Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

TV Losing to Video Games 291

Posted by CmdrTaco from the game-all-night-and-party-e-ver-ee-day dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Sony studies gaming habits finds that most games are played from 5pm to 11pm. Shock! The days of the week might have been more useful..." of course the real point of all this is that the younger generation is turning away from television and turning to games.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

TV Losing to Video Games More

TV Losing to Video Games

Comments Filter:

  • Cinemax still reigns supreme (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @10:59AM (#8509674)
    most games are played from 5pm to 11pm
    And what happens at 11pm? Oh yeah... Cinemax starts their quality material.

  • Results: (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Vo0k ( 760020 )
    From 5pm to 11pm I go watch TV, read some book or do anything but websurfing, as due to all the online gamers my shared connection slows down to a crawl and you just can't do anything reasonable online.

  • Must be students (Score:5, Funny)

    by Lev13than ( 581686 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @11:00AM (#8509691) Homepage
    The 5-11 slot must be just for students.

    I have to go to work every day, so most of my video game playing is restricted to 9am-5pm.

  • Simple Reason (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jtwJGuevara ( 749094 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @11:00AM (#8509692)
    Simple reason - the quality of video games is consistently improving, and the quality of television material is consisently regressing. What kid wouldn't want to play the latest Final Fantasy/Legend of Zelda/id first person shooter when the other option is watching American Idol.

    • Re:Simple Reason (Score:3, Informative)

      by AbbyNormal ( 216235 )
      Hear hear! Same sense for me and my wife. Nothing good on TV at night or all re-runs because "sweeps" is starting/ending...Tired of it all. We just started playing multiplayer James Bond on the XBox during the regular TV time.

      In my own very jaded opinion, the only thing worth watching nowadays are the occasional PBS/History Channel specials,Mythbusters (gotta respect the "Scientific" blowing up/smashing of stuff), Simpsons. I guess I just don't get the draw for the Reality Shows?

    • Re:Simple Reason (Score:3, Interesting)

      by adamruck ( 638131 )
      right on

      I hate tv(dont play games either but thats a different story)

      Here is a clip from an essay I am working on.

      -----

      The average American watches about four hours of television a day. Annually Americans spend two hundred and fifty billion hours in front of the tube. Some people might argue that there is good quality content available to watch. Over 80 percent of television is devoted to commercials and stories about violence and war. Content that contains public service announcements only consists of

      • Over 80 percent of television is devoted to commercials and stories about

        violence and war

        I wonder what that percantage is minus the commercials. Thats a pretty strange grouping for a statisctic. I'm curious how much of that percent of 80% thats about war etc is either the news (there was a war last year, and there are a tens of news channels) or something like the history channel. Yes, kids see too much violence on tv, but that statistic is obviously skewed. Not that i disbelieve it, but i wonder what t

      • Re:Simple Reason (Score:2, Informative)

        by lambent ( 234167 )
        Interesting topic to explore, but there are some issues i think you need to address.

        "80 percent of television is devoted to commercials and stories about violence and war." : Lumping together a History Channel documentary about WWII along with the latest infomercial about Ron Popeil's juicer/dehydrater/rehydrater doesn't seem fair or accurate.

        As for 0.7% of airtime for public service announcements ... that averages 10 minutes a day. Frankly, when I watch tv, I don't see ANY public service announcements,

    • Re:Simple Reason (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @11:18AM (#8509912) Homepage
      well the fact that many people that have PVR's like a myth tv or a tivo are not chained to the networks anymore. missing a show's air-time is nothing as it's available for viewing later.

      In fact cince I built my mythTV box, nobody in myu house has watched regular broadcanst CAble tv for 2 months. we watch the mythtv, specifically shows we wanted and then have multiplayer bouts of gaming.. (this rules for family interaction.. nothing like a 4 player mariocartGC race to get the family trash talking each other and interacting.)

      it's amazing how much actual TV is 100% worthless and getting worse every day.

    • Re:Simple Reason (Score:2, Insightful)

      by FatRatBastard ( 7583 )
      Simple reason - the quality of video games is consistently improving, and the quality of television material is consisently regressing.

      I don't know if I quite buy that, at least on the TV side. People have a tendency to look back at the past as some "golden era." TV today is just as good/crap as it was before. And while games have been getting technically better I remember wasting A LOT of time back in the 80s on my friend's Atari 2600. By today's standard technically crap, but we were still glued to

      • Re:Simple Reason (Score:3, Interesting)

        by tekunokurato ( 531385 )
        I don't think he was saying that demographics weren't changing as well. He didn't say "what person...?" He said "what kid...?"

        Also, you, me him -- we're NERDS, y'know? Pong and adventure weren't enough to draw the average person away from TV, even if they dres US away from TV (well, I'm a bit younger, so let's say FF1 and Dragon Warrior for me). GTA, on the other hand, IS good enough to draw the average person away from TV. Trust me, I and my friends have plenty of little brothers, and they and their frien

    • Re:Simple Reason (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ogreinside ( 223917 ) *
      Exactly. The generation of tv is passing, as evident by the lack of actual actors in the bulk of tv shows now.

      I'm not sure what the number are, but where are women in this figure? Why do they only report men? I know my wife will watch anything, anytime, anywhere, as long as it is mindless. I, on the other hand, need something that stimulates my mind. Interactive worlds, strategy, puzzles, and blowing shit up.

      No matter how hard they try, television shows will never be as interactive as an online gamin
    • While it is true that the bulk of games has improved considerably, the peak titles are not better today than at any time before in history. And since I've always bought top games only, the increased quality of video games hasn't affected me personally.

      I don't watch TV at all, though.
  • Those born in the 70s like me? The 60s? I mean, I know a lot of "older" people in their 30-40s who play games.

    It's not just a younger generation thing. Unless a 44 year old is considered younger.
  • With games going more and more realistic, I dont see whats the problem with games beating TV, which is kind of dull: turn on and watch. Hell, its not about Pong anymore.

  • TV *and* GAMES (Score:3, Insightful)

    by $$$$$exyGal ( 638164 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @11:01AM (#8509708) Homepage Journal
    Yes, but most of those people are multi-tasking with a TV show in the background.

    • Not really... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Not really since console users are using the tv to play their games on. Those on PC with a tv nearby are too focused on their game to be bothered with endless commercials and brainless sitcoms. PC gamers would rather just turn the tv off.
  • I prefer to play games where I get to watch TV. Or I play the Sims and watch virtual people watch virtual TV. Fun!

  • Just in time for Adult Swim (Score:3, Funny)

    by Bones3D_mac ( 324952 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @11:01AM (#8509711)
    Who would miss Family Guy and Futurama for a game?
    • I would... And have. And will again. Reading and RTCW (well, I'm on a break from that and playing Morrowing and Jedi Knight Acad. recently) take the cake.

      I've just gotten so sick of commercials that I can't really watch TV the way I used to. There are some interesting shows out there. But I've taken to getting the DVD's when they air and watching a whole season at a time. It's a lot more fun and less time consuming.

      And you don't feel patronized by those **** commercials.

      Life is then simplier.
      "I'm a medic

  • It's too bad we don't hear things like.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by thesadjester ( 87558 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @11:02AM (#8509715)
    TV is losing to reading books.

    Even with the advent of the American coffee shop and the massive book retailers (B&N, Borders, etc.), people just don't read much it seems.

    I've heard book sales are up, but not reading, which is highly interesting. It means people buy books with the intent of reading them but never do. Or they just want to seem smart? Who knows.

    • Remember Internet Killed the Video Star [shockwave.com]?
    • I've heard book sales are up, but not reading, which is highly interesting. It means people buy books with the intent of reading them but never do. Or they just want to seem smart? Who knows.

      It's probably just that readers buy more, and borrow/beg/steal less.

    • Reading amongst young kids is up [bbc.co.uk] here in the UK.

      Admittedly this is taken from an article in 1999, as unfortunately I can't quickly find a more recent article, though I do remember hearing that reading is especially bouyant amongst young boys compared to previous years, mainly due to the power of Potter and his magical ways.
    • Nonsense!

      I just read a Halo book last weekend.

    • I've heard book sales are up, but not reading, which is highly interesting

      Based on this article, maybe all the book sales are strategy guides?
    • I'm a little confused by your statistics? Statistics on people buying books are easy (Sales receipts) but where did you hear about the Reading statistics?

      Personally, I don't have time to read much (except on airplanes)...too much video game time is out there.

    • Re:It's too bad we don't hear things like.... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ebob9 ( 726509 ) * on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @11:19AM (#8509927)
      Yknow, not to be offtopic.. but people complaining about the level of reading now today tend to overlook the obvious.

      My neighbor has a daughter, and complains that she is on the Internet all the time. She's constantly surfing the web, posting to message boards, and hanging out in chat rooms.

      What is her complaint? "I wish that she would get off the computer, maybe sit down and read something."

      Sheesh..
    • Most of the reading people tend to do, tends to be informationless anyway. You might as well be watching TV, it does nothing to enrich the brain.

      People do much more reading now than ever before. Just not books. (Which actually is a good thing IMO, as it means they are 'prolly taking in more actual knowlege and less romance/detective/western crap)
    • I buy no less than 2 unix, linux, or technology related books a month. I also have a wife and two kids that keep me from getting much reading done. I try to read at work in between puting out fires. The end result is that I have a great library which I dont use much. The upside is that I don't have to go far to get answers when I need them. I also have a PVR to record TV programs and can now selectively watch what I want which leads to much less couch time and more Joystick time.
    • You do hear about television losing to reading, just not books.

      When Television loses time to the Internet, what do most people do on the Internet? Most people are still reading, and, gasp, perhaps even writing.

      Television is losing time to a lot of things, not just video games. This is not a good time to be in the television industry.
    • I concur.

      My wife teaches 10th and 12th grade Social Studies. Most of the kids she teaches have never read a book for fun in their lives. Every peice of reading they do that comes on dead tree media is assigned to them by a teacher.

      This astounds me. I have been working on one book or another since I could read simple sentances. Here these kids are, about to go to college, and they've never read anything just for the hell of it!

      The Internet argument is well and good, but that raises another problem. B

  • Great (Score:3, Interesting)

    by YuppieScum ( 1096 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @11:02AM (#8509718) Journal
    Just great... now we're going to get product placement in video games.

    • Re:Great (Score:4, Informative)

      by NinjaPablo ( 246765 ) <jimolding13@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @11:04AM (#8509744) Homepage Journal
      We already do. Played SSX3 at all? 7-Up dnl boards, banners, balloons, and other equipment all over the place. This just means it will become even more blatant.
      • If placement fits the game I couldn't care less, SSX3's use of placement fit. Just as long as they don't insert it into places where it doesn't fit...
        • places where it doesn't fit
          What like this game? [gamespot.com]
          Given the game's increased use of product placement--you're given the ability to put logos for several nonskateboarding company sponsors on your clothes, and a few goals take place directly in front of prominently placed logos for a fast-food chain
          What the Hell does Nokia and McDs have to do with skating???

          • Re:Great (Score:3, Funny)

            by leifm ( 641850 )
            Nothing but THPS games have always had placement, and billboards at a skateboard event don't seem out of context. Now if Halo2 has a Nokia ad on the side of a Covenant dropship I'll be irritated.
    • Have you seen Tiger Woods PGA 2004 recently? Chock full of golfing equipment and apparel advertisements.

  • Not just the "younger generation" (Score:5, Informative)

    by southpolesammy ( 150094 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @11:03AM (#8509724) Journal
    I've nearly completely switched from TV as an entertainment mechanism to video games on my PS2 and my PC. And I'm 33.

    Besides, wasn't there just something published that said the average gamer is around 29-30 years old?

    • Re:Not just the "younger generation" (Score:4, Interesting)

      by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @12:25PM (#8510389) Homepage Journal
      Allow me to add my vote to your anecdotal evidence. The fact that this is /. is guaranteed to skew any results anyway, so I might as well pipe up. I own a 1978 Sony front projection television, the kind with the green and purple tubes, and the mirror, and we had cable television for a while but comcast gouges you hard so we just shut it off. The cable modem service is cheaper by $15/mo if you have digital cable television ($45/mo for the most basic of basic digital cable plans) but even so it wasn't worth $30 because even with three people in the house at the time (myself, my girlfriend, and her cousin, who no longer lives here thank god) we didn't watch enough TV to justify it. Why? Because I've got a cable modem, we have several video stores in town, and I have a netflix membership (though if I don't get some money and pay them soon, they're going to terminate it. sigh. Time to start modding X-Boxen for money or something.) My television exists as a monitor for the watching of assorted media, the Panasonic DVD-S35S I often crow about around here plays standard and nonstandard VCD/SVCD, and DVDs, so that's most of what I watch; The rest gets piped into the bedroom to the Xbox and played on Xbox Media Player over the network or off CDs/DVDs. Television has gone straight into the shitter and my favorite shows tend to end up on DVD sooner or later, like Babylon 5. THAT was a show that attracted me strongly to the television, proof positive that you don't have to have the highest production values to make a show worthy of devotion. The problem today is that TV studios throw money instead of talent at a problem, and they end up with slickly-produced schmaltz. This has always been true, but it seems like it's gotten a lot worse lately, for example ABC is crawling with the "home and family feel good" kind of material, they're laying on the religious angle really hard and I just can't stomach it.

      By comparison, games of any value whatsoever (which I believe is most of them, even though I wouldn't play most games because I think they suck) stimulate the mind and the body both, and most importantly, they are not a "push" technology. You don't have to be there when the content is delivered (I know with PVRs you don't have to either, but more people have video game systems than PVRs) and you make the choice as to what and when.

      Perhaps as PVR use spreads, more people will watch television - and I suspect it will be PVRs that lead to video on demand. Content providers will be able to ensure that commercials are played. Eventually it will probably turn to a pay-to-watch model, but I guess it'll be some time before we find out.

  • Makes me wonder (Score:4, Insightful)

    by onyxruby ( 118189 ) * <onyxruby&comcast,net> on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @11:03AM (#8509732)
    Makes me wonder, without sports and the likes of the Discovery and History channel if there would be any males of that age category watching TV.

  • Lesser of the two evils? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Don't know about you, but I would prefer my kid to play competer games than watch cartoons, especially if he was gaming with a friend.

    It is far less a passive activity, reactions, planning and memory all get a work out whilst playing games. Though of course I would still rather them outside running around or reading a book, but in the event of a rainy day there's nothing wrong with a bit of gaming.

  • Nope (Score:5, Insightful)

    by iibbmm ( 723967 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @11:04AM (#8509749)
    It's simply because there isn't much on network television in that timeslot that is entertaining to men 18-35. Most tv on the networks is completely geared towards women or 'metrosexual' men that want to watch crap with a laugh track.

    Cable, luckily, is noticing this problem and is now working towards more tv that appeals to men, though 90% of it is overdone crap (new manshow). Look to Discovery for an example of how to provide decent male programming. We are all watching Cnn, history, tlc, discovery, speed, spike (not me!), comedy central, or HBO.

    Oh yeah, or playing Video Games.

    • Re:Nope (Score:2, Informative)

      by lazypenguingirl ( 743158 )
      My boyfriend and I do not watch TV (we're in the early to mid-20's age bracket). In the evening if we want to kick back instead of working on the computers, we usually play a game together in front of the TV. However, I'd love to have Discovery, CNN, History, Comedy Central, but I'm not willing to pay $40 a month here for cable for all the crap when I just want that small set of channels. Therefore, it's no TV for us, which surprises many people. And I can't say we miss it all that much either. It's mu
    • You know, it's purely anecdotal evidence, but I don't know ANYONE I'd consider 'metrosexual' that watches much tv. They just don't sit around watching the idiot tube like the average american does. What shows do you see as drawing this sort of audience? I mean, if you're talking will and grace, that's 100% chick. If you're talking the OC, that's 90210 teen drama all over again. I just don't see it (though maybe it's 'cause I just don't watch anymore myself). I'm really curious, though.

    • total OT digression (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mapmaker ( 140036 )
      I think I can tell by your post that you used to watch the cable channels you listed but don't actually anymore. Know how? Because you listed TLC as a "guy" channel.

      See, I haven't had cable in a few years, but I used to watch The Learning Channel all the time in the mid 90's. It rocked - remember Connections and then Connections 2? THAT was quality TV! That was GUY TV! But lately I've had a few glimpses of today's TLC at a friend's house, and I've been shocked and dismayed at what has become of by bel

  • Good (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DrugCheese ( 266151 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @11:05AM (#8509754)
    I get a lot of crap from people who say I play to much video games. These same people then turn around and sit their ass on the couch the same ammount of time and watch TV. I think it's better for you to be playing video games then watching TV, at least you're participating in something.

    • Re:Good (Score:4, Funny)

      by 0123456 ( 636235 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @11:13AM (#8509857)
      "These same people then turn around and sit their ass on the couch the same ammount of time and watch TV."

      But they're improving their social skills. How will you pick up chicks if you don't stay up to date on the plot-lines of trendy soap operas?

  • Interaction (Score:5, Interesting)

    by somethinghollow ( 530478 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @11:05AM (#8509755) Homepage Journal
    At least the games interact with them. I gave up TV for my computer years ago. One factor, subconciously, was that I was able to interact, whereas TV, I just sat, stared, laughed on cue, and watched commercials when I was told to.

    Traditional video game consoles (I know this is changing with things like XBox Live) don't offer some of the same communication builders (e.g. IM, Voice IM, message boards, creating websites, etc.), but at least you can tell it what to do instead of it telling you what to do. And something about building hand-eye-coordination. I guess that is a plus, since remote controls don't require that much hand-eye coordination.
    • Exactly.. it's the whole active v. passive perspective. I'd rather play out my own entertainment than watch and wonder if the dame du jour will pick the hot guy or the ordinary guy.

  • No TV (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Voxxel ( 147404 )
    I honestly don't even watch TV anymore. I download a show if I want to see it, commercial free. TV in general just blows.
  • I found that the Unreal Tournament 2004 demo is best played between 2-5am Eastern Time (local), when all the younger players (ie kids) are sleeping.

  • Most, but not all gaming between 7-11p (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Civilization and Sim City, whoo boy. I would start playing those in the evening after work and not stop until I noticed (to my surprise) the sun coming up.

  • Fo damn sure... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Dracolytch ( 714699 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @11:07AM (#8509788) Homepage
    I'm one of them. Being able to game on-line, and talk to friends over the 'net while gaming is a very satisfying passtime. It's more interactive, more social, and more exciting.

    You never know if the game will end in your favor or not... You really have to work with your friends to make it happen!

    ~D

  • What a very fair study that is (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @11:07AM (#8509791)
    Sony studies gaming habits finds that most games are played from 5pm to 11pm

    This just in: studies show that all games are played between 00:00 and 23:59, TV networks are worried!

    I mean come on, 5pm to 11pm is 6 hours, that's a quarter of a day. Even if it's a "span that encompasses TV prime time", that doesn't mean people play games for 6 hours. What if people play games most of the time during dumb shows, and during ads, and stop to watch their favorite shows?

    What I'm saying is that the study seems way too coarse to deduce anything useful from it. Ideally, it should show console vs. TV usage by the minute.

    Also, you'll notice that Sony, a manufacturer of consoles, did the study, not an independant, impartial organization.

    In short, this article doesn't bring much useful information.
    • doesn't mean people play games for 6 hours
      Obviously you've never played Starcraft.
    • "Sony, a manufacturer of consoles,"

      Sony is also a manufacturer of TV shows [sonypictures.com] and movies [sonypictures.com]
    • Very funny. Now sit and think about it a little.

      Your average adult goes to work for 8 hours a day. They also usually sleep for 8 hours a day. They also spend some time commuting, fixing breakfasts, etc. They're not watching TV during that time.

      Unless you're unemployed, that 6 hours slot is not just a quarter of the day. It's practically _all_ the time they have to feed you ads and faked news through the idiot box. Erm... I mean through the TV.

      There's a reason why that's TV prime time. Because for a hellu

  • G4 - Gaming Channel IS Growing Strongly (Score:3, Informative)

    by mcwop ( 31034 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @11:07AM (#8509792) Homepage
    The Gaming Channel "G4" is rapidly growing too, which means that when many gamers do watch TV - the G4 channel may be what is being watched.

    G4 Growth Story Here [abqjournal.com]

  • Ad-supported Video Games? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by G4from128k ( 686170 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @11:07AM (#8509796)
    With the fall-off in TV ratings, it seems that ads will soon be creeping into computer games [cisco.com]. This will include product placements in traditional games and free games that market products [detnews.com]. I notice that EA already has a director of advertising sales.

    With no "fast forward" in games, players will have little choice but to be exposed to these product placements (other than avoiding/abandoning the game). I wonder if game makers will offer dual-versions of games -- an ad-free version for $99 and an add-supported version for $29? Given people's tendency to by the cheaper option, wonder which version will have the highest sales?

    • I wonder if game makers will offer dual-versions of games -- an ad-free version for $99 and an add-supported version for $29? Given people's tendency to by the cheaper option, wonder which version will have the highest sales?

      If the ads get to annoying, then they will probably be removed by the same cracking crews who remove copy protection and the like. Hopefully the game software houses know this, and will limit the annoy level of their products so that their costumers don't go for pi


    • I'm not nearly the gamer I used to be, so this doesn't affect me like it would have 5 years ago. Back then I was seriously opposed to product placement, since I viewed games as pieces of art first and games second. (And still do, to a degree.) How long before these advertisers generate so much revenue for the developers that they begin to dictate the content of the games?

      No, no, no, you guys got it all wrong. Duke should say, "Slim Fast replaces two daily meals and contains 24 essential vitamins and mine
  • So yes, they're online and counting that way, but if you've ever played Everquest, you know that the downtime and the waiting around are so bad you NEED a TV to watch between kills :)
  • Original /. article from 3 days ago is here [slashdot.org]

  • The day they let you shoot Survivor "contestants". (Score:5, Funny)

    by mobiux ( 118006 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @11:10AM (#8509818)
    is the day I turn off the computer.

    Maybe they could have a virtual survivor, where they still have to swim and get the flag, but I get to crouch on the beach and snipe at them the whole time.

  • In other news... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Decaffeinated Jedi ( 648571 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @11:10AM (#8509821) Homepage Journal
    Sony's study also suggests that gamers who play ganes on the PS2 experience nearly 70 percent more "fun-itude" than XBox and Gamecube gamers.

  • Inevitable (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Myopic ( 18616 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @11:10AM (#8509826)
    No one really thinks t.v. is a great medium, anyway. It's passive. That was the complaint all along -- people rotting their brains watching a passive medium for hours and hours. It should be no surprise that other exciting electrical mediums like games and (more important to me) the internet will supplant television. I don't think t.v. is going to go away because sometimes a passive video medium is appropriate (sitcoms and dramas as we know them can't really be interactive; movies; etc.), but viewership will shrink (in terms of average hours watched).

    Nobody thinks this is a bad thing. Yo, if someone is going to waste their time consuming hollow, useless things they may as well do it actively, interactively, rather than watching produced, linear shows.

  • Well... (Score:2)

    by Otter ( 3800 )
    At the outset of the TV season, viewership in the men 18-34 demographic was down anywhere from 8 percent to 12 percent, leading the networks to question the validity of the data being provided by Nielsen Media Research. Nielsen has defended the accuracy of its data.

    I'm inclined to side with the networks on this one -- an 8-12% drop in one year (or season, it doesn't say) seems a bit unlikely. Especially since in large parts of the country it was too freaking cold to go outside in January and February. Game

  • Another benefit... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Dracolytch ( 714699 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @11:12AM (#8509846) Homepage
    You can play any game you want, any time you want, unlike TV. There are no ads that are annoying or break up the action (Just load screens, but those are usually pretty quick). You don't have to pay for games you don't play (Unlike TV where you pay for channels you don't watch).

    With the added challenge and social aspects of on-line gaming, it's honestly not a big surprise that it's catching on...

    ~D

  • I don't even really watch tv anymore (Score:4, Interesting)

    by d3am0n ( 664505 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @11:13AM (#8509856)
    I'm your average 23 year old male college student. However TV is horrible lately, I just download the only 2 shows I like (angel and enterprise) and never go near the television itself. Maybe if the networks stopped with the reality shows and started putting back some well written high production value shows, i'd be more inclined to come back. As it is however, I'm not going to sit around and watch crap for days on end when I only really want to see 2 hours of programs per week.

  • No surprising (Score:5, Insightful)

    by st0rmshad0w ( 412661 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @11:13AM (#8509861)
    Especially considering that networks are doing such brilliant things as cancelling their highest rated shows and generally screwing up everything else that's worth tuning in for.
  • Didn't we already cover this [slashdot.org] today?

  • shocking (Score:3, Insightful)

    by andih8u ( 639841 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @11:19AM (#8509915)
    The networks put out absolutely nothing but reality shows about "My Big Fat Stupid Fiancee" or "The Mightiest Midget Survival Wedding Swing Dancing Sensation" and can't figure out why people are leaving in droves. Here's a hint...they're sick of it. Make more shows like Alias, X-Files, or La Femme Nikita that are/were actually interesting and you might retain some viewers. Otherwise I see no reason to switch off my monitor just to go watch some crap.

    • Re:shocking (Score:4, Insightful)

      by 0123456 ( 636235 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @11:43AM (#8510053)
      "Make more shows like Alias, X-Files, or La Femme Nikita that are/were actually interesting and you might retain some viewers"

      But making good drama costs money. "Reality TV" is basically free in comparison, and the drones will continue to watch since they have nothing else to do.

  • It may have something to do with.. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Channard ( 693317 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @11:41AM (#8510035) Journal
    .. every damn other programme being reality TV. Why watch a show about someone living a life - or more often than not, staying in a big house with other z grade celebs - when you could actually stick a game in and have some level of interactivity going.

  • Is it any surprise? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Gr8Apes ( 679165 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @11:46AM (#8510094)
    Most people are home and awake between 5pm and 11pm. So, when would most people playing games play them? Could it be? Naah...

  • Older Generation, Too (Score:4, Interesting)

    by handy_vandal ( 606174 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @11:49AM (#8510118) Homepage Journal
    of course the real point of all this is that the younger generation is turning away from television and turning to games.

    Not just the younger generation. Tomorrow is my 43rd birthday. When I was a kid, I watched plenty of TV ... but for the last decade it's been nothing but games, games, games.

    -kgj
  • Kids aren't turning to video games because they're more compelling that television. Oh, wait, yes they are. TV programming has lousy, just like motion pictures in the last few years.

    Hmmm, fake reality TV show or video game. It's a no brainer.

  • People want to interact with stuff. 'Course they're going to go with vid games.

    If tv is so worried, why don't they work on interactive tv where people can at least "choose your own adventure" for some of their shows. Soaps would be easy to do. Same for formula SF (Star Treck, Star Gate, Star Search, etc.).
  • 1. The Daily Show
    2. Conan O'Brien

    Even most Trek episodes one can get commercial free on the web, there just isn't any incentive for me to watch TV.

  • Commercials (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ShortedOut ( 456658 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @12:04PM (#8510304) Journal
    When will the networks learn that 20 and 30 somethings are tired of commercials? There has to be another way for a TV network to make money.

    Just like HBO, sure you pay for it, sure it doesn't have any commercials for OTHER companies, but damn they love to plug HBO every chance they get. I already bought the damn channel, I don't need to know how great you are.

    I think gamers and nerds are just tired of the constant stream of bullshit that is coming from the media. This especially goes for all the half-truths and demonizing of opponents in the upcoming elections.

    We'd rather hang out with friends and frag each other than sit still on the couch and be force fed bullshit and editorialized news.

    Martha Stewart, Michael Jackson, Kobe Bryant, I couldn't give less of a shit about, but they're on the news every day because that is what advertising firms say that the US is interested in.

    We've got a freaking WAR in Iraq that we only hear about in blurbs. We have TROOPS in Afganistan that we're lucky to hear about once a week. And we have diplomatic issues with France and Europe that we NEVER hear about. What about that whackjob over in North Korea? Why is China so quiet about everything? That's what I want to hear about, not how many kids Michael Jackson touched or how this woman is missing in Minnesota, hell people go missing in my local area every day, why did she rate?

    That's why I get my news here, and other online sources. It's because it's on demand, and what I want to read about. And best of all, I don't have to watch any commercials.
  • The statistics in the survey are pretty useless without more context. While it may be true that people (more specifically 18-34 year old males) are abandoning TV for online gaming this article says nothing. Is there anything that shows that [increased video game usage] is related to [decline in TV viewing by 18-34 year olds]

    1. Peak online usage from 5-11, which includes TV prime time. This should hardly be shocking because there has to be a peak period, and because TV prime time would tend to correspon

  • Same excuse as everyone else uses! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by swordgeek ( 112599 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @01:20PM (#8510834) Journal
    "Kids aren't buying music--it's because of file sharing!"
    "Kids aren't watching TV--it's because of computer games!"
    "Our software isn't selling--it's because of Microsoft!"

    How hard is it to figure out that YOUR CONTENT SUCKS!!!? Maybe those other things play a part. Maybe the competition for your audience has become stiffer. Producing ever-increasingly BAD content and blaming the competition isn't going to fix anything!

  • It's about the content, stupid. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by humankind ( 704050 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @02:29PM (#8511637) Journal
    Why is it that the major broadcasters and Madison Avenue have to turn to other corporate parasites like polling companies to try to understand the dynamics of an issue such as this?

    Maybe it's because they don't want to acknowledge the truth? Or are they truly that stupid?

    Television used to be about entertaining and educating. Now it's hard to tell what is content and what is advertising. The constant barrage of interruptions and marketing messages have turned off their audience. Things are so bad now, commercial breaks are so long, that when the networks return from a commercial break, they have to recap what the actual show was about!

    Hollywood seems to think that shows like, "The Apprentice" or "Survivor: All-Stars" are actually "hits". The truth is we watch those shows to see how much of an ass people can make of themselves, not unlike your average motorist cranks his head out of the window to see a wreck on the Interstate. We don't think the shows are very good; instead we are amused by the extent to which these producers manufacture conflict and make people look like idiots. Yes, it's entertaining, but only in the most shallow way, which means there will be no longevity. Hell yes, it's fun to watch Donald Trump's ego spiral out of control, but make no mistake that at some point this will get incredibly boring if it hasn't already. And then we get to see how creative they'll be in blaming everyone but themselves for the loss of ratings.

    In addition to an overwhelming amount of advertising, the content just plain sucks, WHEN you can actually find it. Most shows are little more than superficial Pavlovian plot lines with one-dimensional characters and predictable twists, bad remakes or sequels, or else they're reality programs that are edited out-of-context to over-dramatize every nuance of conflict and embarassement.

    Hollywood seems to think that most people, even your average brain-dead couch potato can be played with formulaic programming. And when it doesn't seem to pan out like that, rather than admit their stupid ideas aren't working, they start commissioning research companies to pull another explanation out of thin air. Video games are killing TV. NO. It's just that TV is so bad, it's more desireable than sitting through a zillion SUV commercials.

    It's the content, stupid.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close