RE: We chat about videogames and videogame accessories.
04-26-2014, 06:02 AM
According to the Entertainment Software Association, as of 2013 the age breakdown of video game consumers is actually rather topheavy:
![[Image: f0bd21289fc0a5fac4e7edff714f21a4.png]](https://eagle-time.org/misc.php?action=rt_camo&digest=3551d180171c416fcb91b7b1ac55c0bd215a751a3533184214384222e2800e2e&image=68747470733a2f2f692e6779617a6f2e636f6d2f66306264323132383966633061356661633465376564666637313466323161342e706e67)
I expected to find about half of game players as under 18, but it turns out only a third are. That said, video game companies (especially Nintendo. Well, mostly Nintendo, I think) will likely continue to primarily target younger consumers; as long as they don't overly infantilize them, their games will appeal to younger AND older consumers (as well as being largely non-objectionable to the 42% of Americans who do not play video games), while making more adult-oriented games will alienate a large portion of their audience (as well as potentially drawing unwanted controversy from that same 42%). Why do that? There really is nothing more from major companies than making shitzillions of dollars; individuals within those companies and even development groups within them probably care about making good games as an end unto itself, or making games that send a message or provoke thought, but those people will always have to take a backseat to their finance-oriented bosses and mission statements and investors.
Not a lot of profit to be had in idealism or art.
I expected to find about half of game players as under 18, but it turns out only a third are. That said, video game companies (especially Nintendo. Well, mostly Nintendo, I think) will likely continue to primarily target younger consumers; as long as they don't overly infantilize them, their games will appeal to younger AND older consumers (as well as being largely non-objectionable to the 42% of Americans who do not play video games), while making more adult-oriented games will alienate a large portion of their audience (as well as potentially drawing unwanted controversy from that same 42%). Why do that? There really is nothing more from major companies than making shitzillions of dollars; individuals within those companies and even development groups within them probably care about making good games as an end unto itself, or making games that send a message or provoke thought, but those people will always have to take a backseat to their finance-oriented bosses and mission statements and investors.
Not a lot of profit to be had in idealism or art.

