The following blog was, unless otherwise noted, independently written by a member of Gamasutra's game development community. The thoughts and opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Gamasutra or its parent company.
Want to write your own blog post on Gamasutra? It's easy! Click here to get started. Your post could be featured on Gamasutra's home page, right alongside our award-winning articles and news stories.
It's a common phrase, and increasingly it's one I think applies to the Game Industry as I note how relatively unknown the game industry is among the older generation.
Background:
I had a neighbor, a friend of my wife, who came by as my kids were playing Airport Mania on a Wii test kit I'd brought home for testing. When my kids shouted triumphantly that it was Airport Mania, but on the Wii! The neighbor, who incidentally had unexpectedly found my game on the PC without realizing until looking at the credits that I'd made it, looked at my kids and asked what the Wii was. I explained it was the newest machine from Nintendo, and she then asked who Nintendo was.
I was talking to a college roommate last weekend about the games we make, and that we've expanded to the iphone. He was unfamiliar with the casual space, so I said they were games somewhat similar to Bejeweled. He asked what Bejeweled was. I said it was from PopCap. He asked who that was.
I took some games home to my dad last weekend, to get an expert opinion, and in one of them there was some match 3 play (like Bejeweled). He wasn't sure what he was supposed to do b/c he'd never seen a match 3 game before in his life.
I went to the doctor a couple of months ago and while talking to him about a knee injury, I mentioned Wii Fit. He wasn't familiar with it. I told him it was for the Nintendo Wii, he had no idea what it was. I further explained computer games, working through everything I could think of to convey the concept of playing a game on a TV or computer, and finally getting to Tetris, which he knew, due to being from Eastern Europe.
Big Fish - Little Pond
Being in an industry every day can make you feel like everyone knows what you know. That's not uncommon for any industry, but it's especially prevalent in the games industry because there is so much media coverage of the industry.
However, as I ask around, and talk to people, the fact that most people don't play games is apparent.
What does that mean?
Honestly, it doesn't mean that much. If you were to pick something not to do, games would be a good thing to have on your list. Gaming is entertainment, and it is a type of entertainment that is often abused as people spend both their free time and their work time playing games. If you were not to be playing games, your time could be better spent. It could be worse spent as well, but the point is, that not playing games isn't a bad thing, and is potentially it could be a good thing.
As much as Nintendo has tried to turn gaming into a good thing and spread it to the masses as either enlightening, useful, or family fun, gaming is still looked down upon, and most people don't play, aren't involved, and don't even know what gaming is today.
As a game creator, I do want people to play. But instead of wanting people to come play my games, I want to make games for them. I don't expect people to like Jazz music or baseball because I do. I want to figure out what they do like, and make something for them.
It's a Pond, Not the Ocean
Which brings me to my next point. Actually it doesn't. But I'm going to let that first part simmer and move on anyway.
Recently the Dead Space Extraction numbers for Wii were released, and they were horrible. 9200 copies in the first month. This type of poor sales inevitably leads to someone saying that Mature games don't sell on the Wii because that's a console for kids, not adults.
But the Wii is selling to adults. 7 year olds are not the ones buying WiiFit.
The real issue here is that adults don't like shooters. (at this point some readers get upset to the point of wanting to respond to this piece without reading the rest...don't do that...read on)
I was looking at some survey data recently which showed that FPS games were among the Top 5 genres for players up to age 35. At age 35 FPS dropped into a tie for 10th.
As people get older, their tastes change. If you haven't gotten old yet, just wait, it will happen to you.
What has mostly happened, is that as people have gotten older, they've simply stopped playing games. The Japanese market has been giving a wonderful demonstration of this fact for the last 10 years, which is what lead Nintendo to go a completely different route.
The casual games market on the PC is mostly female over 35. In fact, I've started to wonder. Are there more women over 35 playing games than there are men? I honestly think the answer to that question is 'yes.'
Which has got me thinking. Why?
I've talked to people at my work (where we make games), around my neighborhood, at church, and other places, and there is a very interesting trend. Hardly any of the guys my age (I'm 35) play games. Hardly any at all.
...and that includes the people I work with who make games for a living.
Most of them played years ago, but they've stopped entirely, and they have little interest in the games of today. Dead Space is not turning their heads.
So I've started wondering what might.
Instead of thinking about the size of the fish, I've started thinking about the size of the pond.
Isn't there an ocean out there?
What would a 40 year old guy want to play?
(really...what? you may have an anecdote about some guy or small group that plays COD every weekend, but its rare...really rare...I'm convinced that the #1 reason this age group doesn't play is b/c of a lack of content made for them)
What are 40 year old guys like?
(this is really an interesting question to me, one which I've written down attributes to and thought about a lot as I've considered what the audience does...and why they do it. I'm pretty convinced that the way to make a game for a 40 year old is to make the game for a 40 year old.)
What would my dad play?
(notably he's been interested in Wii Sports, the first game he's personally asked to play in 20 years! Beyond that though...what would make him interested in playing - note that my dad's 59. Prior to Wii Sports the last game he enjoyed playing was RC Pro-AM.)
It's been an interesting thought journey thinking about what games are, and what they could be. Perhaps it will spur some thought that will lead to a game for guys over 40, or for a game aiming for that ocean of older folk (aka the majority of the people on the earth) instead of being satisfied with being a big fish in a small pond.
That age might be a moving target. I remember a couple years ago no one out of their twenties played games.
Most of the people in my generation are split down the middle, those that play games and I'm including things like face book games in this and those who view life as a series of activities. I have friends who have planned what they want to do for the next six months. Most of my friends who play games will look forward to a movie, concert or game they are going to see but when they are not playing with their kids tend to play casual games.
More of my younger friends are into games that require more time, and I really think that has to do more with your significant other wanting time with you. Then younger friends their significant others play games with them, those who are older for the most part don't. There are exceptions to this but almost all of them worked in some sort of tech field or played D&D when they were younger and in some cases still do.
It really has more to do with my generation (I'm 31) grew up with computer games but we were told to go outside and get fresh air, but for the most part computer were expensive so most people did not have them. My friends who I went through college with recently(I went back for a second degree) are in early to mid twenties grew up with consoles and cell phones, for them the odd ones out were the ones who did not play video games. So the forty year old that never had a console growing up remember Atari started in 1972. Arcades were something you did to go hang out with people and cost way too many quarters.
If they really want to get the older crowds they need to put the systems in bars so when people go to hang out they get hooked.
Ironically, I work upstairs from a casual game company called "Big Fish Games" that might cause you to rethink your ideas about demographics. Their primary market is women over 35, and their largest demo is females in the 65 age range.
http://www.quantcast.com/bigfishgames.com/summary
In talking with friends at the company I've learned alot about why people play games. And that's the key - its not a question of what game, its a question of why you're playing. Its not about delivering the right theme or content, its about delivering the lifestyle and play experience that appeals to your market.
Another thing that might eventually become a factor is Innovation Fatigue. When I was twelve I was absolutely in love with games, and every new major release that came out was something to be in awe of. But I haven't even bought a PS3, Wii or 360. I realize that gameplay is becoming ever more intricate. Graphics too have obviously taken leaps and bounds. While it looks like Nintendo with the Wii wanted to push the definition of gameplay further a bit, and Natal might also do that, I think that average person can only withstand so much change before change itself can be regarded as a constant. So, I wonder if the over 35's are not necessarily (or at least, exclusively) reacting well to new games (when they do react well to them) because the games are uniquely exciting or more relevant, but perhaps because they have been able to let gaming sit for some time, and come back to it --whatever it is-- with fresh eyes?
Since I've stopped laughing at the thought that a 40 year old male is considered "old" for the purposes of this article, I can now realize that you are perhaps right. I may be in more of a minority than I realize. I'm a 45 year old female and, in most demographics, I guess I'd be considered a core gamer. But, constantly exposed to the writings of greats such as Sande Chen, Brenda Brathwaite and Jessica Chobot (none of which are "old", but are female) I don't notice that females and older players are unusual.
However, in talking to people about your article, I don't think the problem lies in creating games specifically for the older generation. There are games in every genre to appeal to any kind of hobbies that even middle-aged or senior males and females may find interesting. The problem, I think is in re-educating and marketing this generation. There remains a stigma and a certain reputation regarding video games and gamers. Only by showing other demographics what's in it for them can we hope to reach wider audiences.
I've worked in the industry for twenty years now, and I'll say that all of the people I know who actually play computer games are stupider, with lower intellectual interest levels, than the people who don't play games. All meaning 100%. I've known thousands of developers and I've never met a single one who I thought was intelligent outside of the gaming world. I've always been amazed how limited gamers' and game developers' minds are. Often gameplayers and developers will know a lot about the specific craft of making the current games, but very little about general life skills.
I'm 60 years old now, and have been pitching game concepts that might interest me and my similarly aged friends for a couple of decades, but have been uniformly laughed at. I think it's sort of like how little girls play with dolls, but grown women do not, because playing with dolls does not offer intellectually or emotionally satisfying rewards for an adult mind. Computer games are made for little idiots, like the schoolchildren who say "Why should I study math or grammar? I won't need those skills when I grow up, because I'm going to be a fireman." The goal of most computer games is to deliver a sense of accomplishment, because gamers don't find that in any other portion of their lives.
Me and my buddies from college were huge game players back then, (that was before computers) and we're all pissed that the whole huge games industry doesn't have anything that interests us. We do have some really fun non-computer games that we still play together. I've enjoyed some success in this industry, but I'll confess that I thought all my own games sucked big time, and was always annoyed that I had to make stuff to appeal to the little cretins the marketing department was targeting rather than making something that I thought would be interesting for me and my geezer buddies.
Big Fish makes games that are like trash romance novels, with a similar audience; the lower intellectual strata of the population. Ever known anyone who reads trash romance novels that was actually interesting to speak with? Wii is selling to a slightly older demographic because there are a lot of 35-45 year old women who would buy anything that promises to reduce the diameter of their keister.
I think another issue you didn't mention is "Gaming skills". It might be obvious to some people, but games require a certain amount of experience and knowledge with games. Just as you won't expect someone who never used a computer to know how to type in a keyboard, you can't expect people who never played games to understand what the interface means, what life bars mean and etc. They might even not be so good with the keyboard, so they would have a tough time controlling a character with the arrow keys.
I think the reason 40 year old males don't play FPS so much, is for the same reason. FPS requires a lot of practice and FPS skill. Not just for a specific game, but by playing FPS games you train your ability to be good at these games. They require specific hand eye coordinations that if not constantley trained, they are lost to a certain degree.
I have seen a news video about a 65 year old grandmother who play Halo and other FPS games. So its not something beyond older people.
Games is a very demanding hobby, in many cases. That alone might be very discouraging for people who are new to this field. Some people would rather not try new things, especially if they are difficult to get into.
I really appreciated all the different thoughts, many are ones that I have had bouncing around.
Rick, I love the humor :). I played WiiFit this morning btw. I didn't do it b/c of my weight (in fact anyone who has seen me in person would laugh heartily at me saying I need to lose weight). I play it b/c I feel better after playing it. 15-25 minutes of yoga + light exercise makes my days better. I think that connects to the thoughts that older players are looking for something more than is often offered in games. Some sense of enrichment or meaning isn't required, but it is often desired, and games struggle with that.
I was watching the West Wing last night and there was a quote from Martin Luther King Jr. in the show. It struck me that we have hundreds of games about wars, but do we have any games about MLK?
Does anyone know of one? I'm not even sure what it would be about, but I think it could be interesting. Being able to sit and talk to MLK wouldn't I guess really be a game, but as I get older, it's more along the type of thing I find myself wanting to do with my free time.
The time shift thing is something I've pondered about too. I don't have enough data to really know. I do know that all my uncles and all my cousins had a game system when I was young (most everyone had the 2600). None of them play now. And again, I don't know that there is a problem with that. I feel more like I'm a part of an industry that has thus far failed them by not making content that they'd want or be interested in than I feel that they are missing out b/c they aren't spending more time playing. I don't know that I'd go so far as to say that people are stupider for playing games, but certainly there are far better uses of time (things that are actually rewarding instead of simulating reward, like Benjamin's mention of spending time with your significant other)...and I believe that as you age, you probably tend to gravitate towards those things.
I was introduced to games by... get ready... my Grandfather. He had shelves full of software from before I was born (1986) all the way until his death in 2001. I don't know when he bought his first game or console, but he had nearly every game (probably all of the notable ones) since the 1970's, which means he would have been in his forties or fifties when he started buying them, and continued into his seventies. I think the Leisure Suit Larry series was his favourite.
My parents never saw a valid point in me playing games, and I always felt that I had to justify my time spent in game as something other than pure entertainment... so I did that by working on mods, justifying the time spent as being creative. I also was hoping to learn something from playing war games, since I have a deep fascination of conflict from a young age. But alas, there wasn't much substance to learn from games.
Beyond being 'fun' games should go beyond to grasp and enlighten the mature gamer (and all demographics) that games can be more than time wasted.
Instead of making a first-person-shooter about war that is 'too violent' (or any other reason) to a point that a parent will want to take it away from their son or daughter, we as designers should be making the first-person-shooter war game that parents will WANT their son or daughter (and themselves) to play.
I say this because I became a soldier as a teenager. I trained for war to kill people. I was asked to deploy to Afghanistan, but the timing wasn't right since I was in the middle of switching colleges across the country. That timing AND having the ability to get my tactical-fix in games probably saved my life.
This week I lost a second friend whom I served with, both killed in Afghanistan. Both friends were fathers (one whose son was two months away from birth at the time of his death).
I want their sons to be able to play a game that will help them understand what their fathers went through, and be dissuaded from joining the Army themselves to find out - that could lead to their deployment to war. Games could prevent more grief for their families.
Still being in Afghanistan 18 years from now is not far fetched... unless we can make a game that will show the next generations of gamers that war is in fact not 'fun' in the traditional gaming sense.
I've thought about that topic a bit as well. In life/school/movies/books/music a common message is that violence leads to more violence, in games, violence typically leads to success. Kills are points, and character models are being designed to create more 'rewarding' blood-splattering deaths.
Certainly video games about wars don't create the same feeling I've gotten from talking to people who were in battle, and in war. Games don't have the same reverence, respect, or feeling of duty. They don't convey the far-off look or the eyes that show just a glimmer of the painful memories.
I think the presentation of games is a big reason why war is exciting in games. It might be interesting to put players in the seat of the President, calling the families of each fallen soldier. Often I worry that our war games trivialize what people have given their lives for, that they trivialize the atrocity of war, and that they trivialize the sacrifice of life for someone else.
I don't know if a game to dissuade people from joining the Army is exactly what I'd look for, but certainly one that makes people appreciate what it is to be in the army, and to appreciate the sacrifices made by each soldier, including that of giving up your life for country.
I agree that games seem like a mostly un-tapped medium in many of these respects, and I'd love to see some indie studio or even a major studio stepping up to the challenge of doing more than is being done.
Most of the people in my generation are split down the middle, those that play games and I'm including things like face book games in this and those who view life as a series of activities. I have friends who have planned what they want to do for the next six months. Most of my friends who play games will look forward to a movie, concert or game they are going to see but when they are not playing with their kids tend to play casual games.
More of my younger friends are into games that require more time, and I really think that has to do more with your significant other wanting time with you. Then younger friends their significant others play games with them, those who are older for the most part don't. There are exceptions to this but almost all of them worked in some sort of tech field or played D&D when they were younger and in some cases still do.
It really has more to do with my generation (I'm 31) grew up with computer games but we were told to go outside and get fresh air, but for the most part computer were expensive so most people did not have them. My friends who I went through college with recently(I went back for a second degree) are in early to mid twenties grew up with consoles and cell phones, for them the odd ones out were the ones who did not play video games. So the forty year old that never had a console growing up remember Atari started in 1972. Arcades were something you did to go hang out with people and cost way too many quarters.
If they really want to get the older crowds they need to put the systems in bars so when people go to hang out they get hooked.
http://www.quantcast.com/bigfishgames.com/summary
In talking with friends at the company I've learned alot about why people play games. And that's the key - its not a question of what game, its a question of why you're playing. Its not about delivering the right theme or content, its about delivering the lifestyle and play experience that appeals to your market.
However, in talking to people about your article, I don't think the problem lies in creating games specifically for the older generation. There are games in every genre to appeal to any kind of hobbies that even middle-aged or senior males and females may find interesting. The problem, I think is in re-educating and marketing this generation. There remains a stigma and a certain reputation regarding video games and gamers. Only by showing other demographics what's in it for them can we hope to reach wider audiences.
I'm 60 years old now, and have been pitching game concepts that might interest me and my similarly aged friends for a couple of decades, but have been uniformly laughed at. I think it's sort of like how little girls play with dolls, but grown women do not, because playing with dolls does not offer intellectually or emotionally satisfying rewards for an adult mind. Computer games are made for little idiots, like the schoolchildren who say "Why should I study math or grammar? I won't need those skills when I grow up, because I'm going to be a fireman." The goal of most computer games is to deliver a sense of accomplishment, because gamers don't find that in any other portion of their lives.
Me and my buddies from college were huge game players back then, (that was before computers) and we're all pissed that the whole huge games industry doesn't have anything that interests us. We do have some really fun non-computer games that we still play together. I've enjoyed some success in this industry, but I'll confess that I thought all my own games sucked big time, and was always annoyed that I had to make stuff to appeal to the little cretins the marketing department was targeting rather than making something that I thought would be interesting for me and my geezer buddies.
Big Fish makes games that are like trash romance novels, with a similar audience; the lower intellectual strata of the population. Ever known anyone who reads trash romance novels that was actually interesting to speak with? Wii is selling to a slightly older demographic because there are a lot of 35-45 year old women who would buy anything that promises to reduce the diameter of their keister.
I think another issue you didn't mention is "Gaming skills". It might be obvious to some people, but games require a certain amount of experience and knowledge with games. Just as you won't expect someone who never used a computer to know how to type in a keyboard, you can't expect people who never played games to understand what the interface means, what life bars mean and etc. They might even not be so good with the keyboard, so they would have a tough time controlling a character with the arrow keys.
I think the reason 40 year old males don't play FPS so much, is for the same reason. FPS requires a lot of practice and FPS skill. Not just for a specific game, but by playing FPS games you train your ability to be good at these games. They require specific hand eye coordinations that if not constantley trained, they are lost to a certain degree.
I have seen a news video about a 65 year old grandmother who play Halo and other FPS games. So its not something beyond older people.
Games is a very demanding hobby, in many cases. That alone might be very discouraging for people who are new to this field. Some people would rather not try new things, especially if they are difficult to get into.
Rick, I love the humor :). I played WiiFit this morning btw. I didn't do it b/c of my weight (in fact anyone who has seen me in person would laugh heartily at me saying I need to lose weight). I play it b/c I feel better after playing it. 15-25 minutes of yoga + light exercise makes my days better. I think that connects to the thoughts that older players are looking for something more than is often offered in games. Some sense of enrichment or meaning isn't required, but it is often desired, and games struggle with that.
I was watching the West Wing last night and there was a quote from Martin Luther King Jr. in the show. It struck me that we have hundreds of games about wars, but do we have any games about MLK?
Does anyone know of one? I'm not even sure what it would be about, but I think it could be interesting. Being able to sit and talk to MLK wouldn't I guess really be a game, but as I get older, it's more along the type of thing I find myself wanting to do with my free time.
The time shift thing is something I've pondered about too. I don't have enough data to really know. I do know that all my uncles and all my cousins had a game system when I was young (most everyone had the 2600). None of them play now. And again, I don't know that there is a problem with that. I feel more like I'm a part of an industry that has thus far failed them by not making content that they'd want or be interested in than I feel that they are missing out b/c they aren't spending more time playing. I don't know that I'd go so far as to say that people are stupider for playing games, but certainly there are far better uses of time (things that are actually rewarding instead of simulating reward, like Benjamin's mention of spending time with your significant other)...and I believe that as you age, you probably tend to gravitate towards those things.
My parents never saw a valid point in me playing games, and I always felt that I had to justify my time spent in game as something other than pure entertainment... so I did that by working on mods, justifying the time spent as being creative. I also was hoping to learn something from playing war games, since I have a deep fascination of conflict from a young age. But alas, there wasn't much substance to learn from games.
Beyond being 'fun' games should go beyond to grasp and enlighten the mature gamer (and all demographics) that games can be more than time wasted.
Instead of making a first-person-shooter about war that is 'too violent' (or any other reason) to a point that a parent will want to take it away from their son or daughter, we as designers should be making the first-person-shooter war game that parents will WANT their son or daughter (and themselves) to play.
I say this because I became a soldier as a teenager. I trained for war to kill people. I was asked to deploy to Afghanistan, but the timing wasn't right since I was in the middle of switching colleges across the country. That timing AND having the ability to get my tactical-fix in games probably saved my life.
This week I lost a second friend whom I served with, both killed in Afghanistan. Both friends were fathers (one whose son was two months away from birth at the time of his death).
I want their sons to be able to play a game that will help them understand what their fathers went through, and be dissuaded from joining the Army themselves to find out - that could lead to their deployment to war. Games could prevent more grief for their families.
Still being in Afghanistan 18 years from now is not far fetched... unless we can make a game that will show the next generations of gamers that war is in fact not 'fun' in the traditional gaming sense.
I've thought about that topic a bit as well. In life/school/movies/books/music a common message is that violence leads to more violence, in games, violence typically leads to success. Kills are points, and character models are being designed to create more 'rewarding' blood-splattering deaths.
Certainly video games about wars don't create the same feeling I've gotten from talking to people who were in battle, and in war. Games don't have the same reverence, respect, or feeling of duty. They don't convey the far-off look or the eyes that show just a glimmer of the painful memories.
I think the presentation of games is a big reason why war is exciting in games. It might be interesting to put players in the seat of the President, calling the families of each fallen soldier. Often I worry that our war games trivialize what people have given their lives for, that they trivialize the atrocity of war, and that they trivialize the sacrifice of life for someone else.
I don't know if a game to dissuade people from joining the Army is exactly what I'd look for, but certainly one that makes people appreciate what it is to be in the army, and to appreciate the sacrifices made by each soldier, including that of giving up your life for country.
I agree that games seem like a mostly un-tapped medium in many of these respects, and I'd love to see some indie studio or even a major studio stepping up to the challenge of doing more than is being done.