Average age of gamers rising. Average complexity of games dropping. huh?

[Baleur]

Now, i'm not going to make jokes about how old age makes people less quick in the mind, or how little kidz (actual kids, not the online i'm-better-than-you derogatory term) are incapable of dealing with actual strategy, neither of which i believe.

I am however just going to simply and quickly state two facts, and my confusion around that.

1. The average age of people playing games is rising, in the early days of gaming (civ 1-3, super mario, etc) it was around 15 or something like that, kids played games, some teens with nothing better to do, and if adults played games they were viewed as degenerates and "you should know better sir!!".
Today, everyone plays games. The average age is around 30 now, think about that for a moment..

2. The average complexity of games, especially noticeable in strategy games due to their inherent complexity, is dropping. This can be debated if it is a fact or not, but i'm pretty sure most of us agree. UI enhancements and streamlining is great, less mouseclicks to do the same thing for less effort (right mouse button to move and attack, rather than hit a redundant "move" and "attack" button on the UI). Great stuff.
However the thing im talking about is of course the gameplay mechanics, the variety and thought required.


So now, why is this? Why are developers still so desperatly (almost with a pathetic look, due to how desperate they appear) trying to appeal to the gaming audience that is NOT the mainstream? (remember, the mainstream average gamer isnt 15 years old anymore, he / she's in college or an adult).

I mean, shouldnt the games become MORE complex, with the more adult gaming market? Shouldnt the games strive to become more intelligent and rather flatter the adult gamers intelligence with its intricate gameplay, instead of insulting the adult gamers intelligence with its ridiculous CLICK HERE !!! THIS CITY HAS GROWN!!! *SHINY ORB TO ENHANCE THE ONLY CITY ON SCREEN IN CASE YOU MISS IT* ??

I dont get it........ It's like the publishers are out of their minds..
Here, in the year 2011 (soon), you have a consumer audience composed of mainly college students and adults, and yet you try to focus on the now minority ages 5-15 audience?

It is financial suicide.. It's like trying to sell tampons to men, when there's a sea of women out there craving one.

 

[civnoob13]

Well I'm 15, and I'm looking for a good and complex game and so vastly preferred civ 4 to 5. Not old enough to have bothered with 3, 2 or 1. So don't be so generalising.

 

[PawelS]

It's debatable whether Civ5 is more or less complex than Civ4, but I think everyone will agree that it's more complex than Civ1. So I don't think that the complexity of games is dropping in the long term.

 

[stormerne]

I am however just going to simply and quickly state two facts, and my confusion around that...
The average age is around 30 now...

Could you provide a reference to a credible source for that data please?

 

[JimmSolo]

I agree 100%, however i don't think it's the little kids that the games are going after...

Bejewed, peggle, zuma are three of the most popular games ever. The wii sold 19284912861987 units. the reason these games are so popular in that in addition to being fun for us more hardcore gamers, the also appeal to your grandparents, the 40 year old mother of three with 20 minutes to spare, in addition to children under 5. i mean, who doesn't like to line up three things in a row and see flashing lights? and because of this popularity, all gaming companies want to make their games easily understandable to the masses so that anyone can play...

all games cannot be like this, and that's what's so frustrating to us! civilization, and strategy games in general, are supposed to be complicated! otherwise, where's the strategy? you shouldn't be able to grasp the entire game during a commercial break of judge judy! the sad part is, civ v will probably sell more copies in the long run because of its simplicity and availability. the company execs will see $$ and games will only get simpler...

 

[PanicX]

I had a lot more free time to waste wrestling the steep learning curve of complex games when I was 15 and I was almost as smart back than, maybe even smarter! Anyone who is in their 30's, has a job, family, etc. can't be bothered with reading through 100 page manuals just to beat a game. This is a simple fact.

I still do love and prefer complex games and enjoy allocating the little time I have to beating these games, but I also know that I do stand out in the crowd. So even if the average age has increased to 30 (I highly doubt this number btw.), it would be false to come to the conclusion that the games should be getting more complex. Intelligence from 15 to 30 doesn't increase 10 fold, things you have to fit into the tight schedule of the day do.

 

[mjb2k8]

The average video game player in 2009 was 35 years old and 49% of players were 18-49 years old. The truly surprising statistic is that 26% of all gamers are over the age of 50.

http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2009.pdf

 

[marciv]

Unfortunately video games weren't around when I was 15 that's why I'm now playing at 57. I have been playing Civ since C3 and find the game to be very challenging. I would agree that I am not as smart as I was at 15 but still enjoy playing. I now generally play Civ Rev as I find C3 and C4 very time consuming. As a matter of interest my interest in games began when I purchased them for my two sons (Elite on the BBC and subsequently Doom on the PS1) I would guess that there are one or two more of my generation playing as a result of interacting with their offspring. I occasionally have a pop at COD on MP and COJ with a degree of sucess although I can't compete with my 10 yr old Grandson's reflexes. LOL.

 

[lschnarch]

I dont get it........ It's like the publishers are out of their minds..
Here, in the year 2011 (soon), you have a consumer audience composed of mainly college students and adults, and yet you try to focus on the now minority ages 5-15 audience?

It is financial suicide.. It's like trying to sell tampons to men, when there's a sea of women out there craving one.

This is a problem which you will find in many places. And it is caused by controllers taking over the control of investment decisions.

A controller is a bean-counter, typically lacking the spirit of an entrepreneur. These people are simply too afraid to make decisions, to risk things.
They are good (sometimes) however in interpretation of figures, and in finding explanations *afterwards*. As long as they are allowed to do just this, everything is fine.

Unfortunately, meanwhile they are (mis-)used for prediction, for anticipating future trends and developments. And that is exactly what a "born" controller is unable to do, as this means to work without the safety net of many times checked figures.

So, shivering with fear to have to make decisions, they try to rescue themselves by following the way all the others are going.
Controller-led companies typically miss new trends and are hopping on them after some innovative companies have proven a certain way to work, a certain trend to by promising and lucrative. As soon as such proof is available, they feel sure again and claim this to be *the* way to success. After all, it has worked for others, so it has to work for them, too, hasn't it?

This constitures a kind of snowball effect, ultimately leading to aiming always to the broadest audience possible, because somewhere in this huge mass of potential customers there *will* be someone to buy the product. It is just a safe bet.
And so they will advertise to appeal the broad mass. That way, they can't be proven wrong.

Stock market with their quarterly "analysed" figures (which mainly is just reading what others have said and repeating this) just propels the whole thing. If my competitor was successful with a new idea, I will just have to copy it, best I invest even less than the competition, and success will be granted.
Well, this is of course not true, but for a good controller it is just easy to *afterwards* analyze why sales, development and all the other departments missed their targets. *That* would have been the reason why the expectations haven't been met, not the wrong estimations.

So, first the controller leads the company into the wrong direction, and afterwards he blames the innocent ones for the failure.
It is a lack of entrepreneurship.

Translated into the Civ world this means that a bigger investment to improve the current game seems to be risky. After all, long time fans are critical, they can compare with old version, they may not be fond of the new ideas.

Therefore, it is "so much wiser" to cut investments (thus reducing the financial risk, as any good powerpoint presentation can "prove") and only do the absolute minimum, as the big crowd of the mass market will buy it anyway.
Combine this with a development team which is not really strong in terms of innovation and project control and you will get Civ5.

 

[guenzak]

I can see your point but you are assuming that just because the average age of gamers is increasing that their IQ is increasing as well. I would beg to differ. The world in general is getting increasingly lazy and stupid . So no matter what the median age is for playing the games being put out reflect this.

 

[Slowpoke]

It actually makes a lot of sense. Because the age is rising, you are getting players who have most of their time taken away with family and jobs. Teenagers have far more time especially during summer. So, I wouldn't be surprised if complexity dropped even more.

 

[bonafide11]

Games aren't becoming less complex. Games are much more complex now than they were 5, 10, or 15 years ago. What are you basing games becoming less complex on? Civ V? Need more examples before you make a generalized statement like that.

 

[Slowpoke]

Well it's mainly in the last 2 or 3 years especially that games have been getting less complex, so there aren't many examples. But more and more often you get designers, like with Spore for instance, where they literally aren't afraid to say in public "well I could make more money or make a better game... I'm going with more money"

 

[stormerne]

Thanks to mjb2k8 for the link.

Interesting if you look at the data for the last four years:

Year.....2006.....2007.....2008.....2009
<18yo....31.0%....28.2%....25.0%....25.0%
18-49....44.0%....47.6%....49.0%....49.0%
50+......25.0%....24.2%....26.0%....26.0%

Avg......33yo.....33yo.....35yo.....35yo

The 2009 figures are suspicious as they're identical to those for 2008. And the headline figure in the 2009 ESA document doesn't agree with their pie-chart. Still...

There's definitely a steady decline in the under 18s and a corresponding rise in the middle band with an additional small rise in the 50+. One wonders, therefore, whether the curve is just shifting right, that video games were a product of an age, and that population who likes them is just getting steadily older...

Another titbit from the surveys:
Year.....2006.....2007.....2008.....2009
Civ4.....11th.....9th.....>20th.....13th

 

[Windsor]

Well it's mainly in the last 2 or 3 years especially that games have been getting less complex, so there aren't many examples. But more and more often you get designers, like with Spore for instance, where they literally aren't afraid to say in public "well I could make more money or make a better game... I'm going with more money"

The OP is mentioning games such as Civ1-3 so we are clearly looking at 90s vs today. If you only take the last two or three years, then the demographics of the players haven't changed that much.

And I'm 100% with bonafide11 on the complexity of games. They are a lot more accessible since you don't need to use an hour to configure autoexec.bat and feature easy to use UI, but the games themselves are more complex than what we had in the 90s.

 

[Zydor]

The business end of the industry couldnt give a hoot about the age of the gamer, only in so far as it helps the marketing slice up the target for individual promotions.

The Games industry is no different from any other, its there to maximise profits for its investors, nothing wrong in that, and in any case its not going away any time soon. All sectors are focusing on an overall demographic, and its not age ....

The world populations consist of 30% A's and B's, and 70% are C's D's & E's. Its that simple. If you want to expand a business on a large scale - you shoot for the largest sector, that will result in the lowest outlay, and thats the C's D's & E's. Apart from concensus from marketers re the principle, you only have to look around at product offerings, dumbed down films, rapidly expanding gutter press, trash TV channels, the list is a yard long. Are there niche markets, of course there are - however ....

For sure the age of populations is increasing, by 2050 alone most countries will have 40% + drawing a pension or equivalent status. So if the current whippersnappers think its getting bad, dont hold your breath, in 40/50 years when you lot draw your pensions, you will be drowning in geriatics - all home grown

 

[sketch162000]

It's not that games are becoming less complex, it's that games are becoming more formulaic. Every few years or so, we have a game that introduces a revolutionary new concept--the open, sandbox world of GTA, the moral decisions of Fable, Quicktime events in Resident Evil. etc...Then we have scores of clones trying to cash in on the hot new mechanic. When we were kids, games were relatively new and more developers were experimenting and trying to make their games stand out. It's just the growing pains that every creative medium goes through...

 

[Me_Myself_I]

Complexity is itself complicated.

Developers such as Square have noted that complex games (in certain respects -- not graphics/animation) such as Final Fantasy VII are too expensive to make today, due to the increased development cost/time/effort required for more sophisticated graphics/animation. Even though that game, for instance, is already fully developed (characters, plot, et cetera), Square's executives have commented that even though some of them very much want to re-create the game for the PS3, the project is too demanding financially. An executive conceded that the more recent Final Fantasy games are much less complicated in terms of linearity (they are more linear) and overall world size/scope/depth.

So, we get prettier more superficial games. This is what Nintendo said it was fighting against with games like the cell shade GameCube Zelda. It said it wanted to put gameplay first, not graphics.

As long as consumers are wowed by increasingly fancy graphics more so than game complexity, the trend is likely to increase toward simplification.

Another issue I feel exists in the PC gaming world is the overemphasis of shooters. Some video card reviews, for instance, show benchmarks for 10 games or so -- all of them being shooters. Isn't there something else people can enjoy when gaming other than shooting people? It's not something that appeals to me at all. In fact, war games, whether they're shooters or dumbed-down Civ, don't appeal much to me. I'm not a violent person. I don't have much of a taste for it.

 

[Tabarnak]

In 2010 products have a shorter lifetime than 20-30 years ago. This apply to games as well.

Less complicated games make consumers buy more new games more often. And gamers have overall ''better skills'', and are more experimented than in the 90's. Used to many kind of situations they faced, the word ''complicated'' has not the same attributes than years ago.

I'm 31 years old and i remember when i played Zelda a Link to the Past on SNES when i was 15. It was like : omg this game is so hard! Took me months to finish it.

When i played the last Zelda on the Wii last year it took me 2 weeks to get through. And this game was more ''complicated'' than the SNES one.

 

[Slowpoke]

Complexity is itself complicated.

Developers such as Square have noted that complex games (in certain respects -- not graphics/animation) such as Final Fantasy VII are too expensive to make today, due to the increased development cost/time/effort required for more sophisticated graphics/animation. Even though that game, for instance, is already fully developed (characters, plot, et cetera), Square's executives have commented that even though some of them very much want to re-create the game for the PS3, the project is too demanding financially. An executive conceded that the more recent Final Fantasy games are much less complicated in terms of linearity (they are more linear) and overall world size/scope/depth.

So, we get prettier more superficial games. This is what Nintendo said it was fighting against with games like the cell shade GameCube Zelda. It said it wanted to put gameplay first, not graphics.

As long as consumers are wowed by increasingly fancy graphics more so than game complexity, the trend is likely to increase toward simplification.

Another issue I feel exists in the PC gaming world is the overemphasis of shooters. Some video card reviews, for instance, show benchmarks for 10 games or so -- all of them being shooters. Isn't there something else people can enjoy when gaming other than shooting people? It's not something that appeals to me at all. In fact, war games, whether they're shooters or dumbed-down Civ, don't appeal much to me. I'm not a violent person. I don't have much of a taste for it.

So I guess the moral is, if you want to make complicated games, go gameboy? I mean advance wars graphics looks like pre SNES, and the music is crappy, yet it's awesome and sells well in spite of that.