Gamer "Inflation." Everyone is a "Gamer" now.

[xDarc]

Something that's been bothering me lately is when a new CoD game comes out and it sells like 10 million copies in one weekend; it takes in more dollars than the biggest box office blockbusters did- because if you look at the top selling computer games from 1993-1999; Myst being #1 with 4.2 million copies sold (This is over SIX YEARS) Doom 2 sold 1.5 million, Doom sold a million, etc... you have to wonder, just who the hell is playing all these video games today?

I'll tell you something. The farther you go back in time, the less socially acceptable it was to play video games the older you got. I was in Jr. High in 1994, and the year before I had all these friends who still played NES and SNES. Over the summer something happened, and there were suddenly only 2 or 3 of us who were still really into video games. We had our own table in the lunchroom, and no one else talked to us unless it was to deliver the poetic ridicule that 13 year olds often do; "******."

Video games stopped being cool. Over night. Sometime in 1999 or 2000, the news media briefly made a big deal out of EverQuest selling a million copies. A paltry million. I couldn't find any of the stories, but oh man the photos of the people that accompanied these stories were always the worst portrayals of nerd kind.

I remember man boobs in snug, white T-shirts with the EQ babe and big, thick coke bottle glasses- before hipsters wore them ironically.

My point is, traditionally- those are gamers.

Now, thanks to Microsoft Brainwashing and xbox360, gaming is more or less socially acceptable for today's 20-something basement dweller, kids of all ages, your dad, your mom, your grandmom. Believe me when I tell you that if they figure out how to keep CoD looking edgy while including a knitting side-mission to hook grandma, they would.

The name of the game company putz escapes me, but one thing that struck me is he said if you can swipe your finger around a touch screen, you're a gamer.

If you're still reading this you are probably waiting for a discussion prompt to frame the whole thread with a throw-away question that you can respond yes or no to, add an extra sentence of wit, and get on with your busy, busy day of e-bundance. I don't really believe in that because it leads to boring, uncreative threads- but here it is:

How many copies is one copy sold in 1994 worth in 2012 copies due to gamer inflation?

 

[tippy2k2]

Yes, people who play video games are gamers. There are no more "traditional" gamers anymore because it's no longer a niche hobby.

I'm sorry if you being a gamer in the past got you picked on but here is the fact: Gaming is much more socially acceptable now (though it's still not fully accepted). I am absolutely baffled that anyone would ever want to go back to the old days of "bad social acceptance" of gaming besides for being one of the "different" people (you know, those people who say that X was so much better BEFORE it got popular).

I should also note that I was the exact same way (I am 26; I've been gaming since I could hold a damn controller and played Pokemon in middle/high school). However, I'm not bitter in any way, shape, or form that it's now OK to play games and in fact welcome the change.

I can pull out a game-boy and not have people give me the "man-child" look. I can talk to people about gaming without having to explain that I don't live in my parents basement. I can play Call of Duty with my boss at work without getting fired for being the unmature kid at a company. I don't care if the acceptable attitude has come years after my schooling; I will stand there with open arms to let grandma, the jocks, the boss, and anyone else who wants to game in.

 

[l0ckd0wn]

How about I skip your fairly lame question at the end and address the beef of what you said:

Back when you, and myself for that matter, were those kids sitting at the table talking about the next installment of Descent, Quake, Zork or Final Fantasy we were also jabbering on about technology and science. We grew up with the desire to understand the technology around us and began seeking out the tools of learning to grasp just what we were playing with. Some of us grew up to be coders and software engineers, some of us grew into network geeks and hackers, some of us grew up and didn't want to code, just do administration and troubleshooting. Others just grew up. But one thing remained; video games. They just kept coming, and as they kept coming their availability grew to larger markets.

As technology increased and cheapened, so then did the availability grow further to facilitate larger audiences of a wider range of ages than ever before. As those gamers of an older generation grew up, they started their prolific saturation of the gene pool, multiplying, passing on the "video games are OK" mentalities to their children and enabling them by purchasing systems every 3-5 years to facilitate even more gaming. This phenomenon is further exacerbated the older these "original" gamers get, and with the proliferation of technology into everyone's everyday lives, games are just a side niche to the whole caboodle. The acceptance can be dumbed down as far as just looking at how many people have "Angry Birds" on their smart phones - Are all those people gamers? No, they are just the result of "gaming" no longer being a stigma that is reduced to the corner of the lunch room. With the competitive nature of both console & computer games available to larger audiences that can now afford internet access and a $250 gaming system, technology has allowed the occasional, regular or common gamer, as well as the hardcore gamer demographics to get even larger. No longer is "gaming" just a tag for people like the persons of this site who spend a great deal of time following and finding intimate details about games, their creators and the business behind it, gaming is now available to anyone who has a smart phone, computer or tablet. Gaming is just another facet of life with it's own diverse universe of views and opinions from the most experienced of players to the most oblivious of smart phone/tablet users.

As for your final question, I think the vectors used to judge game success today do not necessarily reflect that of the demographics that we'd call "real," "hardcore," or "serious" gamers. It seems a huge number of the population own or are planning on buying a console that is connected to the net to enable online play. Games like CoD, BF3 and other face paced, instant gratification games with a low bar of skill to play fuel the trend we are seeing and will continue to fuel the trend as technology continues to become even more available, at even cheaper costs, to even larger audiences.

 

[xDarc]

I am absolutely baffled that anyone would ever want to go back to the old days of "bad social acceptance" of gaming

Did I say that?

I am just wondering what the hell happened in the past 20 years and a little bit in awe. The changes were so gradual; but looking at then and now is like night and day and nobody seems to notice.

And there are so many questions- How did it happen? What effect did it have on the games? If there were no such things as FPS games and Doom was invented today would it sell 100 million copies in a year instead of 1 million in 10 years? Are they going after girls next?

Off topic: What do teenage girls even do these days because I notice people don't hang out at the mall much anymore and just talk. They always wanted to have social outings and I wonder what the hell they do amidst the most impersonal communciation the internet has brought upon people. I was at a labor day barbecue recently and there was a 14-15 year old girl there who barely looked up from her phone.

 

[tippy2k2]

I am absolutely baffled that anyone would ever want to go back to the old days of "bad social acceptance" of gaming

Did I say that?

I am just wondering what the hell happened in the past 20 years and a little bit in awe. The changes were so gradual; but looking at then and now is like night and day and nobody seems to notice.

And there are so many questions- How did it happen? What effect did it have on the games? If there were no such things as FPS games and Doom was invented today would it sell 100 million copies in a year instead of 1 million in 10 years? Are they going after girls next?

Off topic: What do teenage girls even do these days because I notice people don't hang out at the mall much anymore and just talk. They always wanted to have social outings and I wonder what the hell they do amidst the most impersonal communciation the internet has brought upon people. I was at a labor day barbecue recently and there was a 14-15 year old girl there who barely looked up from her phone.

Alright, that's fair. I assumed based on the ending to your thread (Microsoft brainwashing comment/comment on CoD) that you were wishing for the current crop of gamers to go away (which to me implies that you want it to go back to how it was). If I misunderstood, that's my bad.

As to how it happened, I think that l0ckd0wn pretty much nailed it: Gamers became parents and passed on their passions combined with the fact that it became really easy (and less expensive) to game.

As to what affect it has now had (like if something revolutionary for it's time like Doom was created today), I don't think anyone could really give an adequate answer. However, I feel confident that it has had very little negative affect and a ton of positive for gaming by having it become so mainstream.

The only negative affect I can think of is that large game developers/publishers seem to think that if a game doesn't sell 5 million copies, it has failed. However, there are enough companies that go niche and are highly successful (Atlus anyone) that I don't think it's the culture doing it; it's the attitude of said game developers/publishers.

 

[xDarc]

As those gamers of an older generation grew up, they started their prolific saturation of the gene pool, multiplying, passing on the "video games are OK" mentalities to their children and enabling them by purchasing systems every 3-5 years to facilitate even more gaming.

I don't think a single generation would have quite the impact we see today unless every original gamer had about a dozen children. I think it has a lot more to do with clever marketing and shifting the perception away from the fact that video games were primarily children's toys for a loooong time. They were sold at Toys R' Us a couple aisles down from the G.I. Joes.

As kids hit puberty, they put their video games down at almost the same rate the dolls went into a box to be forgotten somewhere.

Technology is cheaper for the capabilties it offers; but really what is so different? When I use a smart phone, I feel like I have a 486 DX2 66mhz desktop in my hand- and I am every bit as frustrated by the comically slow performance as I was then. It's smaller, it's cheaper, I can throw it at a wall now without straining. The over-all experience is very much the same.

I think there's more to it than that.

 

[l0ckd0wn]

I think there's more to it than that.

But you just said I was wrong... And then provide nothing in rebuttal?

Gamers grew up, technology raged on and became intertwined with every aspect of first world life which softened the acceptance for "gaming" as we know it today, and now it's cheaper and more available than ever before. Those reasons are the factors when you say "there's more to it than that."

I said this concerning the "Put the dolls and video games away in a box..."

...purchasing systems every 3-5 years...

I put my Playstation away when I got my PS2... Still gaming...

If you think otherwise, why don't you tell us what it is, rather than just telling me I'm wrong because your opinion dictates it.

As to how it happened, I think that l0ckd0wn pretty much nailed it: Gamers became parents and passed on their passions combined with the fact that it became really easy (and less expensive) to game.

This in other words than my own.

 

[xDarc]

I was looking at a sales round-up of all the different gaming platforms on Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_games

This is what interests me:

Nintendo Entertainment System
Super Mario Bros. (40.24 million)

Super Nintendo Entertainment System
Super Mario World (20.60 million)

Nintendo 64
Super Mario 64 (11.62 million)

Nintendo GameCube
Super Smash Bros. Melee (7.09 million)

You following so far? That's a drop in sales of over 80% for the flagship title of each system. And then this happens... wtf did this come from?
Wii
Wii Sports (79.60 million)

What does that look like to you? To me it looks like a generation outgrowing mario and then...
Step 1. Technology dawg!
step 2 ???
Step 3 - PROFIT. Lots and lots of profit.

 

[Lilani]

-snip-

I think anytime you get into the "us VS them" mindset when it comes to the new people who have entered games and the new place of games in society, you get into the same exclusionary and tribal mindset that lead to your bad experiences growing up. Stop fixating on "back in my day, you had to EARN the title of gamer!" You aren't helping anybody, and it certainly doesn't reflect very well on what games were back then. All it shows is now that your childhood dream of kids being able to play games and not get called names has been fulfilled, you have been overcome by the bitterness of your own memories and are unable to find joy in that fact. You've become the same kind of bully who devalues people based on their interests, and you find self-satisfaction and gratification in their position below the pedestal on which you have placed yourself. You aren't interested in where games have been or where they are headed now and why--you're just getting out all the frustration you've built up over the years by talking down everybody who you see as even remotely similar those who hurt you in the past.

 

[l0ckd0wn]

**random sales numbers from Nintendo**

What is the actual question? Why are sales numbers the end all for judging the current status of gaming? Why should we only focus on one single system when over the time period of NES to Wii there have been literally 20+ systems that have come into existence? How better can you ask your question to get the answer you are looking for?

-snip-

I think anytime you get into the "us VS them" mindset when it comes to the new people who have entered games and the new place of games in society, you get into the same exclusionary and tribal mindset that lead to your bad experiences growing up. Stop fixating on "back in my day, you had to EARN the title of gamer!" You aren't helping anybody, and it certainly doesn't reflect very well on what games were back then. All it shows is now that your childhood dream of kids being able to play games and not get called names has been fulfilled, you have been overcome by the bitterness of your own memories and are unable to find joy in that fact. You've become the same kind of bully who devalues people based on their interests, and you find self-satisfaction and gratification in their position below the pedestal on which you have placed yourself. You aren't interested in where games have been or where they are headed now and why--you're just getting out all the frustration you've built up over the years by talking down everybody who you see as even remotely similar those who hurt you in the past.

This. Lot's and lot's of this.

 

[l0ckd0wn]

1. All games are not equal. That's why I have always, and will always, differentiate between "gamer" and "game consumer".

A gamer has a large library of games spanning some time where at least half of the games are quality games. In addition, a gamer is good at most games, and cares to some degree about quality of games and the art within games.

A game consumer typically buys mostly heavily marketed games like Assassin's Creed, The Sims, Call of Duty, FIFA, Madden, Gears of War etc. and don't own a significant proportion of quality games that weren't heavily marketed or totally casual games from an app store for their mobile device or facebook. A game consumer views games as pure entertainment.

That is a great way to differentiate for you, but nothing is quantifiable and is all subjective based on your own perception. If we talk real demographics, there is a chance that the "game consumer" can actually outspend a gamer in any given period of time. If in any given quarter there are more "main stream" games that the game consumer buys and no "gamer" games that the long time gamer buys who is more valuable and in the same regard who is quantifiable?

Captcha: it is enough

except, it's not enough.

 

[TrevHead]

With the early/late arcade and the console 8-16bit / Playstation / Xbox / facebook the DNA of a gamer is constantly changing, leaving some ppl feeling disenfranchised with each big change it's easy to see why gamers who are a mix of different types of purists and none purists are at each others throats all the time.

But in this melting pot there are plenty of niches that most of us can find common ground, even if it does require a bit of flexibility to look beyond favorite IPs, genres or platforms to get what we want. Especially atm when more and more ppl twig on to the fact that not every game should appeal to everybody, it's too much oil on water imo.

Not everyone who plays Ninty, Darksouls, shmups etc is in their 30s there's always freash blood as ppl constantly rediscover older games and their fan communities.

Yes games are about the money but it's always been like that even back in our day, much of the snobbishness against 2D games post PS1 was mostly down to the industry selling 3D to the public. And don't forget Genesis does what Nintendon't

 

[munx13]

Doom sold over 10 million.

 

[Yopaz]

Games being more accepted. Gamers no longer being a stereotype. Games being more available.

Honestly, where is the problem? I have had pretty much every Nintendo console released since I was born (not the upgraded Game Boys or DS/3DS upgrades) so you could say I have been playing games all my life. I see no problem with the growth that we have seen.

As for your final question it's impossible to answer, I don't even know what you're trying to say. Each sale now is worth less because the cost of making games have risen so they need more sales to make ends meet. Gamer inflation doesn't really mean anything in this.

 

[EstrogenicMuscle]

It doesn't seem like games are actually selling that much more nowadays. Even if it may be, in fact, more mainstream.

Also, you're making gaming in the nineties sound less socially acceptable than crossdressing. And OP, didn't you one time say that parents shouldn't let their kids crossdress, because that will allow them to be bullied.

My sincere apologies if I'm mistaking you for someone else. And I'm not trying to be antagonizing. I just find it funny how people think that allowing your child to disobey gender clothing conventions is child abuse but don't have the same to say about other things that lead to bullying.

Also, again, if I'm confusing you for someone else who made the statement that parents shouldn't let their kids crossdress, I deeply apologize. There's a lot of users and sometimes I confuse some users for others.

Also, I'm pretty sure that stereotype is still kinda true. And also gaming was huge during the arcade days. I think that things have changed a little, but not all that much.