Gamers Are More Social, Family Oriented, Compared to Non-Gamers

Gamers Are More Social, Family Oriented, Compared to Non-Gamers

A study commissioned by Twitch shows that the old stereotype of solitary geeks gaming in their basements is bunk.

The stereotype that gamers are lonesome creatures, rejecting human contact in favor of gaming in dark basements, is hard to shake. An extensive study commissioned by Twitch shows just how outdated that stereotype is today. Conducted by LifeCourse Associates, the study found that gamers were more likely to watch television with friends than non-gamers, felt more positively about their future success, and prioritized having a positive impact on society. "The old stereotype of the solitary geek gamer is over," says Neil Howe of LifeCourse Associates. "It turns out gamers today are more educated, optimistic, socially conscious, and connected to friends and family than non-gamers." Twitch has released a report detailing the conclusions of the study.

The study surveyed 1,227 people in the US between March 12 and 30, 2014. The ages surveyed ranged from 13 to 64. The survey defined gamers as people who have played a video game on a digital device in the last 60 days. Of those surveyed, 63% were gamers. The study found that non-gamers were much more likely to watch television alone (40% versus 23%) than gamers, and that non-gamers were much less likely to watch video when at a friend's home (15% versus 42%). Spending time with family and parents was also rated more important by gamers than non-gamers. Spending time with family was a top priority for 82% of gamer respondents, while 68% non-gamers agreed it was a top priority. Gamers and gamer's parents were found to be more likely to hold a college degree or higher. Gamers were much more optimistic about their careers, with 67% of gamers feeling "very positive" or "positive" about their futures. Only 42% of non-gamers reported the same feelings.

The study also found that gamers are more socially conscious. A majority of gamers, 76%, agreed with the statement "Having a positive impact on society is important to me." Non-gamers came in 21 percentage points below, with only 56% agreeing with the statement. Gamers were also more likely to support companies that support social causes (58% versus 36%) and were more supportive of companies with ethical business practices (78% versus 65%). Gamers are also far more likely to use recent technology, including gaming consoles, tablets, smartphones, and internet-capable devices for streaming to televisions.

"We know gamers and have witnessed the incredible level of social engagement and excitement that happens on our platform, but there is still this pervasive misperception that gamers are basement dwelling loners and misfits," says Jonathan Simpson-Bint, Chief Revenue Officer for Twitch. "In order to once and for all eradicate this maligned view of our community, it would require a scientifically verifiable and statistically defensible study from a reputable and experienced research firm. This is what Neil Howe and his team at LifeCourse Associates delivered. The study confirmed what we already expected based on our passionate and positive community which is gamers are social, video is their language and Twitch is their platform." Gamers can broadcast to Twitch from Xbox One and PlayStation 4, mobile devices, and PCs. This year, Twitch is the official video streaming platform for E3.

Source: Twitch

Permalink

Let's, first, get something out of the way.
Yah, funded by Twitch. BIAS ALERT! BIAS ALERT!

That said, their methodology on the surface seems pretty good for collections. They've got a broad definition of "gamer" though. They made a big no-no though. They made a conclusion based on a qualitative study, and they also didn't recommend further studies (here, seeing what "core" gamers value).

And I'll say what I always say: Of course I'm going to be more social on the internet than I will be watching TV or reading a book.

Oh man, this poll would hate me.

I don't talk to anyone whilst watching TV. Hell, I barely watch TV at all anymore, I just download the shows.
I don't really spend time with friends since they're all on the Internet.
I don't much care about having a positive impact on society, only if I myself am actually happy with my life.
I don't use Twitch.

... am I not a gamer now? Should I get my coat and go?

I'm not. If I'm playing a game and someone walks in, I pause it and do not continue until they have left the room and closed the door. I get really pissy if they don't close doors.

Yeah I'm not too sure about this poll. A lot of my friends that spend hours upon hours in front of a console and or PC aren't really doing much with there lives. Most of them are living with their parents and aside from high school haven't really pursued anything academically.

My roommate is a prime example. He's in school getting his bachelors but aside from that and fishing he doesn't really do anything aside from eat and rotate from the bed to the couch to his computer desk. His hygiene leaves much to be desired and his social skills are not top tier for someone his age.

I think the survey's criteria for gamer was too vague. I usually think of a "hardcore" gamer as someone who spends 5+ hours a day playing games on an almost daily basis.

MCerberus:
Let's, first, get something out of the way.
Yah, funded by Twitch. BIAS ALERT! BIAS ALERT!

That said, their methodology on the surface seems pretty good for collections. They've got a broad definition of "gamer" though. They made a big no-no though. They made a conclusion based on a qualitative study, and they also didn't recommend further studies (here, seeing what "core" gamers value).

And I'll say what I always say: Of course I'm going to be more social on the internet than I will be watching TV or reading a book.

The biggest error in the report was not breaking it down by age. Older people are less likely to play games, that probably has more of an effect on values than whether you're a gamer or not due to the era you grew up in and the social conditioning present then.

flarty:

MCerberus:
Let's, first, get something out of the way.
Yah, funded by Twitch. BIAS ALERT! BIAS ALERT!

That said, their methodology on the surface seems pretty good for collections. They've got a broad definition of "gamer" though. They made a big no-no though. They made a conclusion based on a qualitative study, and they also didn't recommend further studies (here, seeing what "core" gamers value).

And I'll say what I always say: Of course I'm going to be more social on the internet than I will be watching TV or reading a book.

The biggest error in the report was not breaking it down by age. Older people are less likely to play games, that probably has more of an effect on values than whether you're a gamer or not due to the era you grew up in and the social conditioning present then.

They did break it down by generation. Again, qualitative study, recommend narrower age brackets for next one.

Since when are surveys considered studies?

"Gamers"

Ugh.

Can we please retire this term?

It is quite literally meaningless.

I mean, look at the definition used in this study.

MarlaDesat:
The survey defined gamers as people who have played a video game on a digital device in the last 60 days.

This means that practically ANYONE that simply owns a smartphone qualifies as a "gamer" as long as the spent 2 minutes flicking at Angry Birds while on the shitter in the last two months.

If "Gamer" just means "owns a laptop or smartphone" then what good is the fucking term? It has no descriptive power and doesn't tell you anything about the person that you apply it to.

I'm not so sure if higher identification with social activity constitutes actually being more social.
It could also be that gamers are answering these questions with the popular, unpleasant stereotypes about gamers in mind (consciously or not).

SlothDeVidya:

"Gamers"

Ugh.

Can we please retire this term?

It is quite literally meaningless.

I mean, look at the definition used in this study.

MarlaDesat:
The survey defined gamers as people who have played a video game on a digital device in the last 60 days.

This means that practically ANYONE that simply owns a smartphone qualifies as a "gamer" as long as the spent 2 minutes flicking at Angry Birds while on the shitter in the last two months.

If "Gamer" just means "owns a laptop or smartphone" then what good is the fucking term? It has no descriptive power and doesn't tell you anything about the person that you apply it to.

It's time that the "Old Guard of Gaming" recognizes that other people are allowed to enjoy games also, and shouldn't be shunned. Sure, they might not all be as 'Teh Hardcorez' as other people, but DO THEY PLAY GAMES? If yes, then they're gamers. The idea of "if they don't play the same games as I do in the exact same manner as I do" is pure and simple prejudice and a large reason why gaming is scolded and mocked as hobby.

The rest of the world is maturing to a point where the medium is finally accepted, so just maybe we should accept them, too? Crazy I know. Holding any other reasoning and suddenly we become jerks - gaming hipsters that hate others simply because we played games 'before it was cool'.

Aside from the rage rant, what is this descriptive power that gamer holds? I am genuinely curious about what special meaning it holds that no other word or phrase can detail. The only change to the modern meaning is that gamer no longer implies a social outcast, and I don't know why anyone would willingly take that label unless it's purely because it makes them feel special. If that's the case, there's a large amount of immaturity being displayed.

Anyone who can go 60 days without playing a single video game (by choice) would strike me as an incredibly dull and boring individual.

TiberiusEsuriens:

SlothDeVidya:

"Gamers"

Ugh.

Can we please retire this term?

It is quite literally meaningless.

I mean, look at the definition used in this study.

MarlaDesat:
The survey defined gamers as people who have played a video game on a digital device in the last 60 days.

This means that practically ANYONE that simply owns a smartphone qualifies as a "gamer" as long as the spent 2 minutes flicking at Angry Birds while on the shitter in the last two months.

If "Gamer" just means "owns a laptop or smartphone" then what good is the fucking term? It has no descriptive power and doesn't tell you anything about the person that you apply it to.

It's time that the "Old Guard of Gaming" recognizes that other people are allowed to enjoy games also, and shouldn't be shunned. Sure, they might not all be as 'Teh Hardcorez' as other people, but DO THEY PLAY GAMES? If yes, then they're gamers. The idea of "if they don't play the same games as I do in the exact same manner as I do" is pure and simple prejudice and a large reason why gaming is scolded and mocked as hobby.

The rest of the world is maturing to a point where the medium is finally accepted, so just maybe we should accept them, too? Crazy I know. Holding any other reasoning and suddenly we become jerks - gaming hipsters that hate others simply because we played games 'before it was cool'.

Aside from the rage rant, what is this descriptive power that gamer holds? I am genuinely curious about what special meaning it holds that no other word or phrase can detail. The only change to the modern meaning is that gamer no longer implies a social outcast, and I don't know why anyone would willingly take that label unless it's purely because it makes them feel special. If that's the case, there's a large amount of immaturity being displayed.

The definition of 'gamer' he's suggesting just means someone who's particularly invested in video games, in the same way 'film buff' or 'bookworm' refers to someone who's really into movies or books. Yes, if you deconstruct the word 'gamer' it just means 'one who plays games', but that's clearly not what it means to most people - and that's what matters. The elitism and segregation aren't caused by this definition of gamer - it's just a descriptive term that's been adopted by jerks.

TiberiusEsuriens:

SlothDeVidya:

"Gamers"

Ugh.

Can we please retire this term?

It is quite literally meaningless.

I mean, look at the definition used in this study.

MarlaDesat:
The survey defined gamers as people who have played a video game on a digital device in the last 60 days.

This means that practically ANYONE that simply owns a smartphone qualifies as a "gamer" as long as the spent 2 minutes flicking at Angry Birds while on the shitter in the last two months.

If "Gamer" just means "owns a laptop or smartphone" then what good is the fucking term? It has no descriptive power and doesn't tell you anything about the person that you apply it to.

It's time that the "Old Guard of Gaming" recognizes that other people are allowed to enjoy games also, and shouldn't be shunned. Sure, they might not all be as 'Teh Hardcorez' as other people, but DO THEY PLAY GAMES? If yes, then they're gamers. The idea of "if they don't play the same games as I do in the exact same manner as I do" is pure and simple prejudice and a large reason why gaming is scolded and mocked as hobby.

The rest of the world is maturing to a point where the medium is finally accepted, so just maybe we should accept them, too? Crazy I know. Holding any other reasoning and suddenly we become jerks - gaming hipsters that hate others simply because we played games 'before it was cool'.

Aside from the rage rant, what is this descriptive power that gamer holds? I am genuinely curious about what special meaning it holds that no other word or phrase can detail. The only change to the modern meaning is that gamer no longer implies a social outcast, and I don't know why anyone would willingly take that label unless it's purely because it makes them feel special. If that's the case, there's a large amount of immaturity being displayed.

If you're doing a study on purchasing habits, surveying a kid who bought a stick of gum last week is probably not the same as surveying his parents, who are constantly buying things for themselves and their family.

"defined gamers as people who have played a video game on a digital device in the last 60 days", that totally makes this whole study pointless. Its way too vague, there is nothing to be learned from grouping a person who played solitary a couple times in 60 days with the people who play 3 hours a day.

SirBryghtside:

TiberiusEsuriens:
Aside from the rage rant, what is this descriptive power that gamer holds? I am genuinely curious about what special meaning it holds that no other word or phrase can detail. The only change to the modern meaning is that gamer no longer implies a social outcast, and I don't know why anyone would willingly take that label unless it's purely because it makes them feel special. If that's the case, there's a large amount of immaturity being displayed.

The definition of 'gamer' he's suggesting just means someone who's particularly invested in video games, in the same way 'film buff' or 'bookworm' refers to someone who's really into movies or books. Yes, if you deconstruct the word 'gamer' it just means 'one who plays games', but that's clearly not what it means to most people - and that's what matters. The elitism and segregation aren't caused by this definition of gamer - it's just a descriptive term that's been adopted by jerks.

I disagree with you completely, and you kind of prove my point. You both acknowledge the term's literal definition, but then disregard it as unimportant, but then go further by saying people that disregard it are jerks. Is it important or isn't it? Why doesn't it matter to most people, but then why does the majority change the definition and guard it so much? And again, if the majority of people know what it is and change the definition anyways, then by your logic they're all just jerks.

"Gamer" is a title, and titles alone have time and again proven (for thousands of years) to be sufficient in and of themselves to cause normal people to become entitled bigots. We've all been down this road before too, all the way back to books back when most people couldn't read. The 'Elite' have always tried to separate themselves from the 'wretched' by exclusive activities, only to have the sinners, the poor, or the casuals find a way to enjoy something that was created for the sole purpose of giving joy.

The problem is that "someone who's particularly invested in video games (or any other medium)" is a bad description, but the one most people do use. It's a completely subjective definition, and ends up almost always excluding anyone that is less invested than the person talking. It's very different than someone who likes movies or books because even if they disagree on the movies or books they like, neither person is likely to be told they are no longer allowed to consider themself a book or movie enthusiast. They might even joke about the other having bad taste, but the other's right to enjoy the medium and call themselves a movie goer is never called into the question.

kennyloo69:

TiberiusEsuriens:

SlothDeVidya:

Ugh.

Can we please retire this term?

It is quite literally meaningless.

I mean, look at the definition used in this study.

This means that practically ANYONE that simply owns a smartphone qualifies as a "gamer" as long as the spent 2 minutes flicking at Angry Birds while on the shitter in the last two months.

If "Gamer" just means "owns a laptop or smartphone" then what good is the fucking term? It has no descriptive power and doesn't tell you anything about the person that you apply it to.

It's time that the "Old Guard of Gaming" recognizes that other people are allowed to enjoy games also, and shouldn't be shunned. Sure, they might not all be as 'Teh Hardcorez' as other people, but DO THEY PLAY GAMES? If yes, then they're gamers. The idea of "if they don't play the same games as I do in the exact same manner as I do" is pure and simple prejudice and a large reason why gaming is scolded and mocked as hobby.

The rest of the world is maturing to a point where the medium is finally accepted, so just maybe we should accept them, too? Crazy I know. Holding any other reasoning and suddenly we become jerks - gaming hipsters that hate others simply because we played games 'before it was cool'.

Aside from the rage rant, what is this descriptive power that gamer holds? I am genuinely curious about what special meaning it holds that no other word or phrase can detail. The only change to the modern meaning is that gamer no longer implies a social outcast, and I don't know why anyone would willingly take that label unless it's purely because it makes them feel special. If that's the case, there's a large amount of immaturity being displayed.

If you're doing a study on purchasing habits, surveying a kid who bought a stick of gum last week is probably not the same as surveying his parents, who are constantly buying things for themselves and their family.

But that is very clearly cherry picking. Yes, you could survey just parents because they're likely to buy things more often, but then your survey is very clearly only going to point out that parents buy things often.

Excluding a group of people because you think they're unimportant is the very definition of BIAS, also referred to as prejudice, and is the fastest way to make any sort of survey non-factual.

It's totally within peoples' rights to be upset when reality doesn't match up with their wants and wishes, but it is still reality. If you want to study purchasing habits, broaden your study to pay attention to age groups, don't just ignore ages. Purchasing habits will indeed greatly change based on income, but "buying much less" is an actual habit in its own right. Reality has even shown us that younger kids purchase MORE of certain items than adults because they have 100% expendable income. Who do you think buys Magic cards? Most of the time it's kids, not parents, and we know this because sampling polls are done and both ages responded. If you want to study gaming habits, broaden your study to record game genres, time spent, location played, etc... don't just pretend those players don't exist.

SlothDeVidya:

TiberiusEsuriens:
The rest of the world is maturing to a point where the medium is finally accepted, so just maybe we should accept them, too?

Which is EXACTLY why we need to retire the word "gamer" you god-damned doofus.

We don't have a term like "Movie watcher" because everyone watches fucking movies, when everyone plays games then why bother having a term like "Gamer" at all?

The fact that you automatically went on the defensive, as if me stating the objective fact that "gamer" has ceased being useful as a descriptive term somehow means that I'm oppressing someone, says a lot about your mindset. Because on a basic level what you're saying is that no one is allowed to be proud that they know a lot about video games, which is patently fucking ridiculous and no one would imply that say, someone who took a masters degree in Film Studies couldn't feel proud about that. The only thing you're accomplishing is holding games back from ever becoming a truly accomplished art with actual academia built around it.

Being snobby may not be positive at all times and in all contexts, but it has it's place, and if you're gonna collapse into a teary fit of righteous anger every time someone implies that someone who's spent 20 years playing games 10+ hours a week might know and care SLIGHTLY more about them than your arthritic grandma that "does the bejeweled" on her iPad, then you're basically adopting the same attitude as the conservative fundamentalist that chokes on his own outrage whenever someone implies that someone with a university degree might know more than him about climate change.

Accepting the common fact that some people care more than about video games than others doesn't mean we're "shunning" anyone[1], it means we're not fucking delusional.

We need to either kill the term completely or redefine it to mean the same thing that "Movie-buff" means for films, as is the word is only good for causing confusion and division.

Well that's about as opposite of what I've been saying. I wasn't "on the defensive" at all. I don't even understand what side I was supposedly defending. Gamer would continue to be a decent term if only the original meaning could be reclaimed.

We're both people, on A GAMING AND GEEK INTERNET NEWS SITE, talking about games. It's safe to say we both like games. But your attitude is completely rude and fits squarely into the righteous vengeful gamer that (at least I though) we were both saying should take a chill pill. I said your post was insulting 'lesser gamers' while claiming that you don't view them as lesser. I called you out on it, then you accused me of being a gaming Nazi.

Be nice to others and have a great day.

[1] At least not any more than film academia "shuns" the general movie watching public

TiberiusEsuriens:

SirBryghtside:

TiberiusEsuriens:
Aside from the rage rant, what is this descriptive power that gamer holds? I am genuinely curious about what special meaning it holds that no other word or phrase can detail. The only change to the modern meaning is that gamer no longer implies a social outcast, and I don't know why anyone would willingly take that label unless it's purely because it makes them feel special. If that's the case, there's a large amount of immaturity being displayed.

The definition of 'gamer' he's suggesting just means someone who's particularly invested in video games, in the same way 'film buff' or 'bookworm' refers to someone who's really into movies or books. Yes, if you deconstruct the word 'gamer' it just means 'one who plays games', but that's clearly not what it means to most people - and that's what matters. The elitism and segregation aren't caused by this definition of gamer - it's just a descriptive term that's been adopted by jerks.

I disagree with you completely, and you kind of prove my point. You both acknowledge the term's literal definition, but then disregard it as unimportant, but then go further by saying people that disregard it are jerks. Is it important or isn't it? Why doesn't it matter to most people, but then why does the majority change the definition and guard it so much? And again, if the majority of people know what it is and change the definition anyways, then by your logic they're all just jerks.

Not my point. It's been adopted by jerks in the sense that they label themselves 'gamer' and act like elitist jerks for reasons that are only tangentially related to their chosen definition of the term itself.

"Gamer" is a title, and titles alone have time and again proven (for thousands of years) to be sufficient in and of themselves to cause normal people to become entitled bigots. We've all been down this road before too, all the way back to books back when most people couldn't read. The 'Elite' have always tried to separate themselves from the 'wretched' by exclusive activities, only to have the sinners, the poor, or the casuals find a way to enjoy something that was created for the sole purpose of giving joy.

I disagree with that assertion. It's not the title itself causing that, it's the person's desire to feel better than others. They use the title, sure, but if it didn't exist they wouldn't act any differently. The word isn't the problem.

The problem is that "someone who's particularly invested in video games (or any other medium)" is a bad description, but the one most people do use. It's a completely subjective definition, and ends up almost always excluding anyone that is less invested than the person talking. It's very different than someone who likes movies or books because even if they disagree on the movies or books they like, neither person is likely to be told they are no longer allowed to consider themself a book or movie enthusiast. They might even joke about the other having bad taste, but the other's right to enjoy the medium and call themselves a movie goer is never called into the question.

I feel like you're both overestimating the elitism within the gaming community and grossly underestimating the elitism within other forms of media. Film and book snobs are just as exclusionary, pretentious and arrogant as elitist gamers - trying to dismiss what I'm saying on that basis seems pretty damn flawed.

Gah, I don't know. I have this crazy worldview that we should judge everything on a case-by-case basis. 'Gamer' is just a word, and words aren't inherently bad. If there are arrogant pricks using the word gamer, the fault is with them for being arrogant, not the word. Call them out on being arrogant, and then just move the frack on.

so pooling social gamers results in these gamers being social. certainly not biased at all. lets ocmpletely ignore all the gamers that dont use or like twitch right?

Loop Stricken:
Oh man, this poll would hate me.

I don't talk to anyone whilst watching TV. Hell, I barely watch TV at all anymore, I just download the shows.
I don't really spend time with friends since they're all on the Internet.
I don't much care about having a positive impact on society, only if I myself am actually happy with my life.
I don't use Twitch.

... am I not a gamer now? Should I get my coat and go?

no, your just not in majority of the pooled type.

AgentLampshade:
I'm not. If I'm playing a game and someone walks in, I pause it and do not continue until they have left the room and closed the door. I get really pissy if they don't close doors.

yeah, i dont understand why cant they close the doors either. worse is when they come, open the door, peek in and then leave without saying anything with door open. just why the hell.
also sadly not all games allow pausing :(

kennyloo69:
Since when are surveys considered studies?

since invention of studies?
Its one of the methods you can use to conduct studies. surveying certain population.

Grape_Nuts:
Anyone who can go 60 days without playing a single video game (by choice) would strike me as an incredibly dull and boring individual.

Different people like different things. I couldnt go a week without a movie. i know people who saw 3 movies in their entire lives. they dont become dull because of it thought.

SirBryghtside:
The definition of 'gamer' he's suggesting just means someone who's particularly invested in video games, in the same way 'film buff' or 'bookworm' refers to someone who's really into movies or books. Yes, if you deconstruct the word 'gamer' it just means 'one who plays games', but that's clearly not what it means to most people - and that's what matters. The elitism and segregation aren't caused by this definition of gamer - it's just a descriptive term that's been adopted by jerks.

see, a problem is that gamer never meant equivalent of film buff or bookworm. it was always a moviegoer, reader or driver. An equivalent to film buff, bookwork and car enthusiast here is the gaming enthusiast. you seem to be trying to make every driver mean hes a car mechanic.

SlothDeVidya:

Which is EXACTLY why we need to retire the word "gamer" you god-damned doofus.

We don't have a term like "Movie watcher" because everyone watches fucking movies, when everyone plays games then why bother having a term like "Gamer" at all?

no we dont and yes we do.
we have moviegoer. we have reader. we have driver. and we have gamer.
just like we have movie buff, bookworm, car enthusiast and gaming enthusiast (sometimes called hardcore gamer, but i dont like that definition as hardcore does not actually mean that).

Does this include people in Japan? Just checking.

Strazdas:
see, a problem is that gamer never meant equivalent of film buff or bookworm. it was always a moviegoer, reader or driver. An equivalent to film buff, bookwork and car enthusiast here is the gaming enthusiast. you seem to be trying to make every driver mean hes a car mechanic.

'Never meant'? I can point out plenty of examples of people in this thread alone suggesting that gamer means gaming enthusiast. Yes, it might be a bad word to use, but none of us can control that definition.

SirBryghtside:
'Never meant'? I can point out plenty of examples of people in this thread alone suggesting that gamer means gaming enthusiast. Yes, it might be a bad word to use, but none of us can control that definition.

i can point out to plenty of people that think "gay" means a paedophile. Does not make them right though.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here