NPD's new study, Girl Power: Understanding This Important Consumer Segment, finds that girls between 2 and 14 years old are increasingly wasting spending their time gaming. The gaming disease apparently strikes between ages 6 and 8 and finally metastasizes in the brain between 9 and 12, when girls begin "migrating to computer and video games, especially virtual world online games."

NPD's industry analyst, Anita Frazier, says that 50% of girls between 2 and 14 years old still play with "traditional" items like "dolls, plush, and arts & crafts" in this digital age. She notes that the growth in use of social networking and virtual world sites by women should be recognized by manufacturers who, you know, want money from the ladies.

Market research firm Parks Associate has released a study claiming subscription-based MMOs aren't dropping enough loot for its players. According to the group's Electronic Gaming in the Digital Home II study (via Worlds in Motion) only the hardcore gamers were into the subscription model, whereas the casual gamer showed "significant interest" in the free-to-play, microtransaction model.

Another part of the study found that, of the non-MMO players polled, 14% would be interested to play if they could play for free, whereas only 2% of that group was interested in subscription-based MMOs. As we always caution, studies generally aren't worth more than the pixels they're displayed on (unless it's a nice monitor, then they're probably worth less). In a recent polling at Joystiq HQ, games that are "free to play" were also seven times more likely to grab our attention than games that weren't free.

Said Director of Broadband and Gaming Yuanzhe (Michael) Cai: "World of Warcraft, with over 10 million players, exceeded expectations for subscription-based MMORPGs, but it's unlikely any other publishers will achieve the same in the near term using a subscription model." Of course, that's kind of a no-brainer even for WoW's competitors.

[Via Eurogamer]

A study by Nielsen Games found that the Wii's usage comes in second compared to other consoles the Xbox 360. Among 10-26 year olds, the Xbox 360 reigned supreme, while for those above 27, the PS3 Xbox 360 also held a steady lead. Interestingly, the Wii owned the middle ground in usage for both demographics, with the Xbox 360 and PS3 switching places.

The Nielsen study, conducted between April 2007 and February 2008, lumps all that data into one pool, so it's not hard to see where some issues might lie. It would certainly be interesting to see monthly breakdowns and observe if the Wii and PS3 received noticeable usage increases once high-profile games started showing up during Holiday '07. We also wonder what effect usage of console Blu-ray or DVD functionality had on the data. But what we're actually most curious about, is where the PS2 would be had it been incorporated into the data?

Update: Nielsen amended its 27+ data, apparently the Xbox 360 and PS3 info was accidentally reversed for the demographic; fixed image to match.

Source: How much use does Wii get?
Source: Correction

[Via GameDaily, Thanks Master X]

Researchers at the British Psychological Society's Annual Conference in Dublin presented a study showing that video game addicts have similar personality traits to those with Aspergers (a high funcutioning form of autism). The study of 391 gamers (86% male) found that players who showed signs of "addiction" had three personality traits that are typically linked with Aspergers: neuroticism, lack of extraversion and agreeableness.

The scientists don't believe these people have Aspergers, but "share some of the same characteristics because they find it easier to empathize with computer systems than other people." They say professions like engineers, mathematicians and computer scientists are closer to the non-empathizing end of the spectrum, but Aspergers is much farther along that line. Their main point is their research supports the idea that those heavily involved in game playing may be nearer to the autistic spectrum disorders than those who don't play at all -- and here we thought it just meant they were nearer to nerd spectrum disorders.

The link between playing violent games and short-term increases in amorphous measures of "aggression" has been well-established by science. Or has it? Develop takes note of a new study being presented today that shows gamers tended to feel more relaxed after some good, old-fashioned online gaming.

The Middlesex University researchers studied 292 World of Warcraft players, asking them to fill out personality and aggression surveys before and after a two-hour play session. The results showed "higher levels of relaxation before and after playing the game," researcher Jane Barnett said, though she added that the results "did very much depend on personality type."

Barnett said she hopes the study will lead to a questionnaire that can identify "the type of gamer who is likely to transfer their online aggression into everyday life." Probably the same type of gamer who'd transfer their love of Pac-Man to a career in competitive eating, if we had to guess.

NPD's new "Online Gaming 2008" report states that 72% of people in the US played games in 2007, up from 64% in 2006 (although the quantity of play isn't defined) and half these people say they play online. The PC was the dominant platform for 90% of online gamers, consoles came in with 19% and the humble cell phone with 3%. Of the console owners, 50% said they used Xbox Live and the data showed they spent the most time playing online per week (followed by PC and PS3). The survey was conducted using a sample of 20,240 members of the NPD Consumer Panel.

Overall though, NPD's data shows online gaming is still "small compared to offline gaming." Only 13% of online gamers spend 20 hours or more per week playing. Online gaming is also currently driven by kids, with 40% of online gamers being under the age of 18. Interestingly, according to NPD's data, multiple console ownership in the US is very low. Only 3% of respondents said they owned two current gen consoles (yes, that includes Wii), while only 2% owned all three.

It's not hard to find studies and media reports both for and against the damning effects of video game violence on children, but a new book coming out in April seems to be attempting to forge a new, more reasonable middle ground in the debate. Grand Theft Childhood is based on a June 2007 study in which the book's authors studied over 1,200 middle-schoolers in two states . Rather than trying to measure levels of "aggression" or map brain activity, the study asked the students to fill out surveys on their gameplay habits. The results found that while a large majority of students played violent games, most played "to get their anger out."

The authors say their research is different because they went in with no preconceived notions. "When we began our research, we didn't fully grasp how politicized and emotional this topic was," said Dr. Cheryl K. Olsen in an interview with The Game Couch. "It may take a new generation of researchers and advocates, open to both pros and cons of video games (and who've played video games themselves!), to start truly productive discussions." Let's hope they hurry. We can't take many more screaming matches.

Intuitively, winning at a video game should be more fun than losing, right? Thankfully, science is around to show us exactly how our intuition is totally wrong. According to a study in the February issue of science journal Emotion, "the wounding and death of the player's own character may increase some aspect of positive emotion."


The study also found that students that scored higher on a common test for "psychoticism" experienced less anxiety when shooting opponents. So the next time you enjoy fragging an opponent in Halo 3, remember ... there is a good chance you are psychotic!

[Via GameCritics. Photo Credit]

Time for another, perhaps sensationalized violent video game report from a local TV station. Omaha's KETV ran a story (which currently appears on the front page of CNN.com) on how video games "normalize" killing, according to doctors.

We had trouble finding studies from all the universities they cited and certainly none of them are recent publications (the above Indiana University brains scans come from a 2006 report), so why report on this now? Enter Dr. Greg Snyder, a psychologist at Omaha's Children's Hospital.

After citing three university studies that only go so far as to conclude games can desensitize children to violence, the report then inserts the following quote from Snyder: "The more normal it is, the more likely it is they're going to activate or engage in those behaviors when provoked or even unprovoked." Though we're not trying to discredit his opinion, the evidence presented in the report does not lean towards that conclusion (although, given the report's structure, that's what the reader is led to believe).

After contacting a doctor for one side of the argument, does KETV find an equally reputable contrasting viewpoint? No -- or at least, there's no indication that gaming researchers or industry officials such as the ESRB or ESA were reached for contact. Said the report, "the video game industry notes that the research also finds that teenagers have similar responses to violence in movies or TV" (no studies or quotes are cited). Instead, those that provide the counterpoint quotes include two teenagers playing Gears of War and a manager of general operations for Gamers in Omaha -- not two sources likely to be held in the same regard as a psychologist.

[Thanks to everyone who sent this in!]

The Wii isn't just a good rehab device for patients, it's apparently a good warm-up tool for surgeons as well. A study at the Banner Good Samaritan Medical Center claims that certain types of games are effective as a precision control prep before surgery.

Surgeons who did an hour of gaming scored nearly 50% higher on tool control and overall performance in a virtual reality simulator. The Wii's Marble Mania was particularly effective due to the controlled movements necessary -- ironically, Trauma Center isn't mentioned at all. The researchers will present at the Medicine Meets Virtual Reality conference later in January.

A study done by "bringers of the sales data" NPD found that people prefer to play video games together and that a majority of gamers view playing as a way to alleviate stress. Once again, like many studies, there's a lot of "duh" here, but the thing about studies is that until somebody actually does one the data stays anecdotal. The study finds that 63% of the US population play video games, with 30% saying they are playing more games than last year, 30% saying they are playing less games, and 40% saying they are playing about the same amount.

The full release from NPD can be found after the break. Hardcore gamers were found to be squarely in the male 18-34 range and spend "significant amounts of time and money to gaming." The report states that consumers are fickle and that the lighter gamers have many options distracting them and their free time. NPD says the industry must compel those people to stay with gaming and the rewards will be great. We're pretty sure every major casual games company swimming in their money bin of cash has figured this out already.

[Via Press Release]

So here's a logical reaction: Parents who don't approve of their children's video game habits, instead of playing with them, simply voice their resentment of games and then look the other way. Makes sense, right? Right?

The results of a poll released by the Associated Press and AOL Games show that 43% of parents never join or even watch their children playing video games. The AP's coverage is peppered with the oh-so-normal parental sound-bytes in response to gaming, calling it a waste of time, and claiming that the violence and obsession are unhealthy for young kids.

What we don't get is if the parents are so concerned over what their kids are playing, then why aren't they paying closer attention? It seems that John Davison's latest venture couldn't come soon enough.

Full disclosure: AOL owns Weblogs, Inc., which in turn owns Joystiq. Joystiq, in turn, pwns.

[Thanks, Jan]

*cue cheesy infomercial music*

Hey, YOU! Tired of using common sense and personal experience to confirm really obvious assertions? Then you should try science. Yes, through use of our patented scientific method, science will have your theories looking less questionable and more sound in no time.

Just look at this study from Syracuse University Psychology Professor Joshua Smyth. At first all four groups of gamers look exactly the same. But just apply the magic of science and you'll see that the group playing MMO Dark Age of Camelot spent on average twice as long with the game on a weekly basis, resulting in "significantly lower overall health and poorer sleep." Once again, science improves our lives by confirming something that every gamer already knows.

Remember, that's science: Confirming observations since ancient Egypt.

A new study by Electronic Entertainment Design and Research (EEDAR) suggests that the Xbox 360 achievement system (here called "accomplishments" for some reason) has an effect on the title's success. According to the press release, EEDAR found a "strong connection between a game title's diversity of Accomplishment types with that game's profitability -- pointing to the idea that the more diverse the Accomplishments available to the user, the more enjoyable the game, higher review scores, more units sold."

We're hesitant to conclude that the number of achievements is a causality for gamer enjoyment, although we know of a few people who swear by their gamerscore (and a handful of games whose sales, but not necessarily reviews, were greatly increased because of their achievements). We wonder if the correlation is instead a sign that developers who spend more time ensuring the quality of their games also extend that hard-work towards the achievements, as well. If Valve's The Orange Box sells a bajillion copies, it's not necessarily because it has 99 ways to up your gamerscore.