379
Gamers aged 55+ account for almost a third of gamers now, and that share is on the rise.
(www.midiaresearch.com)
this post was submitted on 30 May 2024
379 points (94.6% liked)
Games
15765 readers
1111 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This can happen when the global economy is in the toilet.
If only retirees can afford to participate in a hobby, thats usually an indicator that whatever that hobby is is too expensive. A lower price would make it more prolific and generate more potential sales, likely to increase revenue overall by volume.
Like how Ferrari cars are designed for 20 year olds but only 80 year olds can afford to buy them.
I see your point, but I'm not sure I would argue gaming is an expensive hobby. You can pick up a second-hand console and a handful of games under $500. PC gaming is a different beast (obviously).
To me this number just makes logical sense. A 55 year old could easily have grown up playing video games and leaning into that towards and into retirement seems like a pretty normal next step.
I would fully expect and hope that when I retire in ~25 years I'll join the ranks of older gamers.
I would expect someone's whose 55 is probably more interested in classic games anyway. An older friend of mine was in his 20s during the 80s and has fond memories of the arcades, Atari and NES. So that's what he plays.
That would actually be interesting stats, how many play more older vs newer games. I tend to have phases where I mostly play older games and later go back to newer ones.
When a single game costs $70 I’d call it an expensive hobby.
Sure, you can buy an old gen console and only purchase old second hand games, but modern gaming is expensive.
$70 at release. Unless you need a play a game right now that price can easily drop by half or more if you wait a year for sales. There are almost no games I buy on day-one anymore.
This has the added bonus of them usually being patched to be less buggy with more quality of life improvements.
Also, $70 is still pretty cheap in the grand scheme of hobbies. Google tells me the average price of a movie ticket is $11. So rounded up that's 1 game = 6.5 movies. If a movie is 2 hours long that's 13 hours of enjoyment. I can easily sink 50+ hours into an AAA title (hell my wife just put 110 hours into FF VII Rebirth). That doesn't count replayability.
That’s my point though, movies are also considered a pretty expensive hobby. People aren’t going to theaters and piracy is sky high currently because it’s simply getting too expensive for a single movie ticket. Tickets near me, for example, are $15 minimum, with some being over $20. So for my family to go to the movies it could be $100 minimum for one movie, and god forbid anyone wants snacks.
And just like gaming, you can simply wait for every movie you want to watch to end up in the bargain bin on dvd, but imo that’s a different discussion entirely. When people talk about a hobby being expensive, they’re usually not talking about the lowest possible entry point.
I guess it would be more accurate to say that gaming and movies can be expensive, not that they inherently are. Like, you can grab a Steam Deck and solely stick to grabbing indie games during sales and ultimately not spend that much, at least relative to the alternative.
Not all gamers are triple A gamers. I'd call myself an avid gamer (I used to put in easily 80 hour weeks gaming, now it's almost always lower, but I'll still go on gaming binges during long vacations or holidays).
The vast, vast majority of my time has been WoW and LoL. I have played other games throughout the years, but usually in the same genres (mmo/moba).
A lot of these games have entry fees of below $70. Right now most of my gaming time is cata classic, and that requires $15 a month. Over time that will obviously add up, but everything adds up overtime, and $15 a month is not prohibitively expensive for most people. Also it's really only $15 for the first month, just by leveling in cata classic to max you make enough to buy a wow token, and can easily pay $0 a month every month by just using in game currency.
Man, have you ever tried bowling or god forbid golf, movies, or guns?
I've got games where I've paid the equivalent of less than a dollar per hour of entertainment and that's after optional micro-transactions.
Oh I agree, I addressed all of that in another comment. Even used movies as an example lol.
Back in my day, you paid $20-$30 for a new cartridge or tape and you fucking loved it. That's about $60-$90 in today's money.
The purchase price hasn't changed much, it's the add on expansions, online access, micro transactions, and miscellaneous bullshit.
You can buy a steam deck and play effectively an unlimited number of hours worth of cheap games. Not going to be everyone's cup of tea of course but it's definitely a very accessible way to game price wise.
Totally agree, I actually brought up the Steam Deck in another comment
When I was a teenager in the early 2000s, typical retail price for a game was $50.
That's equivalent to about $85 today.
The vast majority of the games I buy today are well under $50.
But average buying power is lower today, so dollar value alone doesn't tell the whole story.
PC gaming is much cheaper. A desktop, while being more expensive initially, will last much longer than a console. And the games on PC are much, much cheaper.
Sometimes they're free! 🏴☠️
I would say that the Steamdeck no longer makes PC gaming a different beast. Prior to that you would definitely lose people in self builds and budgeting complexities.
Games aren't ferraris. Get out of here with that. Just because you want the billion dollar games to cost $10 doesn't mean games are out of reach for everyone. Between free-to-play games and the ocean of indie games available online, gaming has never been more accessible.
The reason older people are gaming is because they're the first generation to have grown up with games as a thing. 55 year olds were children when the Atari came out. They've grown up with it. Why would they stop just because they're older?
I disagree. This is just a market maturing. Gaming is relatively new compared to other media and really started exploding in the late 80's and 90's. Someone aged 55 is still a decade away from retirement and has probably been playing games since the late 80's. It's totally possible they've been gamers the whole time.
And gaming is hardly so expensive as to be compared to Ferrari. There's still plenty of ways to play games cheap. People pick up used games and older consoles all the time. Even new, games aren't prohibitively expensive. Don't get me wrong. A new console is not cheap by any means, but there are plenty of ways to enjoy video games and not spend thousands. You don't have to have the newest stuff to enjoy games.
Also who said Ferrari's are designed for 20 year olds?
I think the point is just that young people don't participate as much as they would because they don't have the money for it. In previous decades young people had more money to spend.
The relative costs of computers, consoles and games themselves is significantly lower today than in the eighties.
We'd need per capita data over time for each age group to conclude that. Might be in the actual study, but it's behind an absurd paywall (3000 UK pounds). I think it's plausible that both groups have been increasing over time, but over 55s increased more. There is probably a hard limit on how many young people are going to enjoy gaming, whereas there is a lot of growth to be had in the over 55s group (as historically, few played games).
Consoles and Gaming PC parts (GPUs especially) are increasing in price at a time when people are struggling to pay their bills. $70 for new games now, or you can pay $120 every year, but you don't own anything. I meanz, you also don't own the $70 games either, but you extra don't own games on a subscription service. Old games are there and fine, but in comparison to the current economy, where inflation around the globe is higher than it has been on average since video games were really a thing, new games are a very expensive hobby.
Directly dollar for dollar, it may be comparable, but taking the economy into picture, games in the past were cheaper. Especially considering how much revenue video games generate now. Prices should be lower, but expected infinite business growth from shareholders is preventing that.
Enzo Ferrari, the founder of Ferrari, did. He didn't specify exactly 20 year olds, but his quote was "I build cars for young men that only rich old men can afford." Or something similar to that effect, as the quote would have been originally in italian.
When I went to college in 1987, I got sent with a $2000 computer. That's around $5600 in 2024 dollars. An Atari 2600 was $200 in 1980, which is around $1000 in 2024 dollars. Computer gaming in the 70s and 80s was for kids with rich parents. You could get a little sample, at $0.25 for a few minutes in an arcade, but most of those games would play well on a phone platform today, and you'd be paying something like $15/hour in 2024 dollars.
Today, a desktop computer or laptop is nearly ubiquitous. It may not play the latest AAA at 4k, but neither do most gamers. Even if you exclude mobile gaming, PC and console games are wildly more accessible today than when the 55+ crowd were coming of age.
That doesn't explain why the 16-34 range is the biggest one by far and why the younger the age group the more likely they are to play online games which usually are far less respecting of players times - people with responsibilities need a pause button.
Many competitive FPS games also fit this category. Play a round for 15 minutes or a few in an hour, get back to life. Games with grind are less attractive - we know it's all just wasting time.
I mean, making the comparison to motorsports just emphasizes how cheap gaming is as a hobby.
Autocross is as entry level as you can get and a typical ~$50 entry fee gets you maybe 10 minutes of seat time and it's typical to need to drive 2-3 hours each way for an event. That's before you start adding in things like the fact that a $1500 set of tires will last you a season or two at most, suspension and brake upgrades easily running a couple of thousand dollars, etc.
Start dipping into actual track time and fees jump to more like $250-750 plus around that much again for track insurance per event. And the upgrades needed for the car to hold up on track are even more expensive still. And this is all ignoring the purchase price of the car and potentially needing to trailer a dedicated track car.
I've almost certainly spent far less on PC gaming in the last 5 years combined than I have on motorsports in the past 3 months. I'm on the upper end of spending for most gamers and a dabbler at best when it comes to the cars.
The insanity of the GPU market since covid has put some upward pressure on things but A. the proliferation of great indie titles means you can get incredible value without breaking bank on the highest end equipment and B. even then, the money I spent literally tonight ordering just brake pads and rotors would buy you a 4070 all day long. And I went cheaper than I could have.
Gaming dollars go a long, long way. It's a hobby that was affordable even when I was younger and broke. It's still relatively affordable compared to many, many other hobbies.
And to prove your point even further: my friends and I went go-karting for someone's stag do a couple of weeks ago and it was £50 per person for two fifteen-minute sessions. And that's even more entry level than autocross, I'd argue!
We had to get there early, too, and get registered, get changed into overalls and helmet, etc. We had to go through an idiot-proof safety briefing. We had to wait for the previous group to finish their session. We had a break between our two sessions for drinks and to cool down / recover, and another session ran during that time, so ~twenty minutes there. All in all, our half-hour of driving probably came with around an hour and a half of downtime, which I think lowers the value proposition even more.
(Plus I got heatstroke during it and got increasingly ill as the day went on - and was unable to really eat during our restaurant meal or drink at the bars later in the day - which lowered the value proposition even more for me, ha!)
£100/hour of actual go-karting, versus £1/hour for most AAA games these days. I don't tend to like AAA games that much, for the most part, but even with all their bloat, recycled content, open-world downtime, etc, they still seem like better value per money per time than anything motorsports-related.
I agree with your general point about the economics of hobbies, but I’m not sure it applies here.
If you are sensible about it gaming is, in real buck-per-hour prices, one of the cheapest forms of entertainment available.