, Mortal Kombat etc., that is a prevailing cultural influence and one that has grown since gaming began. At no time did I ever say hardcore gaming was mainstream. Never. But do you really think they don't exert an influence on American and world culture? That's pretty naive. Go to Toys R Us or Best Buy at Christmas time...

But then again, what "hardcore" version of ANYTHING is mainstream? Music? Sports? Movies?

Who won the Stanley Cup? We've all heard of Hockey, right? But most people don't know who Stanley was...

America knows Soccer but many Americans have no idea there's an MLS.

Film is mainstream but who are the Pole directors Geryk is always on about?

Mario? Sure, Italian plumber. Starcraft? What craft?

What's the difference?

At this point it's sounding more and more like WE fit the transitive verb definition of "mainstream".

-Andrew

"However, I think the medium itself is still young and in many ways immature."

Definitely. But how could it not be? What mature themes, truly mature themes, can you make video games about? God knows I never want to play another Phantasmagoria...

"As someone once pointed out, gaming has its own vocabularly. We all know you jump on a turtle to kill it. But how is a non-gamer supposed to figure that out? (Anyone know where I read this, as I'd love to properly credit it?)"

I wish I knew, that's great. Everytime I play an adventure game or help my uncle with a 3D shooter I have to remember "there's a certain way puzzles are done. A certain logic... or lack thereof."

"Right now, it's largely driven by people fed on a cultural diet of anime, Tolkein, Blade Runner, Monty Python, and comics. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's all fringe."

In the console world I think sports makes up a large percentage though. Even though sports creates it's own special sort of geek.

-Andrew

"Those are words you're adding to the argument and Mark, bless him, is totally fixated on PC game examples. The only examples I've given here are Mario, Pokemon and console launch news coverage. These things are the stuff of feature films, television shows (Don't you know Jack?), and they're all covered in major media. The PS2 was on the cover of TIME, Mario once graced Newsweek, Columbine was "because" of DOOM. Lieberman has made a name for himself by decrying them..."

Yeah, but awareness doesn't mean the activity is mainstream. We know of cults, triathlons, endemic drug use, prostitution, tax evasion, and a number of other things, but that doesn't mean they are elevated from niche activities to mainstream participation. If you want to argue that most Americans are aware of computer and videogames, I'll agree. If you want to argue that most Americans play the kinds of computer and videogames we write about, I'll disagree.

You Don't Know Jack is an interesting game to talk about. I'll grant that, when it debuted, it was lumped in with the other computer games we write about. Since then, though, it gets very little coverage. When was the last time you read a preview of a new Jack game? When was the last time you read a review that was more than a few paragraphs? There's no interest in it among gamers. CGW and the rest would go broke if they focused on these types of games. The only thing interesting about the Jack series now is that it will be a TV series. That makes for a story. One story. And that will be the last of it until Pee Wee Herman exposes himself on national TV or something.

When mags like CGW even review games like Who Wants To Be A Millionaire, they seem to be doing it as a nod to the mainstream audience as much as anything. My feeling is, why bother? I'd rather that space be given over to a review of a game aimed at a hardcore audience.

"If you want to argue that most Americans play the kinds of computer and videogames we write about, I'll disagree."

I never said the games "we write about" are mainstream Mark. I only meant that video gaming has become a mainstream pursuit. I meant that to cover all video games, console, PC, Hearts, whatever. Reread my posts.

And mainly I was talking about that in terms of coverage. Video games are covered, in some form, in almost every mainstream magazine and newspaper.
Launches and E3 make the Network News (if superficially), and everyone knows Mario.

These are fairly recent things actually. Since the coverage has been growing at around the same pace as sales have grown, I'd say it's a trend that will continue.

Naturally, the hardcore/niche stuff will be as influential as Fellini is to mainstream cinema and Soccer is to... America.

And I totally agree, CGM, CGW, PCGamer, these are niche magazines and they need to cover their niche. Sure, one day we may see a superficial and accessible mainstream gaming mag, but gaming has to get even more mainstream before that happens.

Maybe stop all that fruity mushroom jumping Tom was on about...

-Andrew

"I never said the games "we write about" are mainstream Mark. I only meant that video gaming has become a mainstream pursuit. I meant that to cover all video games, console, PC, Hearts, whatever. Reread my posts."

I guess I don't see the point of lumping Solitaire and Quake together. There are a few superficial similarities, but otherwise they're vastly different experiences.

Quake is not a mainstream pursuit. Solitaire might be, but it doesn't have any relevance to us. Yeah, they're both games, but so are tic-tac-toe and competitive chess. It's misleading to group them together and point to one as being evidence that the other is also popular with tens of millions. (And I know you didn't say that, but that's the implication of labeling gaming as "mainstream".)

Anyway, it doesn't really matter how we label gaming. Calling it mainstream or niche doesn't change the reality of the relatively small pool of people who buy and play the kinds of games we're concerned with. That seems to be the only audience that's interested in anything more than cursory reading about computer games and videogames.

Bub: "I've never said hardcore gaming or even PC gaming was mainstream Tom."

Yes, you did. But feel free to continue the frantic backpedaling. It's kind of amusing.

Asher: "I'd love to know just how gaming's going to grow up."

Perhaps 'grow up' is a misleading way to put it. I think perhaps 'growing out' might be a more appopriate image. In terms of subject matter, Bruce made the point that sci-fi and fantasy aren't going to attract a lot of people, but they're still regarded as de rigeur settings for game worlds.

In addition to transcending the traditional vocabulary of games, I'd like to see games can break out of the stultifying settings they continue to visit. Although I didn't care for it, I think The Sims is a perfect example.

-Tom

If gardening isn't mainstream, then American Heritage needs to set its usage panel on the word "mainstream" and make them stay late until they've fixed that definition. Please. I'd say 90 percent of the people on my block garden. Everyone gardens. Too many people garden, in fact -- especially zucchini. Nobody should plant zucchini.

Tom, I think you're terrific -- but you sometimes get sort of nasty in these arguments. I wish you'd reserve all the mockery for .. um, say, wumpus.

One last point about our hair-splitting deconstruction of the word "mainstream": Computer games (as opposed to console games) will NEVER reach the sort of critical mass of movies/etc. until it ceases to be necessary to upgrade every 2-3 years. It's f--king absurd. I'm embarrassed to tell my wife that my 26-month-old computer has basically become a giant beige Web browser/checkbook combo. I think I'm gonna miss a lot of games.

Do you think this is what defines the hardcore gamer? This willingness (need?) to buy new gear every 14 months? The instant erection at every announcement of a new chip from Athlon or nVidia?

My wife and I earn much more than my parents did at our age (yes, adjusted for inflation/etc), and yet ... I just won't do it anymore. I'm not spending $1500 for a new gaming rig any time soon, even though I can afford it. I'd rather put the money away, or buy a kick-ass grill.

I just hope the GameCube version of Duke Nukem Forever is good. (sigh)

I guess some people might say the XBox would be a good meeting point -- if all the upcoming PC games were going to be released for it.

"Tom, I think you're terrific -- but you sometimes get sort of nasty in these arguments. I wish you'd reserve all the mockery for .. um, say, wumpus."

Naw, Bub's had plenty of practice. He can take it.

-Tom, off to tend my mainstream garden

"Tom, off to tend my mainstream garden"

Have fun! Don't forget to engage in some "fringe activities" like planting grass seed and eating a salad made of home-grown veggies!

---

Quote:

Do you think this is what defines the hardcore gamer? This willingness (need?) to buy new gear every 14 months? The instant erection at every announcement of a new chip from Athlon or nVidia?

---

"I never said the games "we write about" are mainstream Mark. I only meant that video gaming has become a mainstream pursuit. I meant that to cover all video games, console, PC, Hearts, whatever. Reread my posts."

I did, and to be honest, I don't think you have a coherent position. I think you just insert random comments about whatever comes to mind at the time you're reading a post, and then disavow whatever doesn't work, like when you "backed away from this argument right away."

These forums are amazing. Very good discussion.

I'll just add a sidebar here that I personally don't care whether a gaming magazine or its subjects become mainstream. I just want better games. If good journalism brings me better games by rigorously holding new releases against the high standards of the best past titles then that mag is doing its job.

Computer gaming is a completely different beast than other media or art forms. Catering to the public's tastes won't bring the best games into being. What will succeed is refining the idea of what makes the experience different and, for its proponents, better than competing forms of entertainment.

This is why I tend to wince at articles or reviews talking about the great storylines or wonderful graphics in a game. Graphics are not exclusive to computer gaming. A fixed narrative structure isn't exclusive to computer gaming. Complex interactive gameplay experiences and dynamic contexts and settings are.

The public will only cross over in a meaningful way, a way that helps promote sorts of games hardcore gamers won't blush at, if the craft continues to be honed. Settings can't remain in Sci-Fi and Fantasy kombat land. Gaming can't win in a competition with filmmaking, or even graphic novels, in terms of storyline or visual art and shouldn't even compete on those terms.

"... frankly, if you're burned out on the PC
upgrade cycle, you probably aren't seeing any games that get you excited enough about
the PC to upgrade ... "

Dave:

I don't really know what to say to this, other than that it's not at all the case. Are you saying that if A) I don't want to drop wads of cash on an upgrade that b) I must not be excited by any new games? Cause B just doesn't follow A. That's like saying if I'm burned out on Toyota's continuous updating of its vehicles every year I must not be excited by them.

I've seen games that excite me. I just can't play them (or won't be able to). I can't even play the new Dune game. I couldn't play Giants or Sacrifice. I won't be able to play Max Payne probably, or Duke Forever. What about Master of Orion 3? The new Doom? etc.

$1500 was a ballpark for motherboard, CPU, 256mb of new ram, new hard drive, new video card, faster CD-ROM, new sound card, new case/fan, etc., which I think I'd need to get ahead of the curve. I guess I could do it cheaper, but I bet it'd be $1000 minimum. No, I don't need a new monitor.

256MB RAM?!? You certainly don't need that much! (Not that it isn't cool to have, and RAM's pretty cheap right now, but...)

At pricewatch.com:

1.1 GHz Athlon T-Bird/Motherboard combo: $168.00
256MB PC133 RAM: $24.00
GEForce2 PRo: $139.00
60 GB HD: $133.00
50X CDROM Drive: $18.00
AWE 64 Sound Card: $14.00
Grand total: $496.00 plus shipping

Cases range from cheap-os for twenty bucks to about $150 for the super-nice ones. I went for the cheapo. It works fine for me. Not everyone wants to do that, though.

Obviously, you could spend a little more or less, with a smaller HD, or a DVD-ROM or CD-RW, depending on how much you wanted to spend. You could do a lot of this a little at a time, too. But to basically rebuild a system from the ground up, and a nice one, at that, comes in at just about $500 if you have a monitor, case, mouse, and keyboard. Think about it.

I just put together the parts you're talking about at Multiwave. Here's a link to the shopping cart. Shopping Cart I'm not sure how long that link will last...you might be able to do better too. I just like their basket and setup at Multiwave for speccing out a system.

It comes to $729 for a 1GHz Athlon with 256MB of PC133 RAM, Abit KT7 motherboard, GeForce2 from Creative Labs, 40GB Maxtor 7200RPM drive, SB Live! Value, 48x standard Mitsumi CD-ROM and an Enlight case with 300W power supply. That's before shipping... with shippping to me it would be $756 all spent.

Consider that if you buy an Xbox, you'd need $300 for the system, another $30 for a controller and then your pay out for games and memory cards (if they are still requiring them). All told, it's about half what you'd spend, but then you've already got a lot of time and money invested in a PC and you would probably enjoy using your monitor instead of the TV, etc. You also then have access to the games you list above which you won't on an Xbox.

--Dave

You guys both are going pretty barebones. But I appreciate the point. $700 or $800 is still a far cry from $199 for a GameCube, though. And you are talking about doing this every two years. My N64 is 5 years old.

I'm not upgrading my PC again for the very reasons John T. mentions. I know an X-Box will last me 5 years. How long will that $750 PC system, assuming I don't actually have to build it myself, last? Which parts will need to be replaced in 6 months? How many driver upgrade cycles am I going to struggle with? How many old games that run fine on my current PC will be incompatible?

Well, actually, you don't have to do the whole thing every two years. I try to upgrade a piece at a time. Spread it out and you'll always be in the game, but not spending huge fortunes at a shot.

Consoles are great because they're cheap. But the end result is that there are certain games and gameplay styles only suitable to the PC and vice versa. In my case, I'd rather give up some console stuff to allow for the PC. Lately I've been playing a ton of RTS games either online or single player. I've been playing Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri a ton. I pulled out Diablo on the weekend. These are games I won't be playing on a console. But then again, most of these also don't require me to upgrade quite as often. The FPS games or hybrids like Sacrifice (which I really enjoy) do need better hardware, and when that time comes that I feel like I'm falling behind, I'm committed to upgrading to play them.

I am a bit surprised that you consider those setups barebones though. What would you have changed or added to that system? The GF2 (not an MX), the Live!, the Maxtor drive...these are all very good parts. I'm curious where you would add more dollars to that bundle and why? I'd also like to see Jason Cross pop in here and add his two cents.

I should also note that writing for a computer games magazine influences my decisions as well. I actually earn money by playing games so I have to stay on top of my system if I run into games that require more horsepower. I bought an ACT Labs Force RS to replace my old steering wheel and pedals this year just to help write my NASCAR Racing 4 review and others down the road. I've also gotten the Microsoft Strategic Commander and a new Microsoft Precision 2 joystick for other reviews, articles. But I still go for as much bang for my buck as possible when making these buys.

--Dave

Hi Bruce! How are ya?!

"I did, and to be honest, I don't think you have a coherent position."

Sure I do. I think gaming is heading toward the mainstream. I haven't deviated far from that at all Bruce. I think gaming has a cultural influence. I think it's reached the point where it's exerting that influence. That fits the definition of "mainstream".

I'm not saying that to justify my career. It's just something I see around me. The argument amounts to Tom's narrow view on what is mainstream. But I say if Brittany Spears and the NBA are mainstream (as Tom said) then so are Mario and Pokemon.

"like when you "backed away from this argument right away."

Yes, I backed away from that argument when I realized Mark was talking about whether CGW should turn into a mainstream magazine. Why shouldn't I back away from that? That had nothing to do with what I was saying.

-Andrew

The other thing I think you guys are forgetting is that your consoles you buy now will be awfully dated by PC standards two years from now. N64 and Playstation may have last people for five years, but they run super slow and look pretty horrible next to PCs today and have for quite some time.

--Dave

---

Quote:

You guys both are going pretty barebones.

---

---

Quote:

Which parts will need to be replaced in 6 months?

---

---

Quote:

And you are talking about doing this every two years.

---

We're at the point now where a 1 gig processor and a GeForce 3 should last at least a couple of years, if not longer. Hardware really has outpaced the games. It used to be that the games would really push the fastest processors available. Not so anymore.

It's inarguable that buying a console system and sticking with it is cheaper than being a PC gamer. I just like PC games much more than console titles. I wouldn't be happy not being able to play PC titles.

"I think gaming is heading toward the mainstream."

Ok.

"I think gaming has a cultural influence. I think it's reached the point where it's exerting that influence. That fits the definition of 'mainstream'."

So gaming is both "heading toward the mainstream" (which means it hasn't gotten there yet) AND also "fits the definition of 'mainstream,'" which means that it already is?

That's what I meant when I said "random comments."

You're just cold-blooded, Bruce! You know that, right?

I still contend that, while gaming is not mainstream now, it will be before too long. Maybe in five years, definitely in ten.

But, I think now this argument is turning into everybody saying the same thing over and over, so I'm not gonna say that any more.

Oh I see, how superficial.
I apologize Bruce.

I believe gaming is heading toward the mainstream, yes. And I believe that because it already fits the (non-concrete) Webster's definition of "mainstream". I don't think it's "random" to think the one thing and quantify it with my understanding (that definition is vague) of the other.

But why are you ignoring Tom doing the same thing?
In one post he acknowledges that Pokemon is "mainstream" because everyone has heard of it. In another he says that just because everyone has heard of something, it isn't "mainstream".

-Andrew

Dave/Michael:

I guess I always assume that it's better to get ahead of the curve when you upgrade -- so you would, with this approach, go for a 1.3 or 1.4ghz Athlon now instead of a 900 or 1 ghz. Maybe that's not necessary? I can't say I'm up on the latest hardware. About 9 months ago I was thisclose to upgrading, and every time I filled the cart I was up around $800 once a good case and fan was thrown in.

As for every two years, the only reason I mention that number is because it's pretty much been two years since I got my 350/128mb/nvidia TNT setup. Which ran me around $800 by the time I was done.

John,
"Always get the most computer you can afford"
The key words being the last three.

I've always upgraded based on that principal.

-Andrew

1.3GHz is $206, versus $168 for the 1.1GHz I mentioned, so you could add forty bucks.

What's wrong with the case you have now?

I still if you go with pricewatch, you could get the whole thing for about $500. Heck, you can get a pre-built 1.4 system for $610.00 from one of the vendors there. Don't know what kind of video card that has, but it could be done.

Of course, the downside from pricewatch when ordering this many different parts is you could have to order from four different vendors. But if it saves you $400, isn't it worth it?

Hey, I'm not necessarily trying to tell you how to spend your money! If you don't want to upgrade, that's cool. I just want you to realize that it might be cheaper than you think. Pricewatch.com is cheaper than our wholesale distributor for a lot of things.

Bub,

A) You began your little back-and-forth act with the statement that "gaming is mainstream". Scroll way up and you'll find it.

B) Tom said that gaming is *not* mainstream. This includes Pokemon. Seems your writing problems are also compounded by a reading problem. Follow me carefully now: Pokemon is *not* mainstream. Feel free to look up the word again if this point still eludes you.

Okay, now that we've cleared that up, you can proceed with posting your random assertions.

***

Was anyone else tempted to tap the "buy" button on Dave Long's $750 shopping cart with a bad-ass rig in it? I know I was.

-Tom

Upgrading is fairly cheap now although I tend to spend $300-400 chunks on my system every 3 or 4 months. That is probably more than most people but that isn't too bad IMO. I stay in the upper portion of the spectrum doing that. My last upgrades have been:

$399 GeForce3 (not needed but damn does it look good, doubled performance over my GF2 in relevant situations)
$70 256 MB of pc133 crucial ram (up to 512MB of ram now)
$150 Hercules Game Theater XP (nice, definitely not necessary but nice)
$350 900Mhz Tbird/Abit KT7A mb o/c to 1 Ghz (this was a few months back, almost doubled my performance over my Athlon 800/K7M)
$300 80GB hard drive (never uninstall anything!)
$300 16x burner when it first came out

This has been in the last 6 months total most of this was Christams stuff, Birthday stuff, 2nd job outside work stuff, bonus money stuff. Only the GeForce 3 was bought without "external" funds. :)

That is a lot of cash for upgrades and if I had been somewhat patient I could have shaved off a couple hundred dollars overall but then I wouldn't have gotten to use it right away either. There are always trade offs.

You can easily hold yourself to $200 or less upgrades every 4-6 months and stay fairly current.

Next upgrade will probably be a new cpu later in the summer, probably 1.5 Ghz. Other than that I am set.

-- Xaroc aka "hardware junkie"

Tom Chick: "Good point. I suppose Pokeman has every claim to being mainstream that Brittany Spears does."

Earlier

Tom Chick: "Brittany Spears, People magazine, The Mummy Returns, Jay Leno, Friends, and the NBA playoffs are. I don't know beans about any of those things, but I know what they are, because they're mainstream."


I done read real good....
But, I do agree, this has gone on long enough.

/End "Random Assertions"

Afterall, we professional journalists should conduct ourselves better, right? ;)

-Andrew

Hey all. I read about half of this thread in one sitting, then was going to throw in a few comments, but promptly forgot them all when I got to the end. Oh well. It's been a very interesting discussion to read.

I'm kinda surprised Wumpus isn't being active in this thread.

The only thing that I remembered I wanted to say was about that poll someone mentioned saying ~150 million Americans played computer games/were gamers. Mark dissected that one pretty well, and I have to agree that it would have been very interesting to see the specifics of how that poll was taken. I would argue that the poll (or any poll for that matter) is useless without them.

Heading somewhere back on topic now, I just wanted to relate a specific example where I think a reviewer messed up. Those of you who post regularly probably remember a thread about Freespace 2 a while back, in which at least 8 ppl told me to drop what I was doing and go buy it (some suggested some self-punishment first, but I skipped that). :)

Anyway, I finally picked it up a couple of weeks ago and think it's a great game. Due to my computer being a POS (Windows refusing to boot), I haven't played for the last week and a half, but will once I get the thing fixed, it'll be the first game installed. I remember reading a CNet Gamecenter review for Freespace 2 that gave it a 7/10 when the first one got an 8/10. I remember allowing that review to dissuade me many times from spending the regular price on it after it came out (I got it for $7 at EB, though it's not the GOTY edition). I won't say I was done a disservice by the reviewer, since I didn't actually pay money for the review, but I do think something went wrong there. I tried finding the review archives for Gamecenter but couldn't find them anymore. Are they gone or just buried deeper? In hindsight I realize that I should have looked for another review if I was going back and forth on buying it. Anyway, there's my little story.

Oh, btw, many thanks to Wumpus and the rest who told me to get that game. Definitely the best $7 I've spent recently.

"But, I do agree, this has gone on long enough."

And with this classic exit line, Bub backs out again. No defense of his initial claim, just a deferential bow and scrape.

It's a good question, though. Is Pokemon mainstream? As I mentioned, it has as much claim to being mainstream as Brittany Spears. I don't even know how Pokemon started. A card game?

Anyway, whether gaming itself, as a form of culture, is mainstream a la Bub, no one can deny that things like Myst, The Sims, and Pokemon have broken out of the limitations of the medium. But the distinguishing factor of all these titles is that they're the exception to the rule.

Next topic: Does Shadow Watch suck? Oh, wait, we already did that one.

BTW, if anyone's still interested in the initial topic of the thread, the above messages are a good indication of "waht reviewers are good for".

-Tom

All I have to say about upgrading is that I wish I had the kind of cash to spend on my computer as Xaroc does...it's just not fair.

---

Quote:

Definitely the best $7 I've spent recently.

---

"But, I do agree, this has gone on long enough."

With whom? It has?

If this thread has been closed for business, I guess that's it. So you get a free pass on your "quantify" post.

>>BTW, if anyone's still interested in the initial topic of the thread, the above messages are a good indication of "waht reviewers are good for".

Pseudo-intellectual masturbation?

"no one can deny that things like Myst, The Sims, and Pokemon have broken out of the limitations of the medium."

I'm not sure that I even agree that the first two of these are breakouts, if we are defining breakout as, um, hmmm, ok, "mainstream." Just for fun I asked a cross section of folks at work what they knew about Myst and the Sims. The group of people were a mix of about 25 to 55, all fairly computer literate (they all use a computer as part of their job, most using Excel, Word, Powerpoint, and some using specialized tools.) I avoided the handful of people in the group I know to be avid gamers (about 10 out of a group of about 100.) I chatted with about 20 people in the remaining group.

A couple knew what The Sims was (were?, i.e. they knew it was a game, a few had heard of Myst but didn't really know more than "it's a computer game." That was about the overall level of conciousness.

On the other hand - ALL of them knew immediately what Pokeman was, though to varying degrees of depth.

Dunno what that data was good for, but it gave me an excuse to waste an hour or two today chatting with people about non-work related stuff.

Jeff

>FS2= 7/10 when the first one got an 8/10. I remember allowing that review to dissuade me many
times from spending the regular price on it after it came out... I won't say I was done a disservice by the reviewer, since I didn't actually pay money for thereview, but I do think something went wrong there

Yeah, the Gamecenter review was a real anomoly at the time (and since). I think it was Jason Ocampo who reviewed it for Gamecenter, and in my opinion he blew it. I did the GameSpot review, and gave it one of the highest scores we've given to a PC game. But virtually every site gave it a 90%+

Stefan

"Just for fun I asked a cross section of folks at work what they knew about Myst and the Sims."

You must be a hoot at work. :)

The thing about Myst and The Sims is that non-gamers are more likely to have heard of those than, say, Total Annihilation or Railroad Tycoon 2.

I wonder if RollerCoaster Tycoon can be lumped in this sort of "breakout" category. Last year I was out to dinner with a girl I was seeing and her parents. When I lamely tried to explain what I did for a living -- "I write about computer entertainment" -- the girl's mother, a portly woman of about fifty-ish who lives in some retirement community in Florida, leaned over and asks me if I've heard of RollerCoaster Tycoon. I about choked on my soup.

I know RCT did well, but I never expected it to pop up in that situation. She loved the game. She wouldn't have been able to name another comuter game to save her life, but when someone gave her RCT as a gift, she really took to it.

"On the other hand - ALL of them knew immediately what Pokeman was, though to varying degrees of depth."

I guess the thing with Pokemon is that it's not just a video game, is it? Technically speaking, isn't it a whole line of products? I don't really know much about it, but my understanding is that it started out as a CCG and branched out into other mediums. So when we say 'Pokemon', are we talking about the Nintendo titles? Or the movies, cartoons, collectible cards, books, tamagotchis, etc.? At any rate, unlike The Sims and Myst, I think Pokemon's reputation had a leg up before it was a computer game.

-Tom

"I'm kinda surprised Wumpus isn't being active in this thread."

See? It's not just me. And you get your wish!

Also, kudos to Mr. Jeff Lackey, who put more effort into this than everyone else combined. Those are interesting results.

wumpus

"And with this classic exit line, Bub backs out again. No defense of his initial claim, just a deferential bow and scrape."

Good lord, I must've posted 20 times defending that initial claim. You don't accept the defense. Geryk thinks it's random. So what's that to me? Why on Earth do you want to continue going back and forth about whether or not gaming is "mainstream" Chick!?

You aren't a man! You are some sort of demon straight from Hades!

Can I withdraw my statement out of exhaustion? Is that allowed? Where's that damn rule book anyway.
Turn off that bright light! Who is playing "good cop"? Can I have a glass of water?

FINE, FINE!!! YOU WIN YOU CRUEL WEBSITE DESPOT!
YOU WIN TOO OH POISONOUS AND FOUL DR. DR. GERYK!
Gaming is not mainstream. It will never BE mainstream. It exerts NO influence on humanity and culture what-so-ever! NONE! IT DOESN'T EVEN EXIST!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

-Andrew

Uh, yeah, okay, Bub.

Next time, you might consider just sticking with the bowing and scraping...

-Tom

Pokemon is on TV.

Until computer games are consistently on TV--at the minimum advertised--they ain't mainstream.

Alright, I just read this *entire* blasted thread (could we get a scripting collaposable tree design, with stars to show subthreads with new messages?), and have a couple of thoughts I don't think I've seen.

I don't think you can use Pokemon as an example of "mainstream gaming" at all. It started out as a "brand" created by whoever the hell in Japan from the beginning to branch out into every point of sale possible - that it's hit in big in the video game market doesn't seem to say much more about games than a GI Joe game doing the same would. It just temporarily expands the gaming world to include the brand afficiandos, and I think it'll only cause a slight, one-time shift in the long-term demographics of gaming.

In my opinion, Chess *is* largely the same as solitaire. Both are games people play to have either a) the experience of playing (community of players for chess, coffee drinking and zen-like computer clicking for solitaire) or b) the fun of learning to manipulate a system. Children love to play and see what their changable toys are capable of, and adults are the same way.

The difference between them is the complexity of the game system and the level of devotion to the game. That, and one's a social experience, the other not.

A final note - I think gaming is barely noticable among the poor and lower middle class, with participation rates rising as you go up the income ladder. Gaming goes up as you cross the rural/urban or conservative values/liberal values barrier, too. I have no evidence to support this, they just sound right from personal experience and the online communities.

The one place gaming has become completely mainstream, I think, is casual play of sports games among the 20-something generation. It's easily as common as watching football games for the middle class, which is about as mainstream a signifier as I can think of.

"I think gaming is barely noticable among the poor and lower middle class"

This isn't especially scientific, but my girlfriend is a public health nurse and visits a lot of poor households. She tells me that virtually all of them have some sort of console system. These are primarily black and indian, so I don't have any anecdotal evidence regarding poor whites.

My wife, a "Visiting Nurse (VNA)" (specializing in poor white people in Milwaukee's South Side) just now corraborated your girlfriend's experience Erik - except she provides that "poor white" anecdotal evidence.

I, um, was hesitant to mention it after Bruce shredded my "Sister-in-Law the inner city 3rd grade teacher" anecodte.

-Andrew

I'm middle class and white but I don't own a console system, or even a GameBoy.

I surveyed everyone else who lives in my apartment, and by that I mean I talked to myself, and they were the same.

So the lower class has consoles but the middle class doesn't. Weird.

Oh, and the white middle class has a fondness for Akira Kurosawa AND Farrely brothers movies. Go figure.

"Oh, and the white middle class has a fondness for Akira Kurosawa AND Farrely brothers movies."

I'm sorry, Steve, but I'm going to have to dispute that data. Using the same methodology (i.e. I surveyed everyone who lives in my house by talking to myself), I came to the conclusion that the white middle class doesn't really care for the Farrely brothers. They do, however, have a Nintendo 64 and they keep meaning to finish that Zelda game one day.

-Tom

But Tom, you're an actor. That it's own demographic that has nothing to do with class or anything even remotely relating to anyone else in the world other then fellow actors. End of story.

I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV...

"You must be a hoot at work. :)"

You got it - I'm the first one to get invited to all the parties. ;)

"I guess the thing with Pokemon is that it's not just a video game, is it?"

Yeah, and it probably helps that most of these folks have kids and have purchased the Pokeman cards or a Pokeman Game Boy game.

It's mainstream when you can find it on clothing at Target.

---

Quote:

I wonder if RollerCoaster Tycoon can be lumped in this sort of "breakout" category.

---

"I think most of Pokemon's notoriety has come from the card games/movies/cartoon series, with the Nintendo games a mere result of that notoriety."

I disagree, sir. All the ancillary products you mention resulted from the enormous popularity of the original gameboy game, which introduced the characters and their magical universe. Though I imagine the cartoon and card game may have ultimately reached a lot more people. On the other hand, I'm just guessing. About the second part, I mean. The gameboy game definitely came before any of the other merchandise.

I stand (well, sit) corrected. I did not realize that the GB games came first. I thought it was the card game before anything else.

Nevertheless, I think the other forms acheived far more penetration.

---

Quote:

I think gaming is barely noticable among the poor and lower middle class

---

I'm completely wrong! I stick by my "soltaire and chess are the same thing" statement though, damn it.

Pokemon became mainstream when kids starting having epileptic fits watching it on Japanese TV. Big news story, instant mainstream presence.

DOOM is mainstream because of Columbine.

Remember kids, it's just about TV.

Oh, and as a follow-up, Jason Cross mentioned here at work another Pokemon TV incident: the card game got banned at schools, and how it was teaching kids how to gamble, blah blah blah... that appeared all over national and local news.

Boom, instant entry into the mainstream consciousness.

See, do something people think is really awful and you to can be mainstream...

In that case, maybe computer games are mainstream, after all, since we all know that they are the root of all society's evils!

"See, do something people think is really awful and you to can be mainstream..."

Ah - I see a new set of marketing campaigns.

(PR rep calls New York Times): "Did you know there's a computer game called Sacrifice? And that there's a rumor of an underground of teenagers who have been influenced to practice animal sacrifices as a result?"

(PR rep calls 60 Minutes): "What's up with this Black and White computer game? Is it true that it actually teaches our children that they can be evil gods? Doesn't that smack of... SATANISM?"

"See, do something people think is really awful and you to can be mainstream..."

How about if I create a banner ad of myself masturbating? Damn, someone already 'beat' me to it.

"Did you know there's a computer game called Sacrifice?"

This sorta did happen with Messiah. Anyone else remember that TV talk show that Dave Perry appeared on, 'debating' this topic with an ordained minister of some kind? I got the impression it was more or less self promoted, too.

"I have no evidence to support this, they just sound right from personal experience and the online communities."

Welcome to the thread. This is exactly why I like to link in some kind of concrete data to support my arguments-- whether it be other reviews, statistics, studies, even asking 20 random people at work.

wumpus

"I have no evidence to support this, they just sound right from personal experience and the online communities."

My evidence, wumpus, was my personal experience, and if you look at the responses, they're all either personal experience or those of friends/wives.

There isn't any hard evidence I've aware of in this area, Mr. Credentialist.

Pokemon got banned at my kids' schools but not because of gambling. It was just causing a big commotion and kids were complaining about other kids stealing cards, etc. The staff just said, "Enough!" and banned it.

Mark,

Could you post a link with some evidence about this?

Thanks,

-Tom

Yep, it is frightening how obsessive kids can become over stuff like this. The thing that bugs me about console games is that I see my kids' friends doing nothing but playing games on them, day and night, and then talking about them when not playing them. I saw that my kids would do the same thing if I let them, so we keep the power cord put away and ration the console games.

"Pokemon got banned at my kids' schools but not because of gambling. It was just causing a big commotion and kids were complaining about other kids stealing cards, etc. The staff just said, "Enough!" and banned it."

Exactly the same thing happened at my kids' elementary school.

It's funny. My kids had some cards, but they didn't really even play the game. They just liked collecting them. It was such a scam, too. $4 for a pack of 10 cards or so. WotC made a killing on those.

---

Quote:

The thing that bugs me about console games is that I see my kids' friends doing nothing but playing games on them, day and night, and then talking about them when not playing them. I saw that my kids would do the same thing if I let them, so we keep the power cord put away and ration the console games.

---

"Heh. This from the guy who, when he's not playing computer games, comes to this message board to talk about them... "

Heh heh... Seriously, though, when I was a kid (and dinosaurs roamed the earth) we did lots of "stuff" - playing outside, wandering the neighborhoods, building "forts", playing pickup ball games (a lost pursuit, I fear, in these days in which every ball game is organized into city leagues,) reading, etc. I swear that if you allowed it, a huge ratio of kids today would spend every waking hour staring at a Playstation monitor.

Well, look at their inspiration. What do we all do? Sit in front of a computer all day. Kids have to get it from somewhere. Either that, or they just see the same lure to video games as the rest of us -- that completely immersive interactivity that you just can't get watching TV.

"...and dinosaurs roamed the earth..."

Are you *sure* it was dinosaurs and not protozoa?



;)

Seriously, though, it's certainly an issue, and not just for kids -- we joke about being being computer slugs and what not, but for some of us gaming adults it's going to be (or already is) a serious issue (me, for sure--I definitely need to spend some more time away from the computer or the recliner).

We've rationed my three year old to one hour a day. He would sit there all day if given the chance. He's learned/learning a lot from the PC and has skills a lot of people are amazed at in a three year old kid, but it was affecting his disposition to spend too much time with CoMo (Rayman 2).

We've recently finished the Dreamcast version of Rayman 2. What a gem! Who would've thought there'd be a fantastic flying simulator in the game?!

Sonic Adventure 2 tomorrow! Woohoo! Have to wait for Friday's paycheck. Boooo!

Anyway, one hour is working out well. He simply gets it taken away for a day or more if he rants and raves about not getting more time.

--Dave

"Well, look at their inspiration. What do we all do? Sit in front of a computer all day. Kids have to get it from somewhere."

Point made - that's why I try to do things like take my son fly fishing on the Au Sable, take the kids to the park, get them building things around the house, etc. One of the best things I think they've experienced is being involved in Habitat for Humanity type projects, even if all the little one could do was hammer some nails in some non-critical locations.

For myself, I've found that between writing (games and non-games stuff), gaming, and just surfing the web, my reading habits have suffered. I used to go through a couple of books a week - that's way down now.

I am the same way, I used to read a lot when I was younger but I have less time to read now. It is a combination of computer time (most of my time) and the fact my wife likes to watch TV in bed and my main reading time has traditionally been before going to sleep. I don't know about anyone else but I can not read with a TV on in the room. I can take music but not TV. In any event if I want to read I have to do it earlier before she heads to bed or after she falls asleep (harder to do with the lack of light most of the time).

On the positive side I watch a whole lot less TV than when I was a kid, so increasing computer time is not always a bad thing.

-- Xaroc

If going from TV to computer is really a good thing...Hard to say! ;-)

My reading's gone up now that I'm no longer full-time (nor even that much freelance), but health-wise that's still not good (from computer chair to comfy recliner). Now if I could only figure out how to play games in the pool, or read on a bike... (hmm; in college I used to read while walking back and forth to classes, but that was in North Dakota where everything was flat and straight. Maybe I could try walking and playing a GBA at the same time? Or putting one in a water-tight clear back and setting it on a kickboard in the pool? ;)

"If going from TV to computer is really a good thing...Hard to say! ;-)"

Probably. Better to be interactive than passive, I'd think.

"My reading's gone up now that I'm no longer full-time (nor even that much freelance), but health-wise that's still not good (from computer chair to comfy recliner)."

What I want to do once things settle down for me is start to work out at the Y. You can get on an excercise bike and read while you pedal. They have it set up for that.

And when I refer to things settling down, that's my code term for putting off stuff. Heh.

---

Quote:

Probably. Better to be interactive than passive, I'd think.

---

---

Quote:

And when I refer to things settling down, that's my code term for putting off stuff. Heh.

---

Interactivity is the entire reason I play far more computer games than watch TV shows. In a computer game you can influence the outcome. Even in a mindless shooter you are excersing your brain more than watching TV.

The other thing I like to do is install and tinker with operating systems and hardware. I installed Linux on a spare box a few weeks back and Win2k on my main machine. Getting things configured and working and learning new things about them is far more engaging then watching most TV.

-- Xaroc

Of course -- I'm sure the interactivity is why we all play computer games.

Know what you mean about tinkering -- sometimes I'll just sit a sift through windows, see what's going on...Usually, though, I get my tinkering fix from working on other people's computers, either at work, or through my father-in-law's business (we repair, build, and upgrade computers), or fixing my friends sets. Something like that.

Leave it to a bunch of writers to argue what is basically a trivial semantic point for a gozillion messages. Eesh.

If I go by the basic idea that a mainstream thing is a thing that is known and assimilated by the majority of a culture, which is what I always sort of thought it was, then video games, but probably not most PC games, would be included.

Almost everyone I know has a video console of some kind. Even the ones that don't have computers have gaming consoles. Allow me to rephrase that. Almost all the GUYS I know have a console, though almost all the gals I know like to play at least some games on them, if they can play as multiplayer. PS2 was major news last fall, which only happens to niche things when someone gets killed, usually.

So far as Pokemon goes, I'd say it has to be solidly mainstream. It's had movies, video adaptaptations of the game and toys distributed through major fast-food chains. I don't recall D&D ever breaking that last social hurdle of acceptance.

To the topic at hand (which seems to have nothing to do with the topic of this topic, BTW), PC games don't have the oomph now to be mainstream. Even something that sells a million copies is pretty trivial in the big picture. Maybe because consoles have brand recognition, and don't suffer the incompatibility issues that plague PC owners, they can get more recognition for less volume per title. It-a-Playstation-Game vs. It's-a-PC-game, for instance. PC games also have dreadful visibility issues, for the most part.

Where's it going? I think at some point what we think of now as consoles, PC games and maybe even movies will merge, providing an immersive and interactive developing experience for players. Given the rush of hardware development, it isn't as Buck Rogers now as it seemed even ten years ago. We might see it in the next ten or twenty years, in some form. Once that happens, the nature of entertainment will go places none of us can really imagine. It might be fantastic, it might be ruinous. But I bet it will be interesting!

Everytime I look at the header for this thread it reminds me of that Edwin Starr's song, War.

Huh. Nothin. Say it again. Yeah.

Heh. Me too! And everytime I think of that song, I flash back to the movie Rush Hour.

Jackie Chan singing that -- my gosh. 'Bout killed me! Just the way he sings "What is it good for? Absolutely nothing!" Man, I just can't even think about it!

Well, I don't have concrete sales figures but I do have anecdotes. A couple years ago I got up from behind my keyboard long enough to start a fairly serious relationship (with a dreamgirl not a dreamcast). Her father was a nice but taciturn crusty old Southern fellow who might be proud to be called a redneck. We had nothing in common. Absolutely nothing. Until I mentioned computer games. Next thing you know we're discussing different HOTAS configurations and MS Flight Simulator and I'm pitching him on European Air War. If this guy and his buddies can suss out and get into computer gaming, and I'm not just talking hunting or Nascar games (though he's got them too), then I think we may be selling the public short a bit.

The next example is walking into Sam's Club, a local mass merchant discount warehouse. They've got food, hardware, music and clothing. They've got it all and more - as long as it can fit on a pallet. The first item, front and center, as one walks in the door are the software islands. Not console, mind you, but PC. And most prominant, facing the main route of traffic, is the PC gaming section. One long, huge, discounted row of 'topical titles' (Did I mention hunting, Nascar and MS Flight Simulator yet?) as well as brand new releases.

I think there's some cultural schitzophrenia about PC gaming. We're supposed to feel this stuff is for kids or bizarre unmarried uncles that live in garages and attics. However, the shit is everywhere. Almost every grownup I know plays games. Sure, many of them just play solitare and minesweeper but a surprising number are really intrigued by more sophisticated and involved games - but they're worried about 'bringing that stuff' home. They're busy. They don't want the spouse thinkin' they're nuts.

Then who is buying all those games at Sam's Club?

Closet gamers. Gotta be alot more of them than we think.

I think one thing that is definitely happening is a generation of people who grew up with a game console or computer in their home is fast approaching the big "spending" demographic. So it makes sense for places that might normally shun games to start carrying them. Isn't this exactly the group that Microsoft is targeting with Xbox? The early adopter and the GenXers that now are in that 20-30 age range seem to be their (and Sony's) likely targets.

There are a lot more people playing PC games than we probably think. But for sure one thing they have in common is that they're not a part of groups like you find on the message boards all over the web. The hardcore are a very small subset of a larger whole.

--Dave

Sam's Club is owned by the same parent company as Wal-Mart. Hence, anythingWal-Mart carrier (which does include PC games) Sam's Club is likely to have as well, but in greater volumes and more variety. Heck, that's the first place I saw No One Lives Forever!

I agree that there are probably more closet gamers than most people realize. We've just gotta find a way to bring them out!

An article on the mainstreaming of computer and video games appears in today's Chicago Tribune.

You can take the whole thing with a mine's worth of salt, including these survey numbers:

"According to a survey by Peter D. Hart Research Associates, a Washington-based company, about 143 million Americans play interactive (video and computer) games, and 32 percent of game players are age 35 or over. The survey also found that 13 percent of gamers are over 50, and that 43 percent are women."

Of course the article says nothing about the survey's methodology, not to mention how they define "play." Does that include everyone who has ever fired up Solitaire or Freecell?

I think it probably does include Freecell players. The question was probably something like "Have you ever played any kind of a game on your computer?" And, "Is there a videogame console in your house?"

Those kinds of surveys seemed designed to lure investors to game ventures. Who commissioned the poll?

Well, I just emailed Peter D. Hart Research Associates and asked to see the actual questions. If they send me anything interesting, I'll post some info on the site somewhere.

Yeah, there's definitely a difference between "playing games on a computer," which I'm sure about 70% of people do, and "Playing computer games."

But, then, I guess I'n preachin' to the chior...

"Those kinds of surveys seemed designed to lure investors to game ventures. Whocommissioned the poll?"

Well, the story doesn't actually say so, but it seems clear from the context that the poll information was provided to the reporter by game publishers, so I would say your "lure investors" slant is probably accurate.

Um, I'm a freecell player ("Hi, my name is Kazz and I'm a Freeceller." Ick.). I like Spider Solitaire, too. Doesn't stop me from playing AOE2. But a lot of days I just don't have TIME for a game of AOE2, so go for the soft stuff. I wonder how many of these casual types are like that?