New study of PC gamers released from NPD...

[LordArtemis]

Here is the release, verbatum, based on reporting from Joystiq. I have not been able to confirm it's authenticity yet....once I do I will add it to my PC gamer study reference list.

 

THE NPD GROUP: 37 PERCENT OF U.S. POPULATION AGE 9 AND OLDER CURRENTLY PLAYS PC GAMES

 

Port Washington, NY, Sept. 9, 2014 – Thirty-seven percent of the U.S. population age 9 and older currently plays PC games for an average of 6.4 hours per week, according to Understanding PC Gaming: 2014, the latest report from global information provider, The NPD Group.

 

Three distinct segments of PC Gamers are defined in this report, all based on the types of games and number of hours played on computers: Heavy Core, Light Core, and Casual. Heavy Core gamers play core* games for five or more hours per week, while Light Core gamers still enjoy core games, but do so for less than five hours a week, and Casual gamers only play non-core games.

 

 

The largest segment is Casual at 56 percent, with Light Core at 24 percent, and Heavy Core at 20 percent. Though Heavy Core is the smallest segment, they spend a significantly higher number of hours gaming in an average week, and have spent roughly twice as much money in the past 3 months on physical or digital games for the computer than Casual PC gamers.

 

 

"As with gaming consumers across all platforms, the PC Gamer is not a ubiquitous group, making it critical for anyone in the PC game space to understand the consumer segments and their respective behaviors," said Liam Callahan, industry analyst, The NPD Group.

 

PC gamers are just as likely to be men as they are women, with 51 percent and 49 percent, respectively. They tend to be older, with an average age of 38 years, and affluent, with an average household income of $69k. Gender differences become apparent by type of gamer: Heavy Core and Light Core are comprised mainly of men while Casual PC gamers are overwhelmingly female.

 

Purchasing and Acquisition Behaviors

 

Heavy Core and Light Core gamers outpaced the Casual PC segment in recent purchasing of digital games, with Heavy Core gamers having the highest average spend for games in the digital format.

 

 

Over the past year, 46 percent of PC gamers have visited a site to make a digital purchase. Interestingly, gamers buying digital games are far less likely than those buying physical games to pay full price for a title. In fact, half of all PC gamers have grown accustomed to waiting for a sale before making a purchase.

 

"Consumers' expectations may be the greatest barrier to maximizing spending in the PC gaming space," said Callahan. "Since half of PC gamers who play digital and/or physical games on the computer are expecting there to always be a sale right around the corner, publishers and retailers alike need to better manage these expectations," said Callahan.

 

* In order to qualify as a core gamer, respondents had to currently play Action/Adventure, Fighting, Flight, Massively Multi-Player (MMO), Racing, Real Time Strategy, Role-Playing, Shooter, or Sport games on a PC/Mac.

 

Methodology

An online survey was fielded from June 2, 2014 through June 16, 2014 to members of NPD's online panel. The survey was completed by 6,225 individuals ages 9 and older, with 2,312 qualifying as PC gamers. In order to qualify as a "PC gamer," respondents had to indicate they are personally, currently playing video games on a personal computer or Mac. For children ages 9 to 17, respondents were contacted using a parental surrogate, with the parent being asked to bring the child to the computer to answer the survey questions.

 

Source

Edited September 11, 2014 by LordArtemis

[CKNORTH]

OMG the Yellow it Burnnnnnssss!!

 

dang it I needed to read the whole thing....

 

As for who is buying the most or paying most, uh definition of hardcore in context with people having unlimited play time is skewed, in relation to casual play and heavy core, I am casual. but doesn't mean I have not spent my well share in the market.....

Edited September 10, 2014 by CKNORTH

[Infernixx]

An interesting article, though I admit that I find the financial details the most interesting.

 

The smallest 20% is paying twice as much as more than half of the totality of the player base. Those are your so-called 'whales.'

 

Though, it bears reminding that their use of 'heavy core' does not indicate Raiders or Ranked PVPers, only those that spend the most time in-game and online. Which makes sense.

[Psychopyro]

The problem is there is no clear definition of what each type of gamer is.

 

Do they measure it by hours in game? What's the cut off points? Just because someone spends a lot of time in game does not mean they are playing. I know people who sit all day and use it as a glorified chat room. I know people that log on for 2 hours, blow up as much as they can, slug thru the hardest content and log off.

 

And this does not even account for the "farmville" crowd. How many of those ended up in the Heavy Core group? I mean it is a game (well not really, well... no not really) in a technical term.

 

This is by far not a dynamic representation anyways. What if they got a house like mine? That would be 2 adults and 5 kids, all but one over the age of 9 (and why was 9 the cut off, my 8 yo plays SWTOR), all play games...

[LyraineAlei]

I think this could have been more in-depth. It kind of reads like my local newspaper trying to sound like it knows a lot more than a study.

[MSchuyler]

The problem is there is no clear definition of what each type of gamer is.

 

Therefore the people doing the study get to make up the definitions according to what they their own needs are. There is NO WAY anyone is going to categorize gamers (or anyone else) into less than half a dozen categories without encountering grief from people who, for one arcane reason or another, want to define the group in a different way because of a perceived or imagined difference. Sometimes differences are absorbed into a more general category.

 

I note, for example, that there is no separate category for transgendered 300 pound gamers with high cholesterol who actually DO live in their Mom's basements and have a $500 allowance per month to spend on just Cartel Market items and who only play Sith Warrior females. And, by God that underscores a clear FAIL in this study!

 

So the question becomes, what is useful information to which audience and what is not? Clearly this study was not aimed at gamers themselves who may or may not be offended that there little wrinkle was not sufficiently recognized. The study makes no distinction between over 65 year-old gamers who once played "Adventure" on a mainframe over a 110 baud modem connection and some kid with an Alienware hooked to Comcast because the real audience of the study is not interested in that distinction. It doesn't matter to them.

 

I suspect the study is marketed and sold to the gaming industry that wants to understand the market for games and advertise to gamers appropriately so that their advertising dollars are well-spent and result in an increase in profit. The fact that they did not take into consideration your household is completely irrelevant because, if the study was properly done, it is still statistically valid. A study with over 1,000 participants certainly should be. It only takes 1200 people nationally surveyed to predict the outcome of an election.

 

If the intended audience for the study, i.e.: Those people who actually pay thousands of dollars for the full report, don't like it, they've got a problem. But if you don't like the study's conclusions, it really doesn't matter a bit because the study is not intended for you in the first place. In other words, it's not a problem.

Edited September 11, 2014 by MSchuyler

[LordArtemis]

Well, a few points to consider....

 

The NPD group is a well known market research company. Used by quite a few major companies, and commissioned to engage in many of the industries standard studies...mentioned and referenced in publications like The Wall Street Journal and Forbes, news agencies like CNN, Fox and MSNBC.

 

https://www.npd.com/

 

https://www.npd.com/wps/portal/npd/us/industry-expertise/video-games/

 

https://www.npd.com/wps/portal/npd/us/about-npd/

 

Link to author - Liam Callahan

 

Note that people can peruse their multiple studies they have published over the years and make their own judgements. You can also peruse the kind of companies they have done work for in the past.

 

This is NOT a statement to the validity of the study. Only some background to consider whether or not this is a reputable industry study organization.

 

The second point I would present is that NPD has been controversial in the industry in the way that they refuse to follow "industry norms" with respect to player categorization and revenue models, instead choosing to create their own labels and groups. They rarely use the simplified terms "hardcore" and "casual" in the same study, though obviously casual is used in the one above.

 

Third, there are studies in the industry that counter NPD results. Some companies criticize NPDs information gathering methods, while others find their refusal to accept normal industry labels odd.

 

Personally, I find the site quite reputable and enjoy reading their studies on a regular basis. The company I work for has hired them twice for market research.

 

Changed the color to yellow green, hopefully that is easier on the eyes.

Edited September 11, 2014 by LordArtemis

[LyraineAlei]

Well, a few points to consider....

 

The NPD group is a well known market research company. Used by quite a few major companies, and commissioned to engage in many of the industries standard studies...mentioned and referenced in publications like The Wall Street Journal and Forbes, news agencies like CNN, Fox and MSNBC.

 

https://www.npd.com/

 

https://www.npd.com/wps/portal/npd/us/industry-expertise/video-games/

 

https://www.npd.com/wps/portal/npd/us/about-npd/

 

Link to author - Liam Callahan

 

Note that people can peruse their multiple studies they have published over the years and make their own judgements. You can also peruse the kind of companies they have done work for in the past.

 

This is NOT a statement to the validity of the study. Only some background to consider whether or not this is a reputable industry study organization.

 

The second point I would present is that NPD has been controversial in the industry in the way that they refuse to follow "industry norms" with respect to player categorization and revenue models, instead choosing to create their own labels and groups. They rarely use the simplified terms "hardcore" and "casual" in the same study, though obviously casual is used in the one above.

 

Third, there are studies in the industry that counter NPD results. Some companies criticize NPDs information gathering methods, while others find their refusal to accept normal industry labels odd.

 

Personally, I find the site quite reputable and enjoy reading their studies on a regular basis. The company I work for has hired them twice for market research.

 

Changed the color to yellow green, hopefully that is easier on the eyes.

 

Thanks for the color change and the links.

 

And now I see why the report felt like it came from a newspaper, and seemed to only skim the surface of PC gamers.

 

But if the definition of their terms are rarely the same from one report to the next, it makes me feel like they didn't actually look that deep into... Our spending habits, play type habits versus time habits, and so forth.

[OddballEasyEight]

I don't raid.

 

I don't PvP.

 

I don't do HMFP's.

 

I'm not "hardcore" in anyones definition on these forums by a long stretch.

 

I've been called "casual" more times than I can remember.

 

I play the game for the story and record those storylines and put them on youtube.

At most I grind some dailies every now and then to get extra credits.

 

 

But in this study, I fall under the "Heavy Core" category.

And it's true that I've spent inordinate amounts of money on this game alone.

 

But I'm still a casual.

 

 

So I'd caution anyone trying to use this study as some sort of proof for companies that "hardcore" players are important.

WildStar is completely redesigning their end-game because their own internal studies have shown that an extremely small portion of people are actually spending time doing the hard-core stuff in the game.

 

Casuals rule the market. But not the casuals from this article, but the people that MMO gamers call casuals, who still spend tons of time in the games and spend alot of money on the game, but they just don't do all that much "hardcore" stuff.

 

The study itself is probably sound.

People who spend more time in a game tend to spend more money on it.

But it doesn't tell you what type of activity they do in the game.

They could be hardcore raiding with their guild.

Or they could be spending hours decorating their stronghold.

Edited September 11, 2014 by OddballEasyEight

[MillionsKNives]

I think it's a pretty interesting study, and while I don't think that it needs to (or intends to be) held up as gospel, I think that it does give some interesting insight into differences between gamer types. For instance, their conclusion about the gender differences in each group pretty much fit my expectations. Males tend to dominate the more traditional gaming market, while females dominate the much more simplistic browser market.

 

And this does not even account for the "farmville" crowd. How many of those ended up in the Heavy Core group? I mean it is a game (well not really, well... no not really) in a technical term.

 

Might want to reread this part:

* In order to qualify as a core gamer, respondents had to currently play Action/Adventure, Fighting, Flight, Massively Multi-Player (MMO), Racing, Real Time Strategy, Role-Playing, Shooter, or Sport games on a PC/Mac.

 

This is by far not a dynamic representation anyways. What if they got a house like mine? That would be 2 adults and 5 kids, all but one over the age of 9 (and why was 9 the cut off, my 8 yo plays SWTOR), all play games...

 

That would probably be why they didn't go to a single household and give the survey to only 5 people, and instead had a few thousand people complete the survey.

[LordArtemis]

Yes, I think the study makes it clear that the classification being used is based on time played, and to note includes almost all types of PC games, not just MMOs. So it is a general study of the current market using very broad qualification terms.

 

I do, however, think the sample is sufficient for the sake of the study.

[CKNORTH]

All studies are inconclusive and are an attempt to market the community that funds the study in order to sway consumers.

[LordArtemis]

All studies are inconclusive and are an attempt to market the community that funds the study in order to sway consumers.

 

Well....actually most studies are commissioned. Companies need to know who they are selling to, and what kind of market they can expect now and in the future.

[CKNORTH]

Well....actually most studies are commissioned. Companies need to know who they are selling to, and what kind of market they can expect now and in the future.

 

Usually though they are bias not only by their Criteria but also the fact they are funding the study, but that is the point you make that they are seeking information, but at the same time how many people follow the study and don't eat corn flakes because corn isn't healthy? Or adds to much corm to the flake? Because a study as done by General Mills and not Kellogg's?

[LordArtemis]

Usually though they are bias not only by their Criteria but also the fact they are funding the study, but that is the point you make that they are seeking information, but at the same time how many people follow the study and don't eat corn flakes because corn isn't healthy? Or adds to much corm to the flake? Because a study as done by General Mills and not Kellogg's?

 

Well, I am not sure I understand the point you are trying to make...and that does not mean you are not making it properly. I might just misunderstand what you mean.

 

Companies pay outside agencies to do studies on a potential market for a business plan. A study commissioned in this manner will generally not contain bias because the company is seeking information for itself.

 

However, if a study is run by an outside agency in DEFENSE of a particular company that funds that study, it most certainly could be biased, and I would expect most folks would assume that.

Edited September 11, 2014 by LordArtemis

[CKNORTH]

However, if a study is run by an outside agency in DEFENSE of a particular company that funds that study, it most certainly could be biased, and I would expect most folks would assume that.

 

This is what I meant, mostly because in general people watch the news hear some study and buy into the recommendation etc etc I guess my point in the current OP topic is that in about 2 months I have been logging my time I have now probably over 33+ days of game time! defining that hard core to casual is highly skewed. Am I hard core no. But in LOTRO I grew strawberry's to make read dyes for two years, in EQ I was almost at 900 days of Played time on my main before I quit, sad but true Lol!

[LordArtemis]

This is what I meant, mostly because in general people watch the news hear some study and buy into the recommendation etc etc I guess my point in the current OP topic is that in about 2 months I have been logging my time I have now probably over 33+ days of game time! defining that hard core to casual is highly skewed. Am I hard core no. But in LOTRO I grew strawberry's to make read dyes for two years, in EQ I was almost at 900 days of Played time on my main before I quit, sad but true Lol!

 

Fair enough. To be fair you are not the only person that finds their classification methods odd. I also do not always agree with how they classify players.

 

But one way to look at it is this....the classification really does not touch on the type of player with respect to content...rather with respect to potential revenue IMO. In that respect, they could have classified players this way....

 

Whales

Invested

Transitory

 

...and in that respect one can perhaps see the intent and point of the study. I believe it is drawing a line between those that play often, play sometimes, and play rarely, and whether those players are male or female. The point was to look at how much was spent by each type.

 

I think the titles they granted player types are really arbitrary.