Some Interesting New Stats About Gaming in the UK

[njiska]

Article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/sci_nat/05/state_of_play/html/1.stm)
Joystiq Article (http://www.joystiq.com/entry/1234000920070364/)

Here's the Gist:

* Most people play games. (59% of 6-65 year olds)
* All kids play games. (100% of 6-10 year olds)
* The average age of all gamers is 28.
* Older gamers outnumber non-gamers. (51% of 31-50 year olds play games.)
* Gender gap? What gender gap? (48% of gamers are female.)
* Consoles pwn PCs. (21.4 million console gamers versus 19.9m PC gamers.)
* People actually play interactive TV games. (8.1 million of them.)
* Puzzles and quizzes are the most popular game type. (63% of gamers love them.)

I'm really shocked about the gender gap. 48% of women playing games? Looks like i'm gonna have to go Skirt chasing on the streets of London now.

[Arkaign]

Article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/sci_nat/05/state_of_play/html/1.stm)

Here's the Gist:

* Most people play games. (59% of 6-65 year olds)
* All kids play games. (100% of 6-10 year olds)
* The average age of all gamers is 28.
* Older gamers outnumber non-gamers. (51% of 31-50 year olds play games.)
* Gender gap? What gender gap? (48% of gamers are female.)
* Consoles pwn PCs. (21.4 million console gamers versus 19.9m PC gamers.)
* People actually play interactive TV games. (8.1 million of them.)
* Puzzles and quizzes are the most popular game type. (63% of gamers love them.)

I'm really shocked about the gender gap. 48% of women playing games? Looks like i'm gonna have to go Skirt chasing on the streets of London now.

Heheh interesting stats, though I'd hardly say that consoles "pwn" PCs over there, it's almost exactly even. A ratio of 1.5 to 1, or 2 to 1, you could say that was a measurable lead.

I'd bet that in the US, with much lower education standards and more big-box corporate merchandising out of places like Wal-Mart etc .. that consoles lead the market for games here at least 2 to 1.

[Enixis]

I can vouch those stats are pretty accurate. Women really know their games over here.

[hydr0x]

I'd bet that in the US, with much lower education standards

LOL

[njiska]

Article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/sci_nat/05/state_of_play/html/1.stm)

Here's the Gist:

* Most people play games. (59% of 6-65 year olds)
* All kids play games. (100% of 6-10 year olds)
* The average age of all gamers is 28.
* Older gamers outnumber non-gamers. (51% of 31-50 year olds play games.)
* Gender gap? What gender gap? (48% of gamers are female.)
* Consoles pwn PCs. (21.4 million console gamers versus 19.9m PC gamers.)
* People actually play interactive TV games. (8.1 million of them.)
* Puzzles and quizzes are the most popular game type. (63% of gamers love them.)

I'm really shocked about the gender gap. 48% of women playing games? Looks like i'm gonna have to go Skirt chasing on the streets of London now.

Heheh interesting stats, though I'd hardly say that consoles "pwn" PCs over there, it's almost exactly even. A ratio of 1.5 to 1, or 2 to 1, you could say that was a measurable lead.

To be fair those are Joystiq's words not mine.

[Arkaign]

Article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/sci_nat/05/state_of_play/html/1.stm)

Here's the Gist:

* Most people play games. (59% of 6-65 year olds)
* All kids play games. (100% of 6-10 year olds)
* The average age of all gamers is 28.
* Older gamers outnumber non-gamers. (51% of 31-50 year olds play games.)
* Gender gap? What gender gap? (48% of gamers are female.)
* Consoles pwn PCs. (21.4 million console gamers versus 19.9m PC gamers.)
* People actually play interactive TV games. (8.1 million of them.)
* Puzzles and quizzes are the most popular game type. (63% of gamers love them.)

I'm really shocked about the gender gap. 48% of women playing games? Looks like i'm gonna have to go Skirt chasing on the streets of London now.

Heheh interesting stats, though I'd hardly say that consoles "pwn" PCs over there, it's almost exactly even. A ratio of 1.5 to 1, or 2 to 1, you could say that was a measurable lead.

To be fair those are Joystiq's words not mine.

Ah, heheh well I sorta thought that was a little out of character. Browsing through the forums, it's rarely that I'm not in total agreement of your points, even if we don't always have the same tastes.

Very interesting post, and it brings up so many things to discuss.

[Sebastian]

Heheh interesting stats, though I'd hardly say that consoles "pwn" PCs over there, it's almost exactly even. A ratio of 1.5 to 1, or 2 to 1, you could say that was a measurable lead.

I'd bet that in the US, with much lower education standards and more big-box corporate merchandising out of places like Wal-Mart etc .. that consoles lead the market for games here at least 2 to 1.

Well in Poland i think PC lead and very heavily too... coming across a console-only gamer is very rare... coming across a PC gamer is just about - heh well almost door to door :) here is an interesting spin to that - i guess every country is different

Poland - PCs
US - consoles
London - Balance of the forces

also... i think some of those stats are really dumb

ie: 100% of kids play games... WTF!? u mean every single kid out there (no exception at all) plays games.... bs i say

[njiska]

also... i think some of those stats are really dumb

ie: 100% of kids play games... WTF!? u mean every single kid out there (no exception at all) plays games.... bs i say

Not very familar with how a survey works are you? They go out and ask a bunch of people questions and from the results they can extrapolate a fairly accurate picture of the enitre country.

Thus every one 6-10 who was surveyed has played a game. Therefore 100% of kids (clearly defined as 6-10) play games.

[Sebastian]

also... i think some of those stats are really dumb

ie: 100% of kids play games... WTF!? u mean every single kid out there (no exception at all) plays games.... bs i say

Not very familar with how a survey works are you? They go out and ask a bunch of people questions and from the results they can extrapolate a fairly accurate picture of the enitre country.

Thus every one 6-10 who was surveyed has played a game. Therefore 100% of kids (clearly defined as 6-10) play games.

well then it wasn't a very good survey... if they surveyed a lot of people they wouldn't get bogus numbers like those

any good survery will not give u a number like 100%

[Arkaign]

Hmm, Nj I'm not sure if you can accurately link

"Thus every one 6-10 who was surveyed has played a game."

with

"Therefore 100% of kids (clearly defined as 6-10) play games."

I mean, it would be quite easy to find individuals within that age group that did not play games whatsoever. Amongst the Muslim population in particular, many forms of entertainment are vigourously portrayed as things to be avoided altogether. The United Kingdom has 1.6 million muslims. Now many of those will be progressive/liberal in values, but probably not a majority. This is just one example where discrepencies to a '100%' rule would appear.

The problem with any and all surveys, is that 100% accuracy is absolutely impossible to guarantee, unless you subjectify the range to one person or entity. It's somewhat akin to analyzing a soil sample of one particular area, and stating what all other surrounding soil contains with unequivocality.

Statements must be qualified under any moral and honest scientific discourse. This is why you will see an error variance % with most pollls.

In any case, I would agree that virtually all children 6-10 in the UK probably play games. I would also agree with Sebastian that it is somewhat ridiculous to state that in fact 'ALL' of them play games. There is a difference, and an important one. It is crucial to not accept even minor falsities as facts, otherwise our standards will become meaningless.

On a side note, that I hesitate to even mention, this 'marginalizing' of detail and proper understanding has become epidemic in the US and our education system. Our children are told the what, but not the why or the how, for the most part. And that only applies to the narrow and shallow range of knowledge that is actually taught in public schools. Of course, this practice only too easily engenders a brain-dead populace that will happily accept almost any form of degradation or illegal actions so long as it doesn't affect their direct consumer-centric lives.

But maybe I'm a cynic.

[Julio III]

Thats a very interesting survey although as people have pointed out, I would like to see the actual numbers of people surveys (especially across age ranges). It would be better if they classified gaming better than heavy, medium and light. Also because they classed someone as a gamer if they played in the last 6 months. Anyway, multiplying their stats for "heavy users" times number of gamers reveals that 48% of the UK population are heavy gamers.

[njiska]

Hmm, Nj I'm not sure if you can accurately link

"Thus every one 6-10 who was surveyed has played a game."

with

"Therefore 100% of kids (clearly defined as 6-10) play games."

I mean, it would be quite easy to find individuals within that age group that did not play games whatsoever. Amongst the Muslim population in particular, many forms of entertainment are vigourously portrayed as things to be avoided altogether. The United Kingdom has 1.6 million muslims. Now many of those will be progressive/liberal in values, but probably not a majority. This is just one example where discrepencies to a '100%' rule would appear.

The problem with any and all surveys, is that 100% accuracy is absolutely impossible to guarantee, unless you subjectify the range to one person or entity. It's somewhat akin to analyzing a soil sample of one particular area, and stating what all other surrounding soil contains with unequivocality.

Statements must be qualified under any moral and honest scientific discourse. This is why you will see an error variance % with most pollls.

In any case, I would agree that virtually all children 6-10 in the UK probably play games. I would also agree with Sebastian that it is somewhat ridiculous to state that in fact 'ALL' of them play games. There is a difference, and an important one. It is crucial to not accept even minor falsities as facts, otherwise our standards will become meaningless.

I was only trying to explain how surveys work. Obviously when ever you do an extrapolation there's a margin of error and no survey is 100% accurate because they very easily could have only surveyed the people who are playing games. But that's why you try to get as rich a mix of people as possible.

It's improbable that every child in England plays video games, but that's not what the survey is saying (again that's what Joystiq has to say). The survey says that everyone they surveyed 6-10 played games and because they served enough people to be representative of the rest of the country it's not unreasonable to say virtually every child has played games.

I think the problem comes from how you interpert the stats. The big problem here is we don't have a margin of error and that margin would make all the difference.

[lendelin]

double post

[lendelin]

Unfortunetely, this survey doesn't tell us a lot; to draw conclusions about the gender gap, casual gamers or frequent gamers and their gaming habits and many other issues would be misleading and courageous guessing at best.

The reason: put the following two statements together, and you have all the probs in the world.

1. "A gamer is defined as someone who has played video games in the last six months on any platform, including interactive TV (iTV)."

2. "Among the plethora of game types by far the most popular are quiz and puzzle-based." (63%)

Now your alarm bells shouldn't stop ringing!

It doesn't make sense to have the console business in the back of your mind while included in the survey as gamers are 60 and 70 year old guys and girls who play poker or wheel of fortune online once every six month.

I have a Vietnamese friend in his thirties who plays Go online probably once every two months for three hours. Is he a gamer? Yes, a very casual one. I have a neighbour in his fifties who has a DC and a Xbox who plays once a month, and every two months with me racing games. Is he a gamer? Indeed, but a very casual one.

The broad definition of gamer and online gaming of any sort explains the almost closed gender gap (which would be revolutionary indeed) plus the dominance of puzzle and quizz games. I bet in handheld gaming are cell-phone games included as well (once every six months playing, you're a gamer), and PC gaming includes pre-installed games such as Solitaire and Minesweeper as well -- you play it once every six months, you're a gamer.

It should be clear where the problems are. The survey should have included subcategories for each variable, and this goes for gaming habits (hours of gaming per month) and which kinds of games are played plus how much money is spent on games, which kind of games, and then linked to age groups. There is a plethora of subcategories missing which would have made the survey interesting --- in this form the survey is not very meaningful. (even for dsevelopers, publishers that are interested in cell-phone gaming habits and other issues.)

[lendelin]

The problem with any and all surveys, is that 100% accuracy is absolutely impossible to guarantee, unless you subjectify the range to one person or entity. It's somewhat akin to analyzing a soil sample of one particular area, and stating what all other surrounding soil contains with unequivocality.

Statements must be qualified under any moral and honest scientific discourse. This is why you will see an error variance % with most pollls.


These aren't the main problem of the survey if I understand you correctly. (see my post above)

Representative sample: the individuals have to be chosen randomly without unintential bias. Then a sample of 2000 individuals are representative for a population up to one billion. (with an agreed upon statistical significance level of .5 and error margins +/-5% which is nothing else than the two ends of a Gaussian normal distribution curve); but this has nothing to do with "moral" or "honest" scientific discourse. It is simply a question of good quantitative research -- a biased sample is not representative of the population.

You're right that the methods of choosing individuals for the survey aren't given, and that this is the FIRST big obstacle for every reliable survey. However, let us give them the credit of doubt considering the main problems of this survey. (same goes for a potential misleading existant or non-existant gender gap considering the error margins --- it might be that the gender gap is substantially significant while at the same time statistically insignificant or vice versa; impossible to tell and to test without having the exact data)



I'd bet that in the US, with much lower education standards and more big-box corporate merchandising out of places like Wal-Mart etc .. that consoles lead the market for games here at least 2 to 1.

I know it was a sidenote, but I still can't resist:

As a German living in the US for the last sixteen years and employed in the education sector in both Germany and the US, I can tell you that the supposedly lower education levels and standards in America is a myth. Unbiased comparative research shows this as well. It is just not there although even college professors in America might tell you different in courses; I had once even a colleague (a professor for International Relations) who actually believed that German workers at Mercedes are able to do calculus ('Integralrechnung' for the Germans on this board). This is what you get when you take Paul Kennedy at face value.

Fortunately for Americans, Europeans believe this myth as well in their arrogant stereotypical attitude towards America which ensures that the American educational system (from High School to Colleges) will be top-notch and leading in this century as well. If the one who is actually ahead believes that he's behind, and the one who is behind lives the illusion he is ahead, then there is no question about the outcome of the 'race.'

There is one real broad difference about America and Western European countries (which I learned in years): Americans are overly critical about their own country making others better than they are, while Europeans are overly critical about America instead of dealing and facing their own problems.

[lendelin]

I'd bet that in the US, with much lower education standards

LOL

I don't know what the laughing exactly means, but see my post above --- don't believe this statement for a sec. :)

[njiska]

I'd bet that in the US, with much lower education standards

LOL

I don't know what the laughing exactly means, but see my post above --- don't believe this statement for a sec. :)

Hey Lendelin say it in one post. You're gonna set this thread on fire by yourself. The edit buttons a wonderful thing.

[lendelin]

I'd bet that in the US, with much lower education standards

LOL

I don't know what the laughing exactly means, but see my post above --- don't believe this statement for a sec. :)

Hey Lendelin say it in one post. You're gonna set this thread on fire by yourself. The edit buttons a wonderful thing.

I never set something on fire in my life (certainly not a thread) unless I had a good fire insurance policy. :)

Well, hydrox's statement I overlooked, and again I just couldn't resist knowing that he's German. :) Probably I was so excited that I couldn't find the edit button --- considering that European stereotypes about America are with me since I was a young grad exchange student in the US in the 80's. To destroy these stereotypes is impossible and hard to understand for Germans socialized in the provincial juices of Europe coupled with arrogance, they exist for 200 years and are recycled almost every day in German daily newspapers; but encountering them I always speak out. :)

[Arkaign]

I suppose there could be something to what you are saying, but I *really* shudder at the lack of intelligence and free-thinking ability of my countrymen. Every level of our society is dumbed-down as much as possible, with sliding grade scales to accomodate minorities who would otherwise fail, a corporate media infrastructure which ignores or marginalizes important events in order to report on pop culture garbage, I could go on and on.

Look at our society here in the states for rife examples of ineptitude and corruption, which is fueled by the spectacular stupidity of the masses.

I suppose there are morons everywhere, but it certainly seems like we have more than our fair share here.

In any case, I'll amend my statement to being that of purely personal observation, though this could be clouded somewhat by the fact that Europeans traveling to the States are likely to be a higher caliber of thinker than average, and would tend to sway my opinion of their respective peer intelligence.

Bleh .. : http://www.sq.4mg.com/NationIQ.htm

On the topic, I still think it's an interesting survey, I think it would be great if we could see similar polls done in other countries for comparison.

[hydr0x]

I'd bet that in the US, with much lower education standards

LOL

I don't know what the laughing exactly means, but see my post above --- don't believe this statement for a sec. :)

nah, i just thought it was a funny line, especially coming from a US member here. I have no idea if he's correct or not and actually i don't care at all. Actually i'm pretty sure that there are far too many complete idiots in Germany (how else could "Bild" survive?) so i wouldn't call another country's people stupid.

[Griking]

* All kids play games. (100% of 6-10 year olds)

This stat stuck out like a sore thumb. I'm sorry but 100% of kids 6-10 do NOT play games. I'm sure that a huge majority of them do but 100% means that I couldn't find a single kid who doesn't play games and it's just rediculous to say that. Perhaps if he only polled 20 people but then that would hardly be worth reporting

[Vroomfunkel]

Representative sample: the individuals have to be chosen randomly without unintential bias. Then a sample of 2000 individuals are representative for a population up to one billion. (with an agreed upon statistical significance level of .5 and error margins +/-5% which is nothing else than the two ends of a Gaussian normal distribution curve); but this has nothing to do with "moral" or "honest" scientific discourse. It is simply a question of good quantitative research -- a biased sample is not representative of the population.

This is fairly accurate, but it doesn't fully address the problem here. Even if the survey did take a sample of 2000 randomly selected people, once it is broken down into subsections such as 6-10 year olds, then it can no longer be taken as representative.

To be representative of 6-10 year olds you would need a suitably sized sub-sample of randomly selected 6-10 year olds for that. Having project managed in a quant research company, I can't begin to tell you the amount of hassle it is to get representative sub-samples for all the gender / age / socio-economic grade breakdowns ...

But further than that even, 'representative' is a loaded term. If you have a 'representative' sample it does not mean that it gives you the breakdown across the whole population. It just means that there is a specific probability that it is only incorrect by a certain amount!

i.e. it could still be completely wrong, it's just unlikely that it is. But it's best not to mention that, because once you get down to that sort of nitty gritty, clients can sometimes get pissed with you.

Vroomfunkel

P.S. Woooo! 2000 posts! Level 10 at last! I score teh geek prize!

[Amy Rose]

Most of the 'girl gamers' I know play World of Warcraft and nothing else. I don't consider someone a gamer if they play one game and one game only (and only play that game because they like the guild chat and their boyfriends play it, making WoW the only way they can get in regular contact with their significant other :P). I wonder if it's similar in this survey?

[lendelin]

Representative sample: the individuals have to be chosen randomly without unintential bias. Then a sample of 2000 individuals are representative for a population up to one billion. (with an agreed upon statistical significance level of .5 and error margins +/-5% which is nothing else than the two ends of a Gaussian normal distribution curve); but this has nothing to do with "moral" or "honest" scientific discourse. It is simply a question of good quantitative research -- a biased sample is not representative of the population.

This is fairly accurate, but it doesn't fully address the problem here.

It is accurate, not just "fairly," and it addresses the full problem of representative samples as a whole in a very basic way (low case numbers for specific variables and a plethora of other problems are not addressed)


...once it is broken down into subsections such as 6-10 year olds, then it can no longer be taken as representative.

To be representative of 6-10 year olds you would need a suitably sized sub-sample of randomly selected 6-10 year olds for that.

That's a given; if you break down EVERY variable in a data set the case number is lower than the sample. If you have in one age group twenty cases, you cannot work with it. This is easily spotted just looking at the raw data or looking at the statistical significance level. A level of 3 means that there is a 30% likelihood that the result is based on a sampling error, this means it can be just a coincidence and cannot be generalized. The variable becomes absolutely useless (unless you can make a point that there is a substantial significance despite the statistical insignificance which works at times with significance levels up to 1.5)

If you combine variables to make a case, you easily end up with two one legged, black cell phone owners in the same income bracket who happen to play games on their phones once every six months. Three people are certainly not a representative sample statistically.

However, two thousand polled people are enough to draw conclusions about gaming habits for every age group as a common rule.


Having project managed in a quant research company, I can't begin to tell you the amount of hassle it is to get representative sub-samples for all the gender / age / socio-economic grade breakdowns ...


I know about the hassle. :) I once did a mail-poll with a very poor response rate (300), questionnaires not filled out completely (which is always the case), and then you look at an important variable for your hypothesis and end up with twenty cases. BAD, very bad, because everything was for nothing. :)


But further than that even, 'representative' is a loaded term. If you have a 'representative' sample it does not mean that it gives you the breakdown across the whole population. It just means that there is a specific probability that it is only incorrect by a certain amount!


You are way too skeptical and mathematically incorrect. The likelihood of 5% that the results of a poll are based on sampling error might skew the reality of the "actual, all engrossing population,' but the likelihood that the results are "completely" wrong is astronomical and neglectible.

A .1 significance level just gives you that --- the likelihood that the results are based on sampling error are a measly 1%. In non-biased polls with 2000 or 3000 respondents even if certain varaibles are broken down and combined, you often end up with significance levels of .05 --- certainly a very confident level.

About this poll: we just don't know the case numbers, and other very important data, we just know the percentages. Given the conceptualization probs (broad definition of gamer, inclusion of all kinds of 'gaming,' and many others) the poll is pretty much worthless, we don't have to get into more refined problems. You can't draw any interesting conclusions just based on these conceptualization problems.

I suspect it was a quick and dirty poll, probably even a phone poll without even letting a computer dial random numbers (even the latter doesn't produce unbiased polls anymore because of answering machines).