Average gamer is 35, often overweight, and sad

[etschuetz]

Studies, like these, are relatively pointless. They are established to prove a point that those behind the study. "Real" average people don't fit into these studies. Personally, it is my opinion that these studies are created to discourage people from doing things not considered "normal" or "healthy" for the average consumer. How dare you to play video games and not watch mindless television that showcases all of those glamorous products you aren't buying!

 

I am 32, 230 lbs, and a relatively content and happy individual. I play video games, surf the internet regularly, have a healthy love for the occult, a slightly above average IQ, and thoroughly enjoy sex. Search for studies that encompass most of those, and I GUARANTEE I would be classified as some kind of "offender" or "danger" to society. Those that know me will tell you that that is pure bunk. I won't be under 200 lbs for the rest of my life, simply thanks to a LOT of weight training in my later youth, and the Marine Corps. However, I do have a large amount of muscle build.

 

My point? Studies like those only mean something to those that invest in believing them.

[Red 5]

It's just a stereotype that all gamers are 35 year old depressed fatties that live in mom's basement.

 

I'm 38, camp, bike, play softball, not overweight, love my wife and kids, try to play guitar (poorly), go to concerts as much as possible, and play video games just about every night. As a matter of fact, I think I have played some kind of video game a few times a week since I have been 8.

 

As someone posted earlier, I would guess the percentage of non-gamers that are fat and depressed is the same as the percentage of 'gamers'.

 

Everyone with acne and glasses likes Star Trek though. That is a fact.

[lost child]

I wasn't depressed until they pointed out that I'm a middle-aged fatty.

[godslabrat]

Proper response to anyone who takes this study seriously: "I would like to see the methodology behind gathering the data. Was the sample subjected to a T-test compared to a control group of non-gamers, to show that any differences between the two groups would be statistically significant?"

 

Anyone who doesn't understand what I just said probably shouldn't be taking articles like this as gospel.

[+Random Terrain]

Anyone who doesn't understand what I just said probably shouldn't be taking articles like this as gospel.

That's crazy talk. Articles on the Internet can't be wrong. The people in charge of the tubes check everything before we read it.

[Video]

Proper response to anyone who takes this study seriously: "I would like to see the methodology behind gathering the data. Was the sample subjected to a T-test compared to a control group of non-gamers, to show that any differences between the two groups would be statistically significant?"

 

Anyone who doesn't understand what I just said probably shouldn't be taking articles like this as gospel.

Wouldn't ever happen. It's to hard this day in age to find people who don't play games How many "normal" people are there, anywyas?

[etschuetz]

Wouldn't ever happen. It's to hard this day in age to find people who don't play games How many "normal" people are there, anywyas?

 

You make it sound like it isn't "normal" to play games!!! And here I thought I was normal. Damn it!

[SeaGtGruff]

They don't compile these pointless "averages" on Pluto. It's like trying to find the average between apples and oranges (will it blend...?). But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe every single person on this forum is an approximate of the South Park kids during the World of Warcraft episode. Or maybe you are all Numenorian demigods (as we ourselves all are on Pluto).

 

In short, generalizing doesn't work with race, religion, sex, or nationality, and it doesn't work with subculture, hobbies, or general fields of interest.

As far as the age of the average gamer, it would be more meaningful to know (1) the age of the youngest gamer; (2) the age of the oldest gamer; (3) the number of gamers who are every given age from youngest to oldest; and (4) the number of people (gamers and non-gamers alike) who are every given age from youngest to oldest. After all, if the youngest gamer were 3 years old, and the oldest gamer were 67, and every age from 3 to 67 were equally represented by gamers, then of course the average age of all gamers would be 35-- but that wouldn't mean diddly-squat. All it would mean is that people of all ages enjoy gaming. I mean, really, if you're comparing two board games in a store, trying to decide which one to buy for your family, which one would you be most likely to choose-- the one that said "Fun for people from 3 to 93!" or the one that said "Fun for people from 33 to 37!"

 

And if a larger-than-average percentage of gamers falls within a certain set of ages, then that may or may not be significant, because you'd need to consider how many people there are of that age in the whole world. Has anyone ever heard of "the baby boom"? The number of people in the whole world who are a certain age is not equal-- some age groups have more people in them than other age groups. So if there are more gamers of age, say, 55 than there are of age, say, 25, is it merely because there are more people aged 55 than there are aged 25?

 

The average gamer is overweight? Well, what percentage of the general population is overweight, pray tell?

 

The average gamer is sad? Again, what percentage of the general population is sad? And what does that mean, anyway-- "sad"? Have they been clinically diagnosed as being depressed? Or maybe they're just sad because they keep losing all of their spare lives before reaching 100,000 points? Or-- gasp-- could it have anything to do with the state of the economy, the employment situation, and the lack of world peace?

 

What's a "gamer," anyway? Does that include people who play cards, backgammon, chess, and other board games? And if not, then why not?

 

Michael

 

Edit-- My mistake, the average gamer is "often overweight." How often are they overweight? Are they overweight on Monday through Thursday, but not on Friday through Sunday? Or maybe it's related to the time of day rather than the day of the week?

 

Statistics can be fun!

Edited September 1, 2009 by SeaGtGruff

[Foxy Cleopatra]

Proper response to anyone who takes this study seriously: "I would like to see the methodology behind gathering the data. Was the sample subjected to a T-test compared to a control group of non-gamers, to show that any differences between the two groups would be statistically significant?"

 

Anyone who doesn't understand what I just said probably shouldn't be taking articles like this as gospel.

 

The study is in the American Journal of Preventative Magazine, Oct 2009 issue so the full article wasn't available yet. Not that I would buy it anyway to check the sampling, but as it was conducted by the CDC, controls were most likely included. And statistically significant of course depends on what p-value you are using.

[Gabriel]

Since I'm nearly 40, overweight, and extremely cynical, does that mean I'm average or exceptional?