Picture it: the first paradox of gaming

by Vladimir Cole { Sep 30th 2006 at 3:12AM }

The first paradox of gaming: the older you are, the more money you have to spend on game goodies. The older you are, the less time you have to spend gaming.

Is there an optimal age?

Life's just not fair.

(And yes, totally inspired by Indexed.)

Tags: picture it, PictureIt

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)

Panda @ Sep 30th 2006 3:22AM

First

I suppose its true lol

Branewalker @ Sep 30th 2006 3:29AM

Well, here's what you overlook:
If you're the CHILD of an older gamer, then your ability to *obtain* pricey gaming stuff is high, and your free time to spend it high as well. Or, perhaps your spouse is a gamer...then your ability to obtain pricey gaming stuff is twice as high, and your free time to spend on it can be shared quality time as well. So, it's not so much optimal age as optimal situation.

--Branewalker

Trowble @ Sep 30th 2006 3:30AM

Damn, I guess I fall into that paradox. I buy videogames and all of the overhyped consoles that come with them, but I don't nearly get as much time as I use too. I went from a hardcore gamer to a casual gamer in the blink of a 9-to-5-job, which doesn't exactly help in the sense of time and money.

vadermaggot @ Sep 30th 2006 3:31AM

I think 25 was my "optimal age" that's when I started to be able to afford the games I want. and the systems to play them on. I know, I'm old.

mountain_rage @ Sep 30th 2006 3:39AM

I would have to say that its from 16-18, usually have jobs and usually have an abundance of time.

Denney @ Sep 30th 2006 3:40AM

I think its really the moment your able to get a part time job thats when i was able to buy my games and realy enjoyed being a gamer. plus i do have a lot of free time on my hands

shivr @ Sep 30th 2006 3:40AM

at 20, I'm just now experiencing the effects of this :// I played sooo much in the psx/n64 days but now... only the ds gets any love, though there are loads on console games I have yet to have time for...

Sander Scamper @ Sep 30th 2006 3:43AM

#5 True, but then you're doing your last years at school and getting a car.

Slo_Mo_Shun @ Sep 30th 2006 3:44AM

Unless you get a job for ESRB rating games

Wien @ Sep 30th 2006 3:46AM

Shouldnt that chart be reversed? If the age of the gamer increases from left to right, then the ability to buy games should start off low, while you are young, and increase as you get older... while your free time should be plentiful, while young, and decrease as you get older. Maybe im looking at it wierd.

Sven8705 @ Sep 30th 2006 3:54AM

The chart is color coded. Maybe that helps?

Pat @ Sep 30th 2006 3:55AM

Well, its great to be 17 :D

KBK @ Sep 30th 2006 4:10AM

Beautiful and sad, in its own sweet way.....

Infil @ Sep 30th 2006 4:18AM

#10 - The graph is correct. The age is the x-axis and the ability to afford games is the y-axis (as is the amount of spare time; they are two graphs superimposed on top of each other, with the same x-axis, and color-coded for clarity). Haven't you seen functions graphed before? :)

Lekko @ Sep 30th 2006 4:19AM

It doesn't go far enough... wait until we all retire. :o

Online Bingo and Grand Theft Batteries are going to be top sellers.

John Musco @ Sep 30th 2006 4:31AM

THAT GRAPHIC IS BACKWARDS YOU SILLY GEESE!

Miles @ Sep 30th 2006 4:32AM

This is so true. I can afford to get every console on launch now for the first time ever, but am lucky to fit in 5 hours of game time a week. :(

FSK405K @ Sep 30th 2006 4:41AM

It was 18-20....college. My days were all as follows: wake 9am, class until 4 or so, game or hang with friends until 1am. Sleep. Repeat. Except weekends, in case replace class with games. I had a few great games, my favorites, but couldn't get everything I wanted. Now I have every system and game I want, but can't keep up at all.

Q @ Sep 30th 2006 4:48AM

Shouldn't the "age" line be linear, ie, a straight line? Or do gamers age more rapidly the older they get?

Jake B @ Sep 30th 2006 5:11AM

Dont mind the chart. It is crude yes, but look at it from a supply and demand point of view. I think that is what he was trying to get across. CAPITALISM!!!

mocax @ Sep 30th 2006 5:30AM

Some other groups have flat graphs that never meet.

"always have free time, can't afford to buy any games"

"always be able to afford anything and everything, never bothered about games"

Gideon @ Sep 30th 2006 5:35AM

#19:

It is. The age is the X-axis of the graph.

bp @ Sep 30th 2006 6:03AM

I am 26 and its prefect for me right now. I graduated from college so i have a good job, money and i don’t have a family, just friends and a girlfriend. I fit about 10 hours a week sometimes more, which is plenty for me.

Yamen @ Sep 30th 2006 6:28AM

If we are to assume the linear x axis (the "Age of gamer") is increasing from a low number (0 ish) to a higher number (in terms of human age, 50 ish), then yes, the graph is backwards.

The graph IS backwards. I take this as yet another demonstration of VC's intellectual capacity.

Also, again, low level psuedo-philosophy being put out by VC. Since your posts of this sort have started, I feel the quality of Joystiq has been decreasing, directly as a result of said posts. Not saying you can't continue to tarnish Joystiq's image, just saying you shouldn't.

SomeShow @ Sep 30th 2006 7:06AM

From the time you get your first high school job till the time you graduate college is the best gamer years..

Cause you have time and money.

(it's the best part of your life anyway)

Jeffers @ Sep 30th 2006 7:12AM

That graph sure isn't backwards... amount of free time for gaming (red curve) goes down as you get older, and "ability to buy pricey game stuff" (black curve) goes up as you get older - all going to the right.

This graph is really a chart of disposable income - The optimal time for me was probably during college. Especially that year where I didn't really do anything.

John Lucas @ Sep 30th 2006 7:18AM

It's somewhat true.

I'm 30 & I have a full time job. 40 hour.
I do spend a lot of time playing games but I think the only reason I'm able to do that is because I have a night job. So my days are somewhat open at least when I'm not sleeping.

I would say my playing depth isn't what it used to be when I was a 12 year old or teen. I don't beat my games with the frequency I used to. It takes me months sometimes because I have so many games but don't concentrate on one until I beat it. So I just play a little of everything eventually working my way down to finishing one game.

The game I play most nowadays is Animal Crossing which is so casual & easygoing that it doesn't demand much from you. It impossible to beat & you can play as much or as little as you want.

I find myself "forcing" myself to concentrate on one game to master it. So I pick a genre day. I'm in an RPG mood. Let me concentrate on my RPG's this week.
I'm in an arcade sports mood. Let me get my Mario sports titles out. I basically select a game(s) of the day or game(s) of the week putting them up front in my library for easy access. And then I play in depth for as far as that week goes or whenever the game doesn't frustrate me.

I just bought 9 games this week but it probably won't be until at LEAST 6 months from now when I would have at least beaten any of them. Much less master them.

What a paradox. How do we blend the pros of youth with the pros of age discarding the cons?
John Lucas

Anonymouse Rep @ Sep 30th 2006 7:19AM

Yamen - what the hell are you talking about? Vlad has it right.

You've got the x-axis of the graph being the age of the gamer. You've got the y-axis of the graph representing both the ability of the gamer to buy games (an increasing amount as he gets older, and presumably makes more money in better jobs) and the amount of free time that said gamer has to PLAY those same games.

He may have the curve slightly off - Game buying ability will probably more of a multipe 'ess', based on low earning ability at a young age, followed by a series of increases in the age ranges of 10 - 15, 15 - 22, 22 - 30, 30 - 40, 40 - 50, and then leveling off after 50. However, the amount of free time pretty well matches - under 10, a huge amount. 10 - 15, slightly less, 15 - 22 - again, slightly less due to you're presumably attending one or two of those classes you're taking, 22 - 30 - welcome to the 8 hour work day, 30 - 40 - welcome to the 8 hour work day, the wife and kids, 40 - 50 - welcome to the 8 hour work day, wife, kids, and possible grandkids, along with the mortgage, etc.

The graph MIGHT reverse after retirement - but given the average retirement age now, the 70 year old gamer tends to be more into either casual games, board games (with real pieces and everything), card games (poker, blackjack, or canasta) - or just existing, which is a damn shame. It's going to be interesting to see what happens as people my age and younger continue to age and what happens - I'm one of the older ones in this group, such that my KIDS are the same age as a lot of you. It's people a little older than I am that tend to be the most uncomfortable around computers and technology - it simply didn't exist when they were kids and they still have no reference for it.

Fermac @ Sep 30th 2006 7:41AM

The optimal age is after starting to work (getting a sallary, yum!) and before having children. Period.

eyrie0 @ Sep 30th 2006 8:15AM

The chart *is* backwards. The chart shows that as the age of the gamer increases, amount of free time goes up and ability to buy goes down. The age of gamer arrow should be in the other direction.

Not that it really matters, I think we get the point.

Intangible 360 @ Sep 30th 2006 8:21AM

As others have said, the graph is backwards...I'm surprised more people didn't notice.

VerdigriS @ Sep 30th 2006 8:30AM

Holy crap we got some dumb people in here today...

Just look at the dern colors of the lines in relation to their color coded description on either side.

I see there are about 6 or 7 people in here who didn't graduate 9th grade math yet...

Btw this is very true. I'm 22 and just bought a 360 a couple months back with some big games (Oblivion, Dead Rising, etc..) Now when I was a youngin one of these games would have lasted me a week tops. But nowadays I just don't get that much time to play em...

But hey, doesn't that make them "worth" more to me?

Wayne @ Sep 30th 2006 8:37AM

The chart is correct, match the red line to the red text and the black line to the black text.

Quite unorthodox and the type of thing that causes major problems in the corp world, but the data representation as far as color goes is correct.

You should have written "ability" in black on the right and "time in red", also on the right.

Aw crap, who cares... I'm going to go play Gitaroo-Man Live!

Sagan @ Sep 30th 2006 8:46AM

You should draw a line for amount of pirated software and you should see that it fills the difference precisely. Because this phenomenon is the reason why children pirate so much software.

matt @ Sep 30th 2006 9:01AM

Well this chart is basically correct. except there are a few things that can change in a persons life. like a gamer spouse, or rich parents, and the list could go on and on. but in a "perfect world" lets say, the chart would be totally correct.

in5ane @ Sep 30th 2006 9:09AM

The labels of the graph are on confusing sides, but otherwise the graph is correct.

As for optimal age, I think mine was around 15/16... altho I've put about 10 hours into DOOM on XBLA which is unusual for me... (26 now)

Just more evidence gaming was really better in the past! When the good stuff hits, we all make time to play :)

Gerwurztraminer @ Sep 30th 2006 9:34AM

The chart's frelling fine!

Now, I would say high school and college. Old enough to get what you want (college) yet young enough to have less responsibility (high school) and of course there's overlap between the two.

Although, retirement for gamers will be interesting... everyone will be pining for a remake of the remake of Final Fantasy XVII or something.

ALH @ Sep 30th 2006 9:39AM

student loan+ lack of social life= WIN

Though i do find that as my gaming tastes have changed through the years, i may have more money to BUY games, but i sure as heck see less which i actually want to PLAY. Back when I had no money I would play anything so long as it was cheap enough- i spent a lot of money on playstation magazines in order to grab the free demos.

Now that you can get games for extremely cheap-to-free over the internet thanks to ebay and imports we're all pretty much spoilt for choice, even if we dont have much cash. I picked up my dreamcast and a copy of jet set radio for £13, and most of the games were well under a tenner.

ALH @ Sep 30th 2006 9:41AM

cut off my comment will you?!

My optimal age was around 16. while i had no money for games, and a very small collection of titles, i was willing to spend a lot of time getting the most out of what i had. now i have more free time and more games, but not many of them have the power to keep me engaged in an all day binge anymore.

dsub @ Sep 30th 2006 9:59AM

my optimal age for gaming was likely a few years ago when I was 21/22. I was working a job that netted me lots of money for very little time spend at work. I had just paid my first car off, and my insurance payments dropped. I had no credit cards or other debts to pay and almost every dime I made was available for my spending. During this time I was able to buy an XBOX, a PS2, and a GCN and build up a nice collection of 20-30 games a piece for each system and I had ample time to play ALL of them since I was only working 15 hours a week and going to school part time.

Now I work 40+ hours a week and go to school fulltime. I have a fiancee that I love to spend time with as well, and thankfully she enjoys playing some video games. The amount of money I make has risen tremendously (I've been able to buy a 360 at launch, a 50"DLP TV, a brand spankin new PC with dual 7950GT's, and a kickass surround system) all within the past year. Unfortunately, I have MAYBE 2-3 hours a day that I have available to play games...and thats only if I get my homework done and don't have to study.

For instance, the last game I bought was Dead Rising the week it came out, and I still have yet to beat it.

There is definately a "prime age" in gaming, and I passed it for sure. I can only look forward to my summers off (I'm graduating and becoming a high school art teacher) to have lots more time for gaming...until the kids come along. I don't necessarily hate it really either...it'd be nice to have more time, but that's life.

karaokequeen3 @ Sep 30th 2006 10:10AM

Oh I'd agree with the idea in it's entirety. I don;t have a 9 to 5 job - more like 5 (am) to 8 (pm) job. Not exactly fun. And the weekends just get so much more compacted.

Vlad's Cat @ Sep 30th 2006 10:19AM

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v706/ScottMaximus/veryscientificgraph.jpg

The Correct Graph.

Frank Stipes @ Sep 30th 2006 10:22AM

What would be interesting to look into is how the age-time paradox affects -- if at all -- buying habits. I work full-time (and then some), have a wife and baby, and if I'm able to squeeze an hour a night for myself it's a miracle (and I'll spend at least 50 minutes of that hour debating whether I want to read a book, watch TV, play a videogame, or eat something). Yet I buy more videogame gear than ever, in the hope that well, maybe I'll have time someday to play with it all. That's looking doubtful, yet I continue to buy. I really have no answer as to why, when logically, I know all I'm doing is collecting a lot of unused stuff for my child to oneday inherit (and no doubt eBay). Maybe it's the 'hope' of having time to play it oneday that is enough. I'd be curious if other people experience the same. Plus, I think I simply enjoyed playing more when I was a kid with little money. I can still remember mowing laws half a summer to afford a copy of Atari 2600 Asteriods (that'll give you an idea of just how ancient I am). Played it the whole fall. That's never going to happen again.

Pixelantes Anonymous @ Sep 30th 2006 10:24AM

You gotta add the number of children and the existance/non-existance of a wife/gf in that little chart.

Let's see those Harvard Business School skills in action. We want 5-dimensional line charts! :)

shirizaki @ Sep 30th 2006 10:31AM

Early 20s is the age. You go out with friends, but you don't have a steady job, but you can gather enough bucks for a game or two and can play them out. It also depends on how much free time you make. I have tons of it, but no money. Then there's the renting/borrowing option. Or playing games at a friends house.

In other words: if you want to play, you'll make time.

sugarflyer @ Sep 30th 2006 10:34AM

There are clearly some mathematically challenged readers around here. Yamen: you're clueless. The graph is clear and correct.

Andy J @ Sep 30th 2006 10:42AM

Let's discuss this:

The age of gamers PLAYING games to the age of gamers READING VIDEO GAME BLOGS...

You gotta think that most kids are in school while most of these Joystiq posts are created and we at work are refreshing our windows.

MasterDePong @ Sep 30th 2006 10:46AM

This graph is very cool! I must say I'm sick of people bitching about Joystiq's creative, thought provoking posts (I'm looking at you, Yamen!). I for one like them, and it's one of the main reasons I keep coming to this site. I enjoy the mix of hard news and gaming philosophy, if you want to call it that.

Keep up the good work Joystiq! Oh, and thanks for pointing out Indexed. I had never heard of it before, and it's very funny!

Oh, and those of you that think the graph is backwards are smoking crack. It's not that freaking hard to understand, geesh!

CB