This writer remembers a time when gaming was largely the preserve of children and teenagers, with parents wondering what it was all about. Of course, that very memory makes your scribe 'old', as it's all downhill once you reach the big three-zero. Or so we're told.
Yet the gaming industry, as is clear to any individual with basic skills of observation, is growing up with its veteran gamers. The average age of gaming enthusiasts is reckoned to be about 35, and now some extensive research by Quantic Foundry has looked into how gaming habits change as gamers get older.
The company gathered data from over 140,000 gamers to quantify their gaming motivations. Two key areas it's highlighted are the rapid decline in interest in 'competitive' games, while Strategy games have the smallest difference in interest between age groups. The popularity of competitive games explains why so many voices yelling at you in Call of Duty have only recently broken.
In terms of why motivation drops with age, the following explanations are given.
First, as gamers get older and have a broader range of responsibilities and pursuits, they are less likely to rate any particular gaming activity as "extremely important/enjoyable". Thus, their overall gaming profiles might appear deflated, but the relative order of their motivations would still be revealing.
Second, lower scores on these motivations aren't necessarily "less" of a motivation. For example, low Excitement implies a specific kind of gameplay, and calm/stress-free gameplay is no less valid than fast/stressful gameplay. The same is true for preference for solo play (as opposed to highly social play). The appeal of solo play isn't any "less" of a gaming motivation than social play.
If you want to read the full report you'll have to spend $2500, though, so we're left with these snippets from the company's summary.
This old man (below the average gaming age, though) does still enjoy playing Fire Emblem: Awakening while wearing comfortable clothes, so these results seem sensible.
[source quanticfoundry.com, via eurogamer.net]
Comments 57
I'm turning 31 in a few months, and I want to say this is true...
but my competitive spirit comes out in full force when playing Splatoon or Smash Bros.
I'm 42 and love my Splatoon so it just depends on the game and type. If I enjoy it I'll play it anyway I need too.
That sudden hop for competition in women at age 50-55.
This could also have to do with what "competetive gaming" has become. Most older gamers grew up with arcades, basically THE definition and birthplace of competetive gaming.
Im 27, maybe not that "old", yet i love competetive score / time attacks etc, yet hate modern "online" games with a passion.
Its basically pick your poison. You either have a lobby full of elitists that mock you for not knowing a game you just started or your faced with insults left and right "because reasons".
Thats why i grew super fond of the speedrunning community recently. All of them are competing for world record times, yet they share each and every strategy about "how i beat your time so you can beat it again".
If online communities in generel would be more civil, i would enjoy them far more. But as it stands, im one of those "relics of the past", enjoying couch multiplayer over anything online.
I guess a lot of people grow out of gaming as responsibilities take over. But the older generation is who started it all. I grew up with the NES and SNES because my mom wanted it to use herself, and we got each subsequent nintendo console and a couple playstation. I'm in my twenties but I guess I reflect the older gamers, unless we're assuming twenties is over the hill. Splatoon is as competitive as I get and I'm not super into online co-op. I really dont see my mom playing any type of online multiplayer, but I'd say that's more her personality, and mine, than age.
I guess I somewhat fit this data. I was really into fighting games and competing when I was a kid. These days, I play fighters much less and enjoy RPGs and SRPGs the most.
It sounds like they're lumping together non-competitive with "calm/stress-free", which doesn't sound accurate to me. For example, I play less multiplayer games nowadays, but I play a lot of Bloodborne, and other "stressful" single player games.
@Einherjar
Pretty much the main reason I stay away from that. I love games, but I'm just not that great- I seem to plateau and can't improve past a certain level, so I don't want my team mates yelling at me that I screwed something up or opponents just harassing me. People say you need to grow a thick skin and not be a baby, which yeah that's good advice, but I also think maybe people shouldn't be such big jerks.
Speaking from experience, we older gamers don't have the time to sink into video games that younger players do. Difficult to be competitive against a 13-year-old kid who plays Madden or Call of Duty four to five hours a day.
@pazuzu Its an endless circle. How are you supposed to improve when you "noob" arent even allowed to learn from mistakes ?
And yes, growing a thicker skin is a sound advice. But i play games to have fun, not endure insults.
I dont want to grow a thicker skin, i want to have fun.
And you know what ? Thats why i like that Nintendo Games tend to forego mic chats etc. My most played online games have been WiiU games. Smash, Mario Kart, Splatoon. Just because i can play them without being hassled with immature crybabys.
I don't know. I'm 27 and Spoony is way better at competitive multiplayer games than I am, if Splatoon is any indication.
I find less desire now to be really competitve than before, and I mainly view gaming as a way to relax. I still enjoy competing with friends (very much so), but I have little desire to put in the effort to rise to any really competitive level.
@Einherjar
Yeah I never understood that logic, no one is just amazing at games, there's a learning curve for everyone. But sometimes these people expect you to automatically be amazing. I remember when it was announced splatoon wouldn't have voice chat and it upset some people, but I just thought thank goodness nintendo isn't going the way of xbox.
Playing through the good Fire Enblem games again when I'm in my later years sounds like a nice proposition. Shouzo Kaga's post-FE should give my old mind a hefty challenge in the future as well. Perhaps I can squeeze in Awakening and Fates (and every FE that comes after) when I start becoming senile. Don't need to use much strategy with those games so it'll be easier on my mind.
@DarthNocturnal Again, i just stop playing alltogether than go to a random online game and spend 5 minutes muting everyone.
I generally prefer "solo" online games. Stuff like Mario Kart or Drive Club are my go to online games atm.
My experience isnt completely based on the fact is this random person is a jerk or not.
The same goes for, say, shooter. Deathmatch ? Im in. Team Deathmatch ? Not so much.
Thats why i never got into Moba games. You start the game, freshly out of the tutorial and everyone expects you to carry the team. If not, chat harassment ensues or better, youre featured in a "best fails" video on youtube. I dont want anything of that to be honest.
Im from a gaming generation, where we genuinly had fun playing games. Competition wasnt about winning or loosing, but about improving. "You cant beat me ? Let me show you how i won"
@pazuzu Exactly. I regularly catch flak for that, but yes, i like their decision to not go that route. Sure, voice chat with friends is a really neat thing, but i could also use skype or similar 3rd party software for that while playing. I dont need to get shouted at by some random 13 year old with a temper tantrum
I'm in my 40's and play more competitive games than strategy, platformers etc. The reason is that I don't have a lot of free time to play anymore and games like Splatoon, Smash and COD are easy to jump in for a quick play session. I've had Fallout 4 since launch but haven't played beyond the character creator because I can't commit the time.
I've always preferred platformers, acrion-adventure, and RPGs, with a puzzler or two thrown in at times. I play games to relax and by nature prefer solo play, though I'll occasionally do co-op depending on the game. Competitive gaming has never really been my thing, mainly because I've never fully had the time to invest in it.
The few times I've dabbled into online multiplayer and MMOs, I've been burned. Not only with insults aimed at myself, but seeing them aimed at others. Don't get me wrong, there are some genuinely nice people out there, but they seem to be overshadowed by the jerks and elitists of the internet who don't get the concept of "new player, just learning".
@AVahne
Never miss an opportunity to throw a slight at Awakening/Fates, eh?
You must be a legend. Cause Awakening on anything other than Normal mode proved just as hard if not harder than past entries. And Fates, well, perhaps you should play it before boasting hiw easy it is for you
Easy, as we get older we have nothing to prove, so competitive gaming is not that important.
I avoid competitive games, specially online,(including MK and Smash) but Splatoon is the bright exception to this rule. Maybe because I focus on teamwork and even if you suck you can contribute to a team effort.
With this said, I also dislike strategy games.
"This old man (below the average gaming age, though) does still enjoy playing Fire Emblem: Awakening while wearing comfortable clothes"
Haha. Man, you can bet I only play in comfortable clothes, and when the children are all well sleeping!
The 4 of them. I don't mind my wife watching her programmes on the tv though, her "so exciting" stuff
I'm 45 and right now I am playing Forza 6, Forza Horizon 2, The Crew Wild Run, Diablo III, Yokai Watch and Final Fantasy Explorers.
I recently attempted to play Black Ops III, Star Wars Battlefront, Fallout 4, Just Cause 3 and GTA 5 - I just can't get in to them.
55 year old women are more likely to compete than 55 year old men in video games by a tiny bit.
Sort of true. Single player games is what the older games wants. But that is because that is what they have always played. Competitive games has never been that big with Nintendo anyway, maybe a Mario Kart, Smash Bros. or tennis, but not much else.
Also averages can be taken with a pinch of salt. Unless you have the ages of the people asked. If the survey was made up of most younger people the average will be lower.
For example Retro gamers who played Mario in 1990 while in their thirties would be in their fifties now.
It is not the older gamers that are changing as much as it is Nintendo that is changing.
As the President said he is targeting children and woman.
I'm an "older" gamer, old enough where my first system was a Colecovision, but I remember my dad busting out the Pong system years before that. Online competitive gaming is of little to no interest to me. Single player RPGs are my current cup of tea, which seems to be the norm judging by the survey and comments.
What has me more curious however is how the industry will change/adjust/cater to an aging, yet still active, gaming crowd.
My tastes really haven't changed much. I still play RPGs, Action-Adventure and single player shooters. I enjoy playing competitively with friends and family but have little to no interest in doing the same with complete strangers. Even when I play something like TF2, nine out of ten times it will be with bots on a private server.
@Yorumi I was going to type something like this! As a kid I didn't really care either way about games, but now that I can buy my own and have limited playtime I really value those game nights with friends/family or playing online (primarily sports games because my friends all hate that genre in non-retro form). For me it's not really the competition per se, it's just that fun interaction that you don't really get at work or school or whatever.
I just like that this study exists. It means that there will at least be data there to cater to the "older" gamer, regardless of how accurate it might be person-to-person.
A far better explanation would be an evolutionary one.
People are generally less competitive as they grow older because competition is mostly a form of "peacocking". It's about advertising your superiority to the other sex (at least that's what it is at a psychological level).
That naturally drops off as you're older as you're more likely to have already had kids. That would also explain why the male decreases more than the female. In humans, like with many species, men generally compete to attract women, rather than the reverse.
Im kinda old now I guess (30), but I am very proud to be one of the early pioneers of gaming culture. My parents were ok with them but struggled to fully embrace me and my siblings' obsession with them. But its amazing to see how games have worked their way into society and are now accepted as any other common pastime like movies or reading. Everyone plays games now and as a father its a blast to not only be involved with my kids' gaming ventures, but to lead the way for them and show them how its done. My 5 year old is familiar with the likes of Duck Hunt and Excitebike, but also can keep up in things like Mario 3D World. She even pretended to be Samus the other day.....
The craziest thing is that now even my parents play casual smart phone games and even have a blast hopping on Mario Kart or something when they visit. I tease them by saying "Sorry, your half an hour is up!" and try and take thier controllers. Haha
@invictus4000 That's some A+ parenting! (My dad got me into gaming too with Mario Kart, and I definitely think games allow for some really quality bonding time that maybe parents who aren't so good at just talking would otherwise miss)
I'm 20 and don't really even like competitive gaming. Never really have aside from the occasional match of Smash. I do love Fire Emblem though.
@World Haha thanks! And it's true. Some of our funnest family times have been playing things like Nintendoland all together as a family.
@ajcismo It wasn't the Coleco, but I cut my teeth on the Intellivision and Odyssey 2 (with the first Odyssey in the attic). It is sometimes hard to believe that I have played video games for over 30 years at this point. Even back then I played a lot of the Dungeons and Dragons: Treasures of Tarmin (can be played now as Minotaur) and there are times that I still enjoy firing that up on a PC.
As an older gamer, 33, i don't game like I used to. I always havev3-4 games I'm working on beating at any time, but i only play 1 rpg at a time. Xenoblade X right now, but dark souls 3 comes in a couple months. I hope to finished X before that. But lately I switch between Mario maker, binding of Isaac, steam world heist,splatoon, smash, hearthstone, Starcraft 2, and rocket league. This describes my last couple months of gaming. I prob avg 3 hours a day with a few more in the weekends. I have a wife and 2 kids so I can use the kids for an excuse as to why I still play. But I don't see myself ever really giving it up. I've been gaming since I was 3-4 with an Atari 2600. Why stop now that I'll have vr in my living room?
I'm 30, and I very rarely play multiplayer games. Oh I still love fighting games like Soul Calibur and Smash Bros, but I hate going online and getting paired with someone who mastered the game and beats my character into the ground. I play a large variety of games, and I do have some "stressful" games that take a lot of skill and reflexes to beat, but I also have some "simple" games to just sit back and chill with.
Though I am sometimes able to allot myself time for gaming marathons, I try to maximize my time. My laptop is always nearby, ready for a Google search of "how do I get past this section in this game" so I don't waste 30-60 minutes trying to figure out where to go or what to do.
I'm 18 and when I play a video game all I ask for is a fun time (or at least what I would find fun ). I do notice however that even if the game is supposed to be competitive (Splatoon/ Smash Bros.) I usually spend my time on the single player content more. I don't know maybe I am outside the norm like how I play a lot of retro games. This is an interesting study and makes me wonder what other trends there are though.
I guess I was old a long time ago as the types of games I want to play now are the same I did back in my youth.....then again maybe it's because I don't really like people and gaming got me away from having to be sociable and provided some alone time away from the noise. Unless it's a little 4 player couch contests.....then bring it on.
don't know I'm 32 but I've never been into competitive... I've been a single player gamer my whole life
As a young little babbu I was a hardcore fighting and racing game player. I was one of those kids who dominated the elementary school circuit. I was super hyped for a challenge. As time had gone on I've become gradually less interested in being such a competetive butt, and have recently hit 2000 hours in Team Fortress 2 as a Bird headed fat man that only uses his slow fists. Life is both calmer and more fun in many ways these 10ish years later XD
@JaxonH
I have not completely finished FE13 (at chapter 20 at the moment) but even I can say that although the other modes on Awakening might be as hard as previous games, the way the game achieves so are annoying.
Putting tons of skills on enemy units or giving them improbable stats (maxed units in Lunatic). Then the return of reinforcements which move in the same turn (all modes) and in my opinion slightly flatter level designs.
Removal of some other aspects like weapon weight (or the speed penalty) annoyed me, while pair up is overpowered and a must on harder modes. I do agree that some things were complicated in previous games but I liked how they factored into your overall strategy.
Many changes were made to make the series more accessible which saved the franchise, but I can't say I like all the changes. And the excessive anime tropes!
Awakening is still a great strategic game at its core though, just not the best as many claim it to be.
I love the way they move in combat though and the speedup feature. The Tellius series, although my favourite, had stiff combat (less so in RD).
And adding to this study, I have never been into the competitive aspects of gaming and probably never will. Too much stress, too less fun in my opinion. Plus I can't imagine myself practicing for hours >.< I love myself a great singleplayer experiences with occasional ventures in multiplayer (Monster Hunter!)
@LasermasterA
By no means is it a perfect game. I can make a laundry list of complaints with virtually every game alive ever played. But overall, it was really enjoyable.
I'm happy to hear the pairing has been balanced for Fates (partner can only defend, and enemies can pair), and aim happy with the new weapon triangle and removal of weapon durability in favor of negative side effects for stronger weapons- creating more of a risk/reward scenario.
As for Lunatic, I can't comment. I'm not good enough for that mode unless playing on Casual. But Hard mode was spot on imo.
I love competitive games, like Splatoon, Mario Kart, Smash, etc., and I mostly focus on the online features in all of them. They're my favorite type of game! I'm not a fan of strategy games, though. So for being 17, I guess I'm above the average for liking competitive gaming, and below the average for liking strategy games.
I've always preferred co-op games to competitive ones, with single player my preference. While I enjoyed Mario Kart and Smash Bros in my middle school/high school days, I wasn't THAT competitive. I was genuinely shocked when I realized in college how seriously people were taking Melee. ("WTF? You're kidding me with this wavedashing stuff!") LoL and it's ilk are just incomprehensible to me.
I often wonder what my tastes would be if I grew up in this era, though.
@invictus4000 If you were a pioneer, then the kids that grew up with the Odyssey must have been neanderthals : P
@JaxonH
Well yes, obviously there are flaws in every game.
I like Awakening, just that the annoyances get in the way. I liked the older system with weapon weights and durability but I have yet to see how it turns out in Fates.
I wouldn't actually recommend Lunatic at all since that is a very unfair mode. A lot of it is cheap difficulty. There have been annoying precedents with Radiant Dawn hard mode disabling enemy ranges (ugh artificial difficulty).
I'm turning 30 in May, and for my teen years, and until recently, I got bored of Nintendo for awhile and played harder, more competitive games online (Call of Duty Zombies etc.) on Xbox and Playstation. Lately, I can't seem to play those games anymore, and I just don't find them fun, so I've gone back to games that are simple and fun (alot of Nintendo games) and enjoy games I never really liked before (Animal Crossing, Pikmin etc.) so I would agree with this article fully, you kind of hit a point eventually when you rather have a fun experience, then deal with the overly competitive weirdos online on xbox and playstation, and constantly playing basically shooters
@LasermasterA
Ya, we're all resistant to change. Everyone is. When I first heard they were dumping weapon durability I raged lol. HARD.
But once I learned how the new system worked, and actually sat down and thought about it, evaluated it, considered it... I realized it was the right move.
The old system had its advantages as any system does, but, the cons were glaring. For one, you always had money to buy more weapons. And (specifically in Awakening) could forge upgrades. Which made anything lesser than virtually irrelevant. And because uses were limited, the super-weapons (MT 18 type stuff) never got used. At least not from me. I always wanted to save them for some potentially greater threat looming on the horizon.
With the new system, all that is gone. What we have now is a system where weapons no longer become irrelevant. Everything matters. Your silver swords or your brave bow, those now come with negative "side effects" if you will. Like lower stats or reverse effect of weapon triangle or, whatever, you get the picture. It's risk and reward.
Sure, you could use the most powerful weapon, but at the cost of lower accuracy and defense. You could ignore the weaker weapon, but it could guarantee damage and increase evasion. It adds a layer of strategy to every attack, and really makes you think twice about which weapon you want equipped at the end of a turn.
@JaxonH
I could say that durability had the same strategic outcomes. Sure the weapons may come with penalties in the new system but such penalties (unless they are really harsh) don't make much of a difference after the beginning once your characters develop a high enough skill. Earlier, you couldnt just use your killing edge all the way through since they are rare and have low uses, making you juggle weapons. Preserving uses at an easy time or using them at the right time felt nice. And weapons do actually break so I liked that.
Super weapons are meant to be used rarely, especially since they are weapons 1000s of years old, I wouldn't expect them to last long. I liked the way in older games how some durable legendary weapons like Ragnell, Falchion etc, can't break. The strategy was still there, so was the risk and reward.
And the weight added a dimension to whether the enemy could double you or not. And it makes sense. If a person wields a weapon heavier than their strength can use efficiently, they will be slow with it.
It's not just resistance to change, I just feel it was dumbed down. Awakening was meant to be much much more newcomer friendly.
@LasermasterA
Not sure if weight is gone, it may be, but all I heard was the actual uses. Basically weapons are all like Falchion now.
I don't think this is dumbed down though, not at all. If I have to think about which of my weapons I have to use, every turn, and even counter-consider what I want equipped at the turn end, that seems to far surpass any thought put into, "weapon has 5 uses left, better buy another. Except I already have 15 spares."
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it turns out it was a bad move. But I don't think so, I really don't.
In either case, we don't have much longer until we find out.
@JaxonH
When did you have so much money to buy 15 spares xD Fire Emblems before Awakening (except Sacred Stones) had limited cash reserves throughout the campaign. Unless you mean Bronze/iron spares Path of Radiance does give you some cash pools but forging (which I liked a lot more than what Awakening gave us) burns really quickly into them.
And considering what we should equip at the end of the turn, or use every turn has ever been present. Some weapons had lower weight, hence higher avoid (and chance to double or atleast not be doubled), or critical rate chances or just the weapon triangle. Or weaponry like Axebreaker, Lancereaver that defy the triangle (which were removed in favour of turning these into skills in Awakening) or super effective weapons like Armourslayer. This new feature doesn't really add that strategic element since it has always been present.
And weight has been gone since Awakening. I haven't played FE12 and I don't remember Shadow Dragon, but weight was intact till Radiant Dawn.
@LasermasterA
Well in Fire Emblem 7 there were those arenas you could milk for cash, I think 3 different ones in the game (one for each story- Lynn, Eliwood and Hector) and then use the secret pass to hit up the good shops and load up.
@JaxonH
Arenas were never THAT great for cash. Plus they can be pretty risky business. And the secret pass items are expensive. In the end, you had to really go out of your way to get a little more money.
@LasermasterA
I spent an hour in the first arena and loaded up on like 10 healing staffs, a couple physics and a few necessary items, my second time I bought only steel weapons. Needless to say, they no longer were of any concern.
It can be risky. But it's mostly easy, and as long as you don't push your luck and know when to withdraw it's basically a sure thing.
@JaxonH
First arena as in Lyn's route? There are no physics at that point in the game >.< Which are still pretty rare to get. And by risk I meant as in you get a random weapon and get paired with a random enemy who might put you at a big disadvantage.
Although I would never need a horde of steel weapons anyway. I always had enough weapons to get by, including the Killer weapons so never had to resort to cash grinding. Experience on the other hand....
Great now I feel like playing Blazing Sword again. I never did finish Hector's route on Hard.
I still like the same games I did hundreds of years ago but my reaction times are terrible. Spotting frames in Street Fighter is just not gonna happen 😅
@LasermasterA
Said first time not the first arena.
EDIT: no you're right I did say that. Well in any case I'm trying to recall events from a game I played a year ago so forgive me if I'm off on some of the details.
@JaxonH
About those physics though, I know I got some from somewhere... I'm trying to remember where exactly it was. I thought they were sold at one of the shops for like 1500 each, but maybe I'm remembering wrong.
I needed a ton of steel weapons (and silver lances) because I seemed to have every character in the game and to keep them all stocked up was a constant chore. Mostly axes. Also throwing axes and javelins seemed to always be in short supply. I remember grinding just to buy throwing weapons at one point...
Ok I fired up my save point to take a gander here.... ah. It was Silver Blades, Halbeard Axes, Steel Bows, Mends, Lightnings, Flux's... and no physics. Hmm. Oh wait, I do have physics. Just on my healers' inventory. Think I remember only being able to afford 2.
Now I've got the urge to play.
@JaxonH
Yea it's fine, it has been like 2-3 years since I last touched Blazing Sword.
Hand axes and javelins do typically have low uses.
Physics are expensive due to their nifty ranged healing. Amassing weapons, if not many, was a must xD
Guess I have another replay to add to my list of games to play again.
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...