When will gaming come of age?

I received my May 2007 Issue of EDGE magazine in the post yesterday and, upon finally getting a chance to take a look at it, I found myself intrigued by a couple of articles. The issue contains a (bizarrely uncredited) piece about the future of gaming and a standard column by Tim Guest about an older gamer's love for the Wii.

Now, if taken at face value, neither of these pieces is particularly Earth-shattering. The Guest column in particular is little more than a human interest Wii puff piece about how the Wii's accessible interface and titles is bringing families together. The piece about the future of gaming trots out similar platitudes about how the future of gaming will feature lots of user-created content and so on. However, what interested me in both pieces is the idea of the gaming population getting older. Apparently... in 2006, 16% of gamers were aged 50 or over.

In 2006, 19% of gamers were aged 50 or over

While Guest, I think, draws precisely the wrong conclusions from the 70-year old gamer he writes about, he does mention that most older gamers aren't likely to be turned on by the same kinds of games as teenaged gamers. What is interesting about this nugget of truth is that while we tend to think of gamers aged 50+ as interlopers who have wandered into "our" hobby (that is a hobby overwhelmingly dominated by the under 35s and even the under 30s), this is increasingly not the case.

I am 30 and have, over the past few years found myself increasingly alienated by the bulk of console games. I have, along with most people, tended to think of this as a matter of my tastes changing but is this really the case?

When I go to the cinema, I go to see very different films to those I went to see when I was aged 15. In those days I remember being completely thrilled by Terminator 2 and could be fully expected at the cinema at the opening weekend of every big "event" movie. I adored action movies. Nowadays though, it's rare that I'll bother to go and see an action movie in the cinema at all. Even those that I do go and see, I tend to get something different out of than I did when I was a teenager. In short, my tastes have matured.

When I set up this blog, I fully intended to try and cover videogames because at the time I was playing quite a few and they were a huge part of my life. In fact, my first blog was nothing but game reviews. However, then the change-over to the next generation came and I found myself staring down the barrel of another generation that boasted all the same lame action and sports games as the previous generation but this time with you being expected to pay a premium for the graphics. Understandably, I switched off and still have no intention of buying a next gen console. Despite following the scene I've found that while there are plenty of games around that justify their cost once you have a console, there are surprisingly few that make you want to shell out the hundreds and hundreds of pounds necessary to buy into the next generation of hardware. Speaking with friends of a similar age I have found this to be a relatively common phenomenon and with uptake on both the XBox360 and the PS3 being less than expected, I suspect that this is a phenomenon with some universality.

What is different between now and the launch of the PS2? Time

The biggest demographic shift in gaming at the moment is the aging population of gamers. While new gamers are born every minute and kids nowadays are far more likely to have a console than I was when I was growing up, the fact is that that first generation of people to grow up with computer games in their own home are now in their 30's and 40's... and yet the variety of games on sale today completely fail to reflect this fact.

The variety of games on sale today completely fail to reflect this fact

TV and Film are able to allow for differences in appeal to different age groups. For example, Channel 4 has Big Brother and the yawning casm into hell that is T4 and both appeal to teenagers. However, they also have the Sopranos and ran The West Wing. Why is it that I, as a mature gamer, can happily buy The Wire on DVD and positively fizz as I marvel at how awesome it is, but when I want to play a game I'm forced to play a gangsta in GTA: San Andreas or a thuggish warrior in God of War. While both games are beautifully made with GTA: SA's opening section in San Andreas ranking among some of the best scripting ever seen in a game and God of War features some nice exploration of the broad themes of ancient greek myth. But for all the care and attention lavished upon them, both games ultimately revolve around breaking some things and killing others. At its best this kind of gaming is asymptotically close to being an interactive action movie.

But what if I don't like action movies?

Not all games are action movies, this is true. There are sports games, RPGs, platform games and, if you own a PC, god games and civilisation clones. This is just more running, jumping and fighting. In his last series of Screenwipe, Guardian columnist Charlie Brooker argued that the whole point of videogames is different from other mediums and as such, to expect complex emotions from a game is to be, in his words a "thicksickle". But why should this be the case? one could argue that it's because of the extent to which game design focuses on graphics, resulting in the quality of writing for games reflecting the lack of budget and care that you'd expect of something so low down a game designer's set of priorities. But this is to complain about the symptoms rather than the disease.

The question really should be why quality writing is such a low priority in the first place. The problem, somewhat ironically lies with older gamers such as Charlie Brooker who see the conservative nature of videogames as a problem with the medium, and therefore they will happily play the same kinds of games that they were playing on their old C64s at the age of 12.

The problem, in many ways, is similar to that of bad television. When I unplugged my aerial and decided to only watch DVDs and downloads, I found that lots of series I would happily watch because I happened to be in front of the television anyway suddenly stopped appealing once I had to wait for them to download or for them to find their way to my through DVD rental. I think that the same thing is happening with gaming and that a lot of older gamers who otherwise have sophisticated tastes, are happily buying games that are beneath them and that don't even sustain their attention spans long enough to get them to finish the games they buy before they get a new one. I think that this happens because people buy consoles and then buy games in order to make use of them. If they didn't have consoles then in all likelihood they wouldn't feel any sense of loss at all at the prospect of not getting to play that 15th update of Pro Evo Soccer or the latest knuckle-dragging variation on that universal theme of "fascist with huge gun kills things".

This is a pattern of consumption bordering on fetichism where the normal laws of cause and effect and supply and demand are thrown out the window as people don't buy consoles in order to play interesting games... they buy games in order to justify their ownership of consoles.

So, in the hope of convincing my fellow non-teenaged gamers to stop this insane pattern of consumption I've devised a list of things that really should influence your economic interaction with the games industry.

1. Do you regularly play your existing console?

If you don't then in all likelihood, you really shouldn't be looking to buy into the next generation. The previous generation has loads more games available for it than the current one has and if in all of those hundreds of titles there is nothing to sustain your interest, do you really think that better graphics or having to wave your arms about is going to change anything?

2. Do you own a PC?

The XBox360 and the PS3 are being sold on the basis of their multimedia and online capabilities. If you own a PC then you might well already have a machine (that you no doubt use more than your console) that either can or will, with some upgrading, be able to do everything that your new console would be able to do, and for less money. So are you really buying the next gen console because it allows you to beam music across the room or is that just what you're telling the girlfriend?

3. Does the console you want to buy have any games you'd be willing to spend more than £100 in order to play?

When you buy a console you're effectively shelling out hundreds of pounds not to play games but to have the possibility of playing games. So in effect, the way to look at it is that for each game you buy, you're not just buying the game at £50 a go, you're also buying a proportion of the possibility to play games. So if you buy 20 games over a console's lifespan you're effectively shelling out £50 and 5% of the value of the console. This is the real cost of console gaming... are the games worth this cost?

4. Are you buying that game because it interests you or because you want to play a game?

If you walk into a shop with the intention of buying a game and getting the most out of your console, chances are you'll find something to take home with you. But is that game a game that would have excited you enough to buy it in its own right? Is it worth the true price of console gaming? are you buying it for the right reasons?

It is imperative for older gamers to not allow themselves to be forced into following a market that is hostile to them. They must allow the laws of supply and demand to operate properly and the only way to do that is to not automatically buy a new console and, if you do, then certainly don't "make do" with the games on offer. You're a grown-up with sophisticated tastes, don't allow the games companies to lump you in with kids. Be demanding, be difficult, be grumpy, demand as much from your gaming as you do from your TV and cinema. That's the only way to help gaming come of age and stop appealing to priapic teenaged boys.

Comments

[Imperator]

Excellent post. You sum up all the reasons why I am staying wth my old PS2 and its enormous array of games that keep going cheaper every day. I'm not paying 600 € to have the chance to play overpriced games that may or may not be good.

[Jonathan McCalmont]

It's weirdly an issue that people don't discuss very much.

The industry operates on the assumption that if you're a gamer you'll automatically buy into the new generation and the games are then tailored to be just good enough to make you want to buy games... they don't really sell the whole system.

This is why I think early adopters are essentially idiots. They're not hardcore gamers, they're people with poor impulse control.

When they're asking more and more money for consoles and more and more money for games, I think that sooner or later there comes a point where unless gamers have their specific tastes catered for, that they might well just go "not interested" as I have done and seemingly so have you.

[A.R.Yngve]

Hey, I love my Wii.

What appeals to me about Wii is that it's an actual innovation in how you play: you have to use your body. It demolishes the criticism that videogaming turns you into a couch potato...

(And as I'm not getting any younger, I NEED the exercise! Desperately!! ;-))

I'm firmly convinced that technology drives innovation: whenever someone comes up with a new design of a console or a new control system, it stimulates game designers to think of new ways to use it.

Take the joystick.
Or the trackball. A whole lot of games wouldn't have been invented if those control devices hadn't inspired their creation.

The Wii motion-tracking control system derives from the VR and motion-tracking technology which had a false start in the early 90s (remember the VR fad and those clunky helmets?)... it took over 10 years to make the technology simple, small and cheap enough for a mass-market console.

It goes to show innovation takes time, but starts on the most basic level: "How do I steer this thing?"

I'm holding out for the game-system I can control with my feet and hands at the same time. (Hmmm... what if I duct-tape the Wii nunchucks to my legs..?)

[Max Cairnduff]

That's why god made PC gaming though surely? The PC gaming demographic tends to be older and the range of games reflects that, though the marketing spend tends to go on the usual suspects.

Medieval II Total War, The Shivah (an adventure game in which you play a Rabbi investigating a murder within the Jewish community), the flight sim games, Kudos (a game about being a twentysomething seeking popularity), Defcon, Victoria, there's a game out this month which seeks to replicate a soap opera essentially.

The range is much greater, it's still predominantly adolescence driven but there is a greater spread and I think the demographics are better reflected.

Console games could easily follow the same trend, but to date haven't, possibly due to challenges in indie game design for consoles as compared to for the PC.

[Jonathan McCalmont]

I think you're right and you've opened up another interesting aspect of this question.

The PC market's big plus is that its development costs are low enough and its possible customer base so large that it can afford to be more experimental and "indie".

Given the fact that the gaming population is, like it or not, aging, why is it that "games for grown ups" is seen as the preserve of indie gaming and bedroom auteurs?

I suspect that this links up with what Greg Costikyan (sp?) has said about how risk averse games producers are but surely if more and more of your customer base is not composed of teenagers, would it not make sense to assume that maybe they might have different tastes to teenagers?

[Max Cairnduff]

"Given the fact that the gaming population is, like it or not, aging, why is it that "games for grown ups" is seen as the preserve of indie gaming and bedroom auteurs?"

Probably the same reason that movies for grown ups tend to be indie movies or by lone auteurs.

It's not as bad with film, but the big development money tends not to go into the more thoughtful dramas.

Query whether most adults want thoughtful adult drama? I suspect not, and in terms of studio/developer risk betting on the mass market established taste is a surer bet than betting on the appetite for quality.

That and on a personal level risk taking is not rewarded. Put a new and innovative movie/book/game on the market and if it bombs you may well lose your job. If it bombs but is very similar to a dozen other efforts that did ok you may well be seen as just unlucky.

Finally, for the moment, indie auteurs have fewer people giving input, the more voices present in the creative process the more likely you are I suspect to get a safe product. A lone voice will more likely create something idiosyncratic, which may be for better or worse depending on their talent.

I'm not sure it's a gaming issue though in PCs, there I think the movie analogy holds pretty well, in consoles I suspect the hardware and development costs issue are a huge factor mitigating against real risk taking.

[Talvalin]

Apparently... in 2006, 16% of gamers were aged 50 or over.

In 2006, 19% of gamers were aged 50 or over.

Typo?

In your article, you have ignored games like Phoenix Wright, Viva Pinata, Guitar Hero, Brain Training and Trauma Center, none of which are "just more running, jumping and fighting." Admittedly these games are in a minority, but to make such a sweeping generalisation of the console gaming industry without mentioning the games that are trying to do something different is disingenuous.

Moreover, you dismiss the Wii in a single sentence that suggests that you haven't actually played one. Out of all the current-gen consoles, the Wii is the one that should be praised most highly. Nintendo made a risky decision to break away from the trend of "bigger and better" and concentrate on an intuitive control system that would make the console accessible to everyone. If you have played a Wii and came away unimpressed, I would like to hear your opinions on why you think it doesn't work.

Out of interest, what kind of games do you think that older gamers with sophisticated tastes would like to play?

[Imperator]

Wow, interesting discussion.

Jonathan: The industry operates on the assumption that if you're a gamer you're going to buy a new platform... because it seems to be quite true. There's a very strong hip factor going on in gaming communities, be it tabletop RPG communities, videogaming communities or whatever. People seem to be scared of being left behind.

I am also convinced that early adopter are idiots with poor impulse control. When the PS2 came one, it was priced about 500 €. 1 year later you could get it in a bundle with a game for less than half that price, situation that has stayed the same until these days. There's no way in hell I'm paying 600 € when I can get the same platform a year later with a substantial reduction on its prize if I think I want it.

Max: We must bear in mind that every market reacts more slowly than we could think to a change in its customer base. As long as games are profitable, taking risks and changing the product may be delayed.

I agree with you in that the PC gaming seems to be less affected by this situation, having a wider variety of games available. The feeling I get from the Spanish gamers is that consoles are good mostly for simple, no brainer games based mostly on action or sports, while you need a PC to get some complex games.