Full report below:
>Now, a new survey of US adults from the Pew Research Center shows that people who apply the "gamer" label to themselves are quite different from the wider population that plays games, both demographically and in terms of opinions about the medium. Those self-described gamers are much more likely to be young, male, non-white, and poor when compared to "non-gamer" game players.
>The proportion of the population that says it "ever" plays video games is roughly equivalent across gender, racial, and income lines. But the roughly 20 percent sliver of game players that refer to themselves as "gamers" (people who "describe themselves as a fan of gaming or a frequent game-player," according to the survey wording) looks very different from the larger world of game players and from those that don't play games at all.
>For instance, men and women are almost equally likely to play games at all, according to the survey, with 50 percent of men and 48 percent of women saying they play. But men are much more likely to apply the "gamer" label to themselves: 15 percent of men versus 6 percent of women. That difference in self-identification may explain why 60 percent of all respondents thought most people who play video games are men, even though the survey's topline results don't really bear this out.
Thoughts? Some really interesting statistics here.
More charts
Didnt you hear OP? All Gamers are rich white men.
They are also dead.
>>320407598
Most people don't identify with anything or don't like labels, I don't call myself a gamer because it's a stupid made up word.
Few things to note here:
The fact that gamers are "poorer" is linked to the fact that most gamers are younger, which is in effect linked to the overall youth of the gaming industry.
Also I believe "gamer" has a certain stigma to different ages, races, and genders. And a better indicator (and more useful to the actual industry) would be amount spent (or amount spent by parent on a child)
i've been playing games since i was 3 years old, and i don't call myself a gamer because it means you're a stereotype, like "metalheads" and "foodies"
you make your consumption of a product your identity, it's a little weird and kind of dehumanizing
>>320407905
>less than 30k a year is poor
What?
>>320409310
the fuck, when you smoke cigarettes you are a smoker
how simple is that?
but whatever, you probably live in America and have the right to freespeech
>science literally proves that GG is made up of unwashed poor brown people
Can you stop coming here to whine about morons on twitter now?
>>320410526
So will liberals start defending them now?
>>320410724
They'll call them Uncle Toms
>>320407598
Not a good study.
Poor youth are much more likely to put labels on themselves. They stick gamer there.
Lots of people who play games fairly often (real games) probably haven't labelled themselves as gamers.
Really the study shows nothing. They should have asked people what kind of games they played and then we could have seen how many of the population play mobile trash vs actual games.
>>320408616
How are people still angry about their inability to read properly?
>no asian
>>320409397
Poor when compared to the others. Not necessarily poor though.
>>320409643
No, when you smoke you're an enormous faggot that doesn't deserve to breathe clean oxygen.
>>320409397
Yup. in Obama's America.
>>320409397
It's around $15 an hour. Not really well off, but enough to get you by.
Though a significant portion of that is probably minimum wage or slightly above, which is nowhere near livable without benefits or leeching off your parents.
>>320409310
>>320408979
>>320411109
The "gamer" label is added by the report, it's not what the people in the survey answered to.
The question wasn't "are you a gamer?"
The question was "are you a fan of gaming or a frequent game-player?"
>>320412151
>Now, a new survey of US adults from the Pew Research Center shows that people who apply the "gamer" label to themselves are quite different from the wider population that plays games
Doesn't say that at all
>>320411819
That was considered poor even in the Bush era.
>>320411865
>>320411819
>>320411615
Pastafag here
I live with my mom and my sister, and none of us work
My parents are divorced and my dad earns 2k a month
We're considered lower-middle class here
Is life really that expensive in the US?
>>320412237
>The proportion of the population that says it "ever" plays video games is roughly equivalent across gender, racial, and income lines. But the roughly 20 percent sliver of game players that refer to themselves as "gamers" (people who "describe themselves as a fan of gaming or a frequent game-player," according to the survey wording) looks very different from the larger world of game players and from those that don't play games at all.
> But the roughly 20 percent sliver of game players that refer to themselves as "gamers" (people who "describe themselves as a fan of gaming or a frequent game-player," according to the survey wording)
You could read more than the first sentence of the OP, you know.
>>320412352
Yes. There's no way a family of four could live off of 2k a month without government welfare in the US.
A single person might be able to scrape by, but not an entire family.
>>320407598
So, PS4 ad campaign #4thegamers is directed too little niggers?
Well, it explains a lot.
>>320412821
You don't remember the Marcus PSP ads?
>>320407598
>Self-proclaimed
you can proclam anything
thar doesnt make it true
whatever it blows up that whole leigh alexander narrative but that shit is a year old and they have other reasons those types of people now
That survey called people on landline telephone only.
/v/ confirmed for non white
>>320412983
I do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQtQWQIl3mI
>>320413045
If you are asked "do you frequently play games?", why would you lie in the affirmative?
This isn't people proclaiming themselves to be gamers, it's them being labeled because of their response to a posed question.
>>320413359
>/v/
>people who apply the "gamer" label to themselves
pick one kek
>>320412983
I didn't browse English interwebs till 2010.
>>320413162
If anything it confirms it. "Gamers" no longer make up the majority of the audience for videogames, so game makers don't have to exclusively pander to them. It was never about race.
