by Estim20, HSM Editor

There is the occasion where a topic intrigues me while simultaneously making me feel despondent. If only faintly.

On average, a console generation lasts five to six years. We saw this before with the transition from PlayStation 1 to its successors, as well as from the PlayStation 2 to its successor. The PlayStation 3 lasted a little longer than expected, roughly seven years before the release of the PlayStation 4.  All in all, the now-previous generation became atypical, an exception to an otherwise golden rule of gaming across the history of all things electronic and consoles.

It means with that one exception aside, the average lifespan of a console is half a decade. It is a constant that has (mostly) weathered the decades, from Ralph Baer conceptualizing the idea of a home market for video games to the Wii U, PS4 and Xbox One redefining the way we name consoles. If we go by the common perception of consoles, the video game industry is 40 years old, with the Magnavox Odyssey considered the first video game console. That means 40 years hence, we are going by this assumption that a console will have five years before its younger sibling hits the market and a year or two before support fizzles, if not die completely.

The same expectation may be applied to Home, especially since it is on a console that is on the last leg of its life-cycle.  Home has been active in some variation of how we know it today since 2007 and in open beta since late 2008; from a practical standpoint, it is as old as the very console supporting it. Combined with the PlayStation 4 debuting without Home included in its out-of-the-box features, we are facing the very distinct possibility that Home won’t survive the birth of the 8^th generation, at least not for long.

This is what made me mull over a few questions, perhaps a few questions every gamer needs to ask themselves as we continue into the third generation of the 21^st century. One in particular, however, I found appealing:

What is the “Average” Gamer?

This is a question that I think we all at some point asked rhetorically, as if the answer was glaringly clear. As with numerous things in life, once we look at the statistics, things get interesting.

The ‘average’ part of this does indicate its origin from a stewing pot of statistics and figures, a means of mathematically understanding who we, the gamers, really are. Of course, with averages we must understand that they come with a bell curve – there is a spot that is statistically the most occupied spot upon it, with slopes to either side. Chances are you know someone that doesn’t fit the “average” but statistically speaking, that’s going to happen, and the people that don’t fit the largest sections aren’t the largest group.

A brief search via the almighty Google provided some interesting data for intellectual consumption. The gamer statistics especially paint an interesting picture. The average gamer is, according to the figures: a 30-year-old (at least, which is actually down from 37) who played games for 13 years. He is slightly more likely to be male (55%), likely to play with others, whether online or in-person (62% of gamers play this way) and is most likely playing on a console that requires a television or monitor. (36% of gamers play on a smartphone). More information may be gleaned here: http://www.theesa.com/facts/gameplayer.asp

From the data provided, there is roughly a two-thirds chance that this random person is not a minor – and a good chance he or she is definitely not a minor, given the average age is 30. The gaming scene has aged considerably, far from the historical context of the NES days where they felt they needed to pair it with R.O.B. (your plastic pal who’s fun to be with) to trick parents to think it’s a toy for the kids. Slightly over half of Americans play a game, to boot, with at least one dedicated gaming console, hand-held or smartphone in their homes. Slightly over half have a game console, and of those that do, the average is two.

A few notes: first off, any doubts that the average American is gaming can die comfortably. It’s an increasingly popular hobby with people from 6 to 60 going bananas over some form of gaming. Gaming consoles have gained some ground as well, though so have smartphones – the latter weren’t included before when calculating average age, which does skew it younger. PC gaming doesn’t seem to have quite the obvious vice grip over this as one could’ve said decades ago; these days people are going for mobile and console gaming as a means of entertainment.

Internet connectivity has become a standard, an assumption even, for modern consoles. That wasn’t true in most generations past, with perhaps the Dreamcast and original Xbox being the first to popularize out-of-box support. Over half are playing with someone else, with certain genres more popular than others for online play (as of that study, the most was the likes of puzzle and board games at 34%, with RPGs, action, strategy, and sports in second with 26%). It’s perhaps little surprise that puzzle and casual games dominate on mobile devices.

Gaming has always appealed to a sense of playing with others – playing well with other aside – and the data support it. A decent chunk of the gaming populace does play with someone else and for those that do, 77% play with others at least one hour per week. It may seem a bit trifle in comparison to hardcore gamers, but the data seems to indicate that much like Home, gaming itself isn’t dominated by whales per se.

A Few Stray Thoughts

It is undeniable that gaming is generating some cash-monies; an industry where consumers spent $20.77 billion in 2012 can’t say it isn’t welcome. Plus, with the increase in DLC, MMOs and such, is it any shock that we’re spending still? But really, there are a few noteworthy points to pull from these statistics.

First, a two-for-one combo: age and gender don’t matter as much as some lads with epic failure of the mouth may assume. A wide range of ages play games and while men are more common than women, it is a slight advantage and that margin is shrinking. This is true for gamers and developers, and misconceptions may arise due to what games we focus on at any given moment. Much like with comics in the West, if you look at a significant slice of the pie (and not just the AAA titles), we see how age and gender are welcome with increasingly open arms.

Secondly, online interactions, sales, and play are on the rise, perhaps unsurprisingly. Sales from 2009 to 2012 show a rather marked progression in online sales; online play has also increased, especially with the increase of gaming on mobile devices. The latter part is partially a no-brainer, what with the likes of the PlayStation Vita and the Nintendo 3DS, but it also includes the likes of iPods and smartphones.

Content reigns supreme in those sales, a shocker along the lines of ‘birds fly’ really. Accessories, however, are but a small chunk of that pie – third place between it, content, and hardware. Most people seem satisfied with playing with a basic set-up, buying additional controllers and such when the need arises but avoiding (for the most part) accessories that may add an experience but aren’t really required. As a result, we don’t see too many games that benefit from the Move (or require it, for that matter) among other peripherals, relying on the standard controller scheme that has seen us through at least the PlayStation franchise.

While families are becoming more involved with their children in video games, it isn’t necessarily true that they are playing with them nearly as much as their peers. They do play with them, don’t get me wrong, but they likely take as much of a supervisory role with their children as playing with them directly. This is notable in conjunction with the fact that 89% of the time, parents are with their children when purchases are made. Whether all parents are fully aware of what their darlings are getting is another issue, but still.

Casual gaming is carving a place for itself in the gaming market. This is telling, as I always get the impression some “hardcore gamers” foam at the mouth when “casual” is mentioned. It is also telling in that people are encouraging gaming on the go in more ways than one, expanding beyond the choices provided by Nintendo and Sony.

Question #2: Is a Home User an Average User?

Okay, so what does this mean for the Home User squatting in the brush, ready to strike for his or her chance in the newest generation? Are they “average”?

Does that matter?

Statistics can be extremely informative, as in it can explain why businesses make the decisions they do. The Wii and the Xbox 360 didn’t compete against Home (the former likely due to hardware limitations harsher than its competitors, in addition to thinking no market existed for it), so Home helped pioneer what it means to be a social MMO in a console market. A lot of what we “know” about social MMOs in such a climate and statistics can be an unusual beast to interpret in such an environment.

However, we need to read between the lines a little to understand what it means to be a Home user in a gamer’s market.

First off, social gaming is on the rise. The likes of card games, multiplayer games and RPGs offer a way to game as social interaction and people are finding the value of such an outing. This isn’t hard to see why; technology is making it easier to play and connect with others all across the globe, without the need to sit beside them at any given moment.

However, 32% of players play social games according to the study linked. Compare this to the 62% of gamers who play with others, whether online or off. This may speak more about what most gamers consider “social gaming” than anything else – if we consider any multiplayer game as a social game, what are the odds that 62% or 32% figure would increase heavily? Do people compare Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto V to social gaming, or do they consider “social gaming” its own genre?

Also compare this to the statistics over the most commonly played online games. “Casual, social games” are separate from the other genres; there’s a good chance that people play to win, play to compete, play to accomplish anything other than socialize with the masses. It’s also possible that they view “social gaming” as something you do on the go, especially given that people play casual games more often on mobile platforms than consoles.

This places Home in a quandary. It is an unashamedly social MMO at its heart – its digital, pulsating heart of hearts – even as Sony attempted to make it more of a game and offer more games to play in Home. The average user is not likely to play something they perceive as a social game (or a social non-game) for a console, at least in this past generation.

Home itself quite regrettably started making it more of a game, a bit too late, perhaps, especially considering the highlights of Home included Xi, which turned Home into a game itself. Xi’s sequel attempted to recapture the magic, but other than that, Home hasn’t exactly attempted anything else since. Some of the other games it does provide lay flat-lining, such as Slap Happy Sam’s, or woefully under-appreciated, like Mercia or Cutthroats. Beyond that, we have the likes of bowling, arcade machines (some of which are buy before you try), and the recent challenges (which are hopefully making some headway into drawing more gamers).

In effect, Home never gained a proper reputation as a gamer’s haven. It isn’t exactly considered a social game in the same way Facebook isn’t considered one either: it can be a platform for games, but it isn’t itself a game per se and its technical limitations inhibit some of its progress and audience mentality. Combine this with the fact Sony kicked itself with pricing strategies (ranging from underselling content to free-to-play games that one can complete without spending a dime) and it’s a small miracle that Home lasted five years of open beta with these flaws.

So in that regard, a Home user isn’t an average user – we “get” Home as a social dynamo, but the average user probably doesn’t value what is being offered. This is true in particular with what one sees as available for purchase in Home’s various stores: clothes galore for avatars, new dance packs, and the option to turn your avatar into an eagle or hippo. They offer no gameplay advantages (most of the time), thus are interpreted as cosmetic choices for the gamer who wishes to express her individuality to the audience.

Games do offer these choices for the gamer in all of us – just look at LittleBigPlanet and its myriad choices for Sackthings. When you aren’t downloading level or creator packs, you’re downloading extra costumes so your Sackthing may look like, oh, a character from Bioshock Infinite or Nightmare Before Christmas.  Who is the audience when a developer releases costumes?

In all honesty: I always perceived these content options as aiming for someone wanting to step beyond playing what’s pre-made. Sure, creation options in games are limited still but they are increasing – and that’s perhaps Home’s greatest strength. The average Home user may be someone who wants to make a new experience with what’s given, and that’s an audience that is conspicuously missing from the statistic provided.

Think about every machinima, fashion show, and glitch people discuss across Home’s social infrastructure. Think about the many fansites devoted to Home, including our very own HomeStation Magazine. Think about how our own content is visible in Home, for all to enjoy. The EOD alone should give you an idea as to what’s permissible, let alone Dani’s clothing line, HSM’s increased visibility in Home itself, and groups such as the Homelings spawning from a need to fill a void.

We’re likely seeing an increase in audience participation, wherein we can shape what goes into and comes out of a program. It needn’t be a game either – social MMOs perhaps highlight this aspect best, since it places us in direct communication with creators, if not allowing us to be creators ourselves. That latter part, by the way, is of course happening; the whole machinimist movement in Home should be proof positive that people are wanting to leave an imprint, jumping them from consumers to producers.

It’s perhaps why Home was a generation ahead of the curve: the culture hadn’t quite caught up to the idea that we’re gradually blurring the line between consumers and producers. People have seen that trend occur and are making waves towards understanding what it means; Home is no exception. The average user on Home may thus be an un-average gamer for this very reason. We’re riding a wave towards direct involvement.

In short: enjoy the ride; we’ll be average before we know it. And it’ll be a good thing.

Share

Tweet

One Response to “The Home User: Not Your Average Bear”

1. Danger_Dad says:

   December 13, 2013 at 4:52 am

   :^/ You’re hit the nail on the head in your last paragraph, Estim. Home’s biggest flaws stem from being too far ahead of its time. Too many people didn’t -and still don’t- know what to make of it.

   Reply