Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Over three billion people worldwide now play video games, study reports

nintendosmash.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 378 posts

Re: Over three billion people worldwide now play video games, study reports

#331

Post by archibaldJ »

I think the greatest video game to be played is life. Unfortunately not many people can afford to play it the fun way and things start to get boring and time start to fly by and people get drawn into simulations of some subset of it, which begs the question, shouldn’t life simply be a “simulation” of some subset of something?

What is interesting is that an affirmative to this question often makes life more “game-like” and in terms more open to the notion of it capable of being “fun to play” (and vice versa). Though once again not many people would wholeheartedly appreciate this Insight. Very unfortunately life is often filled with suffering and miseries and most (including myself) would often get blinded and overlook the nice things, as well as its game-like nature.

Perhaps getting into one of these man-made simulators is not that bad of a thing, especially if it engages the social module and in some way enriches the overall gameplay of life.

I think many progresses in science & technologies are often hindered by our tendencies to not appreciate games. As a (post)modern civilisation we often take things too seriously. Probably a feature not a bug! But on a more individual level I think taking things more lightly (while still being a responsible human being) would improve the overall quality of life. That is something I’m still trying to learn.

Re: Over three billion people worldwide now play video games, study reports

#332

Post by zalkota »

archibaldJ wrote: post #331

I think the greatest video game to be played is life. Unfortunately not many people can afford to play it the fun way and things start to get boring and time start to fly by and people get drawn into simulations of some subset of it, which begs the question, shouldn’t life simply be a “simulation” of some subset of something? What is interesting is that an affirmative to this question often makes life more “game-like…

Since buying a house and obtaining a decent job, I’ve realized life is the ultimate game. There is an unbelievable amount of content and situations.

Re: Over three billion people worldwide now play video games, study reports

#333

Post by klyrs »

excalibur wrote: post #104
klyrs wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that one

This is because it was extremely common/popular, which is how it ended up in windows 3.1 in the first place.

I know how it came to be. Doesn't change my mind about it being garbage game. In fact, its popularity is rather my point. Not that garbage computer games aren't being made today, but the choice out there is incredible. Also popular among her generation: the 15 puzzle. Blech.

Re: Over three billion people worldwide now play video games, study reports

#334

Post by setr »

meheleventyone wrote: post #236
setr wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the notion of "fluency" proposed by the GP, the idea would be that a "fluent" gamer would not be described with "played only X games". You would be fluent if you could "communicate" in multiple genres -- having a sufficiently thorough vocabulary.

But this is just weird gatekeeping. You could for example be extremely fluent in a single genre but uninterested in others. For example I've been playing games for over 30 years and don't really know the genre conventions of match-3 games beyond the obvious. Similarly I know very little about MOBAs or gacha style games or visual novels. And I'm a game designer! IMO one of the worst aspects of modern "gamer" culture i…

No its a question of categorization.

You can't have the same conversation between someone who plays only candy crush, and someone who plays a wide variety of games. Its like saying that 8 billion people read books -- but 7.9 billion of that only read harry potter. Suddenly that 8 billion readers is far less notable.

There's a scale to your level of hobbyism -- a lot of people only play games as long as their friends do, because its simply a social tool (replacing the mall). The current flavor just happens to fall under video games, but theres no stickiness -- if the next popular thing is laser tag, they'll shift out and never think about games again.

The notion of trying to define this scale as a problem is also largely unique to gaming -- it exists elsewhere without issue. Painting, movies, programming, literature, music, engineering etc there's no issue saying that someone is dipping their toes into the subject, or has purely commercial interest in it (eg I only watch best selling movies, or only marvel) or has an actual interest in it (a -phile, a hacker, etc)

I think the key difference is the prevailing belief that there is no depth to this subject, so the only difference between a casual entrant and a hobbyist and a professional is an arbitrary checklist.

Obviously I disagree -- there is depth, and therefore, there is a difference between "gamers", as they fall between the ranks in understanding that depth. Ofc theres no great metric, and you can't define it in detail, but the difference between a candy-crush-only "gamer" and a genre-agnostic "gamer" and a genre-loving "gamer" and a read-the-literature (what little exists) "gamer" in recognizing and communicating about that depth is readily apparent

Re: Over three billion people worldwide now play video games, study reports

#335

Post by nottorp »

disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #327
nottorp wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> get value out of playing free games without spending a cent. Mindlessly grind medallions or whatever. The problem with IAP games (free or not, afaik a Dead Space game was selling ingame crafting materials as IAPs) is they waste your most precious resource: time. > And trailers and reviews were famously broken for console/PC games historically. Oh but that's easy. Don't preorder and don't buy games based on just one…

I note that my core point, that you can't legislate other people's fun, is not tackled in your response. Like, I mostly agree with you on the quality of many (maybe most) F2P games, but FIFA wastes your time far more than Candy Crush (and indeed, the people who buy sports games every year seem very strange to me).

Most people aren't aware there are other types of computer fun than the free crap in their phone's app store.

Us HNers are a dying breed, a lot of people don't have computers any more, or when they have them they use them only when absolutely necessary.

Re: Over three billion people worldwide now play video games, study reports

#336

Post by edanm »

klyrs wrote: post #333
excalibur wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is because it was extremely common/popular, which is how it ended up in windows 3.1 in the first place.

I know how it came to be. Doesn't change my mind about it being garbage game. In fact, its popularity is rather my point. Not that garbage computer games aren't being made today, but the choice out there is incredible. Also popular among her generation: the 15 puzzle. Blech.

Speed solving the 15 puzzle is actually quite fun :) I have a few nice physical versions at home, although nothing really compares to the crazy speed I've seen people achieving on computer versions.

Then again, speedcubing (Rubik's cube) is my "main" hobby, and it's a lot deeper and more interesting IMO.

Re: Over three billion people worldwide now play video games, study reports

#337

Post by edanm »

ido wrote: post #323
bcassedy wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Likely because they count mobile games in these figures but people don't count them when talking about gaming on a dating profile. Virtually everyone you know probably tried Candy Crush, Pokemon Go, or flappy bird. Most of them probably have at least one game like that installed on their phone today that they play on the toilet or whatever. But they don't consider themselves gamers.

My 75 years old mother plays bubble shooters, dots & other games of that sort probably as much or more than I play any games - and I'm a game developer.

So out of curiosity, given the above discussion, would she consider herself a gamer? Would you consider her a gamer?

Re: Over three billion people worldwide now play video games, study reports

#338

Post by catsarebetter »

disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #232
catsarebetter wrote: post #230

I talked to an executive at Skillz a few years ago and she told me that one of their main growth strategies was actually to target prospective women that could be gamers. The way it worked was that a few of Skillz executives were in this market, women who loved video gaming but businesses at the time refused to recognize it. Imagine a woman who plays mobile games just to kill time at the bus stop, etc. Exec told me t…

So, back in the day I worked with a lot of gaming companies on their advertising. They would point blank refuse to target women because "women don't play games". Even when we demonstrated that women made up a really sizable proportion of their audience, they wouldn't budge. Really brought it home to me that so much bias is reproduced through the biases of advertisers, rather than the platforms.

They'll pay for it when more startups catch on and grow like mad and compete with them

Re: Over three billion people worldwide now play video games, study reports

#339

Post by sidlls »

watwut wrote: post #311
sidlls wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why it's apparently controversial that we can break a category like computer gaming into a spectrum of activities and styles. We do it in many other areas without such issue, e.g., recreational vs. amateur vs. professional athletics, cooking, artistry, etc. If a report were published that said "250 million adult Americans are cooks" I'd find it objectionable. It's not a meaningful number, either in…

You are using this argument in a thread about whether Candy Crush is a "video game". Not whether it is, shooter, RPG or racing game. Nor whether playing on subway counts as e-sports. The problem here is that the breakdown is completely arbitrary based on "how much I feel related to people who play it". It is not based on hours played, someone who plays on console less of time can count. It is not by effort spent, som…

The origin of the report is a market intelligence publication about gaming. The controversy over "Candy Crush" is almost an irrelevant detail in this context.
Post reply on HN