Gamestop: 360 returns are down

[Aikouka]

Originally posted by: CasioTech
You just said it yourself. 50% are aged 33 on average. The other 50% are kids who would destroy that data.

I only said how many are in that middle group, I never even mentioned how many are in the surrounding groups.

Check the chart on the website, it's about 25% for each surrounding group, which yet again taking the median age will let it round out to around 33.

http://www.theesa.com/facts/gamer_data.php

But still, even taking that, we have no idea what the ages are. The people in the other category could be around 60 or so, which is a fairly good offset. Who knows.

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: CasioTech

Originally posted by: Aikouka
You can't say the study is bogus unless you know how the study was conducted. I perused the website and was unable to find any comments on their sample size, etc. Also, if you go to another section, it details out the age groups and shows that around 50% of the gamers are age 18 to 46 (I think that was the gap).

Although no matter what, unless you have a study to back up your own idea of "no, 33 is not the median" then just keep your quiet. You have no data to back your own claims up other than what you believe. Personal beliefs are not adequate enough to debunk an entire study unless the study claims all encompassing and you're a contradiction to that (which I doubt you'll find a study claiming universal quantification in their logical remarks anyway).

You just said it yourself. 50% are aged 33 on average. The other 50% are kids who would destroy that data.

Just shut up already.

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-b...s_index.php?story=9342

According to the report, which questioned a sample of 1,700 U.S. households, 69 percent of American ?heads of households? play computer or video games. The average gamer was said to be thirty-three years of age, with 31 percent under eighteen years of age, 44 percent between eighteen and forty-nine and 25 percent fifty years or older. The average age of the most frequent game purchaser is forty years of age.

They're not just making shit up. And before you question the number of households, that is more than the number of people who are polled in most presidential election polls (they usually use ~1000 people and have a margin of error of +/- 3%).

If you want to criticize the statistic (and really, we would all prefer that you just shut the hell up), question the fact that there is no mention of the number of hours per week spent gaming. If you weighted the average based on hours spent gaming, you'd see the number dropped. Question the wording of the question, because for all we know they could count flash games.

But really, please just shut the hell up. Every post you make is one of the most insanely, idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent nonsense, are you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this forum is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.

That was a tall glass of pwn'd juice you just served up!

:thumbsup:

 

[purbeast0]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: CasioTech

Originally posted by: Aikouka
You can't say the study is bogus unless you know how the study was conducted. I perused the website and was unable to find any comments on their sample size, etc. Also, if you go to another section, it details out the age groups and shows that around 50% of the gamers are age 18 to 46 (I think that was the gap).

Although no matter what, unless you have a study to back up your own idea of "no, 33 is not the median" then just keep your quiet. You have no data to back your own claims up other than what you believe. Personal beliefs are not adequate enough to debunk an entire study unless the study claims all encompassing and you're a contradiction to that (which I doubt you'll find a study claiming universal quantification in their logical remarks anyway).

You just said it yourself. 50% are aged 33 on average. The other 50% are kids who would destroy that data.

Just shut up already.

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-b...s_index.php?story=9342

According to the report, which questioned a sample of 1,700 U.S. households, 69 percent of American ?heads of households? play computer or video games. The average gamer was said to be thirty-three years of age, with 31 percent under eighteen years of age, 44 percent between eighteen and forty-nine and 25 percent fifty years or older. The average age of the most frequent game purchaser is forty years of age.

They're not just making shit up. And before you question the number of households, that is more than the number of people who are polled in most presidential election polls (they usually use ~1000 people and have a margin of error of +/- 3%).

If you want to criticize the statistic (and really, we would all prefer that you just shut the hell up), question the fact that there is no mention of the number of hours per week spent gaming. If you weighted the average based on hours spent gaming, you'd see the number dropped. Question the wording of the question, because for all we know they could count flash games.

But really, please just shut the hell up. Every post you make is one of the most insanely, idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent nonsense, are you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this forum is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.

mugs for elite.

:thumbsup:

 

[CasioTech]

That's right, they are childish games and very artful because of it. I don't need to blow off heads or shoot terrorists to feel like a man.

Yes but if I were at work, I would focus on my job instead of coming here. On my days off, I would spend some time here.

You pay full taxes? With an accountant wife? Doubtful. We both know you tweak the system, just like every tax payer. I do not feel guilty since I do not feel that my money should go towards aid of illegal aliens or residents who have more children than they can handle in hopes for all the great aid the government would provide. I know plenty of single mothers who get thousands a month to raise a kid and don't need to work for a living.

I am strongly considering living with my family out in Sweden and paying 80% taxes to live in a socialist government. Atleast my taxes wouldn't be going to waste.

I am not going to waste to much of my time to find you countless video's/img's of Halo2 on PC being vastly improved. Here is one PWNED. :thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[CasioTech]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: CasioTech

Originally posted by: Aikouka
You can't say the study is bogus unless you know how the study was conducted. I perused the website and was unable to find any comments on their sample size, etc. Also, if you go to another section, it details out the age groups and shows that around 50% of the gamers are age 18 to 46 (I think that was the gap).

Although no matter what, unless you have a study to back up your own idea of "no, 33 is not the median" then just keep your quiet. You have no data to back your own claims up other than what you believe. Personal beliefs are not adequate enough to debunk an entire study unless the study claims all encompassing and you're a contradiction to that (which I doubt you'll find a study claiming universal quantification in their logical remarks anyway).

You just said it yourself. 50% are aged 33 on average. The other 50% are kids who would destroy that data.

Just shut up already.

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-b...s_index.php?story=9342

According to the report, which questioned a sample of 1,700 U.S. households, 69 percent of American ?heads of households? play computer or video games. The average gamer was said to be thirty-three years of age, with 31 percent under eighteen years of age, 44 percent between eighteen and forty-nine and 25 percent fifty years or older. The average age of the most frequent game purchaser is forty years of age.

They're not just making shit up. And before you question the number of households, that is more than the number of people who are polled in most presidential election polls (they usually use ~1000 people and have a margin of error of +/- 3%).

If you want to criticize the statistic (and really, we would all prefer that you just shut the hell up), question the fact that there is no mention of the number of hours per week spent gaming. If you weighted the average based on hours spent gaming, you'd see the number dropped. Question the wording of the question, because for all we know they could count flash games.

But really, please just shut the hell up. Every post you make is one of the most insanely, idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent nonsense, are you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this forum is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.

I'm not the one making 2 page long posts rambling about how true (when it's not) that survey is. I'm dumber from having to read your posts where every second word is idiot, dumb, stupid, troll because there is nothing insightful about your posts.

Just like I said "purchaser" is someone who buys their KIDS games.

 

[CasioTech]

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: CasioTech

Originally posted by: Aikouka
You can't say the study is bogus unless you know how the study was conducted. I perused the website and was unable to find any comments on their sample size, etc. Also, if you go to another section, it details out the age groups and shows that around 50% of the gamers are age 18 to 46 (I think that was the gap).

Although no matter what, unless you have a study to back up your own idea of "no, 33 is not the median" then just keep your quiet. You have no data to back your own claims up other than what you believe. Personal beliefs are not adequate enough to debunk an entire study unless the study claims all encompassing and you're a contradiction to that (which I doubt you'll find a study claiming universal quantification in their logical remarks anyway).

You just said it yourself. 50% are aged 33 on average. The other 50% are kids who would destroy that data.

Just shut up already.

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-b...s_index.php?story=9342

According to the report, which questioned a sample of 1,700 U.S. households, 69 percent of American ?heads of households? play computer or video games. The average gamer was said to be thirty-three years of age, with 31 percent under eighteen years of age, 44 percent between eighteen and forty-nine and 25 percent fifty years or older. The average age of the most frequent game purchaser is forty years of age.

They're not just making shit up. And before you question the number of households, that is more than the number of people who are polled in most presidential election polls (they usually use ~1000 people and have a margin of error of +/- 3%).

If you want to criticize the statistic (and really, we would all prefer that you just shut the hell up), question the fact that there is no mention of the number of hours per week spent gaming. If you weighted the average based on hours spent gaming, you'd see the number dropped. Question the wording of the question, because for all we know they could count flash games.

But really, please just shut the hell up. Every post you make is one of the most insanely, idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent nonsense, are you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this forum is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.

That was a tall glass of pwn'd juice you just served up!

:thumbsup:

:yawn; you wouldn't know a good pwnage if it rammed you up your :shocked:

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: CasioTech

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: CasioTech

Originally posted by: Aikouka
You can't say the study is bogus unless you know how the study was conducted. I perused the website and was unable to find any comments on their sample size, etc. Also, if you go to another section, it details out the age groups and shows that around 50% of the gamers are age 18 to 46 (I think that was the gap).

Although no matter what, unless you have a study to back up your own idea of "no, 33 is not the median" then just keep your quiet. You have no data to back your own claims up other than what you believe. Personal beliefs are not adequate enough to debunk an entire study unless the study claims all encompassing and you're a contradiction to that (which I doubt you'll find a study claiming universal quantification in their logical remarks anyway).

You just said it yourself. 50% are aged 33 on average. The other 50% are kids who would destroy that data.

Just shut up already.

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-b...s_index.php?story=9342

According to the report, which questioned a sample of 1,700 U.S. households, 69 percent of American ?heads of households? play computer or video games. The average gamer was said to be thirty-three years of age, with 31 percent under eighteen years of age, 44 percent between eighteen and forty-nine and 25 percent fifty years or older. The average age of the most frequent game purchaser is forty years of age.

They're not just making shit up. And before you question the number of households, that is more than the number of people who are polled in most presidential election polls (they usually use ~1000 people and have a margin of error of +/- 3%).

If you want to criticize the statistic (and really, we would all prefer that you just shut the hell up), question the fact that there is no mention of the number of hours per week spent gaming. If you weighted the average based on hours spent gaming, you'd see the number dropped. Question the wording of the question, because for all we know they could count flash games.

But really, please just shut the hell up. Every post you make is one of the most insanely, idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent nonsense, are you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this forum is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.

That was a tall glass of pwn'd juice you just served up!

:thumbsup:

:yawn; you wouldn't know a good pwnage if it rammed you up your :shocked:

No, I probably wouldn't. But it sounds like something you are intimately familiar with receiving.

 

[CasioTech]

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Originally posted by: CasioTech

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: CasioTech

Originally posted by: Aikouka
You can't say the study is bogus unless you know how the study was conducted. I perused the website and was unable to find any comments on their sample size, etc. Also, if you go to another section, it details out the age groups and shows that around 50% of the gamers are age 18 to 46 (I think that was the gap).

Although no matter what, unless you have a study to back up your own idea of "no, 33 is not the median" then just keep your quiet. You have no data to back your own claims up other than what you believe. Personal beliefs are not adequate enough to debunk an entire study unless the study claims all encompassing and you're a contradiction to that (which I doubt you'll find a study claiming universal quantification in their logical remarks anyway).

You just said it yourself. 50% are aged 33 on average. The other 50% are kids who would destroy that data.

Just shut up already.

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-b...s_index.php?story=9342

According to the report, which questioned a sample of 1,700 U.S. households, 69 percent of American ?heads of households? play computer or video games. The average gamer was said to be thirty-three years of age, with 31 percent under eighteen years of age, 44 percent between eighteen and forty-nine and 25 percent fifty years or older. The average age of the most frequent game purchaser is forty years of age.

They're not just making shit up. And before you question the number of households, that is more than the number of people who are polled in most presidential election polls (they usually use ~1000 people and have a margin of error of +/- 3%).

If you want to criticize the statistic (and really, we would all prefer that you just shut the hell up), question the fact that there is no mention of the number of hours per week spent gaming. If you weighted the average based on hours spent gaming, you'd see the number dropped. Question the wording of the question, because for all we know they could count flash games.

But really, please just shut the hell up. Every post you make is one of the most insanely, idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent nonsense, are you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this forum is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.

That was a tall glass of pwn'd juice you just served up!

:thumbsup:

:yawn; you wouldn't know a good pwnage if it rammed you up your :shocked:

No, I probably wouldn't. But it sounds like something you are intimately familiar with receiving.

yup, only by Rossman. Not by any of you half wit's.

 

[Aikouka]

Originally posted by: CasioTech
Just like I said "purchaser" is someone who buys their KIDS games.

You still have no proof for this. You can even look at some of the residents of this forum and see that they may rent or buy a game or two for their children, but most of the anecdotes that I've read are about them buying a game for them to play or for their wife.

The only point you have is that sometimes a person in the lower age category (sub-18) does not purchase their own games. But that doesn't mean that everyone in the middle and upper age class does not buy games for them self.

 

[CasioTech]

I don't need proof to see that everyone who's under 17 needs their parents to buy their games.

So you mean that, redneck lady at walmart is going home to have a nice session of God of War II?

Or that fat, old guy is going to dance, dance, dance with DDR?

Or that 55 y/o guy wearing Armani is going to rock out with Guitar Hero?




yes these are all real observations I made whilst shopping at national retailers.

 

[blurredvision]

Originally posted by: CasioTech
I am not going to waste to much of my time to find you countless video's/img's of Halo2 on PC being vastly improved. Here is one PWNED. :thumbsup::thumbsup:

Sorry man, but higher resolution != better. They've used the same textures and the same amount of polygons. Upping the resolution only showcases how ugly it is, especially in this day and age. Can you honestly say they are justified in releasing such an ugly port like Halo 2 a mere 5 months before something that looks like Crysis or UT3?

 

[CasioTech]

I guess you need another pair of glasses to see that not only the resolutions haven't improved, but lighting, texture, etc.

"Some textures have increased detail. For example, weapon textures went from 256x256 to 512x512. The team also upgraded other textures with higher-quality compression settings.

You can see the texture improvements by toggling the level-of-detail option in the video settings menu. According to the developers, setting the level of detail to low will reduce the textures down to the Xbox level. The Xbox 360 gave Halo 2 a slight image quality boost, but the graphics in the Vista port put the older version to shame. "

:thumbsup:

You can't compare that game to UT3 or Halo3 or games that were redesigned from the ground up for the next gen. I never compared it to 360. I compared it to XBOX. How could someone call it 'crap' when it's clearly, even in low res, 10x better than XBOX Halo2.

 

[blurredvision]

Originally posted by: CasioTech
I guess you need another pair of glasses to see that not only the resolutions haven't improved, but lighting, texture, etc.

You can't compare that game to UT3 or Halo3 or games that were redesigned from the ground up for the next gen. I never compared it to 360. I compared it to XBOX. How could someone call it 'crap' when it's clearly, even in low res, 10x better than XBOX Halo2.

Fine. You said, and I quote, "Halo 2 for PC looks WAY better and is much improved over the Xbox version." Compared to the XBOX version, the PC version looks like crap. Happy? Higher resolutions (i.e. anything higher than 480i/p) only stand to highlight the crappy textures and low-res polygon counts. Some games are better off at a low resolution, Halo 2 being a great example.

 

[CasioTech]

what the hell are you talking about? Did you not do the mouse over and notice the dynamic lighting effects, or raised textures on guns and everything? Those new H2 pics were beautiful, especially on the second page, second to last image really showcases it. I guess they don't call you blurredvision for nothing.

And if you can read, the polygon count was raised. You keep debating because you want my attention. I pwned you with those pictures and anyone would agree.

 

[RandomFool]

Originally posted by: CasioTech
what the hell are you talking about? Did you not do the mouse over and notice the dynamic lighting effects, or raised textures on guns and everything? Those new H2 pics were beautiful, especially on the second page, second to last image really showcases it. I guess they don't call you blurredvision for nothing.

And if you can read, the polygon count was raised. You keep debating because you want my attention. I pwned you with those pictures and anyone would agree.

I don't agree.

 

[CasioTech]

well no doubt. You can't tell the difference b/w great graphics and shit. That's why you own a wii.

 

[Aikouka]

Originally posted by: CasioTech
I don't need proof to see that everyone who's under 17 needs their parents to buy their games.

So you mean that, redneck lady at walmart is going home to have a nice session of God of War II?

Or that fat, old guy is going to dance, dance, dance with DDR?

Or that 55 y/o guy wearing Armani is going to rock out with Guitar Hero?

yes these are all real observations I made whilst shopping at national retailers.

Sigh, why don't you realize that some mere observation in a store doesn't mean anything at all. Your views are incredibly biased and don't mean anything. Unless you knew every single person in the United States or committed your own survey, you have no idea what you're talking about. Just because your mom doesn't play games doesn't mean some other dude's mom doesn't play games.

 

[RaiderJ]

If most 20-somethings are like me, then they buy their games online. Thusly, you'll not see them at the mall buying games.

 

[RandomFool]

What does owning a Wii have to do with my ability to tell the difference between great graphics and poop?

 

[CasioTech]

Originally posted by: Aikouka

Originally posted by: CasioTech
I don't need proof to see that everyone who's under 17 needs their parents to buy their games.

So you mean that, redneck lady at walmart is going home to have a nice session of God of War II?

Or that fat, old guy is going to dance, dance, dance with DDR?

Or that 55 y/o guy wearing Armani is going to rock out with Guitar Hero?

yes these are all real observations I made whilst shopping at national retailers.

Sigh, why don't you realize that some mere observation in a store doesn't mean anything at all. Your views are incredibly biased and don't mean anything. Unless you knew every single person in the United States or committed your own survey, you have no idea what you're talking about. Just because your mom doesn't play games doesn't mean some other dude's mom doesn't play games.

because I used to work at target and best buy when I was a teenager. I worked in software/media in both and I never had a grown man talk to me about games in the 2 years that I was there unless it was a recommendation for his kid. That's proof enough.

 

[purbeast0]

Originally posted by: CasioTech

Originally posted by: Aikouka

Originally posted by: CasioTech
I don't need proof to see that everyone who's under 17 needs their parents to buy their games.

So you mean that, redneck lady at walmart is going home to have a nice session of God of War II?

Or that fat, old guy is going to dance, dance, dance with DDR?

Or that 55 y/o guy wearing Armani is going to rock out with Guitar Hero?

yes these are all real observations I made whilst shopping at national retailers.

Sigh, why don't you realize that some mere observation in a store doesn't mean anything at all. Your views are incredibly biased and don't mean anything. Unless you knew every single person in the United States or committed your own survey, you have no idea what you're talking about. Just because your mom doesn't play games doesn't mean some other dude's mom doesn't play games.

because I used to work at target and best buy when I was a teenager. I worked in software/media in both and I never had a grown man talk to me about games in the 2 years that I was there unless it was a recommendation for his kid. That's proof enough.

yes, his two stores represent the entire world.

 

[CasioTech]

yes they do, because I have dealt with thousands of customers to know. I have experience; you're just a hermit.

Casiotech 1122 purebeast 0

 

[deepred98]

Why the fvck does CasioTech troll console gaming. I wish OT would take him back.

Anyways wasn't this thread about decline in 360 returns suggesting that the elite motherboard is experiancing a lot less RROD?

 

[CasioTech]

Is everything 'trolling' when someone questions the integrity of a survey? I guess to conformist noobs it must be.

 

[RandomFool]

Originally posted by: CasioTech
Is everything 'trolling' when someone questions the integrity of a survey? I guess to conformist noobs it must be.

Questioning it is one thing, stating it's wrong without any facts other than I worked in a target once is another.