[off-topic]Age demographic for a boxing game

[POETICDRINK2U]

I think EA thinks that 40 year olds and older don't count when it comes to there boxing game. I'm seeing fans on there forums wanting what we want here in a game. It puzzles me who does the marketing surveys.

One of EA's Fight Night Round 4 Producers, Brizzo sent this to me and it kind of make me wonder, especially this part....

Brizzo(EA Fight Night Round 4 Producer):
"As far as marketing to age groups – and again, I don’t have exact numbers – the “typical” sports game demographic is 18-35, which is a pretty big group. That being said, there are very few marketing outlets that reach 35 that don’t reach 38 and 40. Same thing applies to all the other games you mention. Nobody pushes hard to corner the 50+ demo and I don’t think there is anything other than anecdotal evidence to support the notion that there are vast numbers of people over 50 chomping at the bit to jump into console gaming."

....It's really sad they are so limited in their marketing strategy and age demographic. My research has a older group than 35 playing the game. I have been in barbershops and other places where grown men gather and they talk about Fight Night and what it should be or why is it arcadish and doesn't represent a true boxing feel.

Some post from there forums....

Originally Posted by ps3.pooingtons

i havent read the whole thread but heres my thoughts.
if your gonna have a boxer (ali) with true to life stats(clearly head and shoulders above the rest),you better have another one or two fighters who can counter that style.(spinks/frazier etc)
at the end of the day,you can get in professional stat guys,but i think it comes down to opinion,you can only compare to the other fighters that are in the game.
for me it needs a bit of balance or else its a one dimensional game.when i say balance i mean balance in styles not stats.

thing is,its a tricky subject and i see it from the purists view point,cos they feel passionatley about it(im guessing that some might feel slightly offended by their boxing heroes not being represented properly), as many of us football fans do about football.
i think if the styles are done right ,then the ratings will take care of themselves personally.

Originally Posted by ps3.POETICDRINK2U

http://boards.ign.com/fight_night/b7350/164894007/r166541033/

--"Brizzo1, I hope you read this. I was wondering how you guys are going to rate stamina and other ratings for FN4." -- This was before Fight Night Round 4 came out

Brizzo1:
Yup, I'm here.

I didn't work on it, so I don't know what the goal was for the ratings in FNR3. But I know that setting the ratings in a game isn't always easy. On one hand, you can try and make them as true-to-life for each Boxer. On the other hand, you can try to adjust/balance them so that every Boxer has strengths and weaknesses. One way, almost everybody ends up using the same guys (i.e. because he's the greatest heavyweight of all-time, or the best P4P fighter in history). The other way, you get discrepancies that might irk the hardcore fan.

Even if you decide to go with true-to-life ratings, there is a huge difference in opinion on a lot of guys, especially when it comes to legends that had long careers, or when comparing guys from different eras. If you're a boxing fan, you know you could argue about this stuff with other fans for, well, for YEARS and never come to an agreement, lol.

So let me ask you guys, what do you prefer? Boxer Ratings that are set to match each Boxer's abilities in reality, or Boxer Ratings that are "adjusted" to balance all the Boxers on the roster and make it easier to have competitive fights with more than just the 2 or 3 best guys?

My response:

I rather have true to life abilities, Just add sliders, so people can adjust boxers if they want. If a guy is weak in one area let him be that way in the game. I don't want balance if a guy isn't good in real life. If he's knockout material he's knockout material. I want realism.

*You can't call a game a simulation if there is balance with strength, speed, and other physical attributes. Chris Byrd and Tyson's strength are not the same. Strategy balances out a game.

Originally Posted by ps3.NYC_OZ

Usually I never respond to posts like this because I want to avoid personal attacks but this is one of the dumbest and uninformed posts I have ever read...The notion that we want a sim because we’re too lazy to master a broken game and cheese tactics is just plain old asinine...

Those of us who want a sim want it because we love the sport of boxing and want it to be represented properly...It has absolutely nothing to do with making the game easier...It’s about making a boxing game that rewards the science of the sport as well as the skill of the gamer in a virtual ring...FRN4 does none of that, it rewards recklessness and cheese...You may enjoy that but there’s a lot of people who don’t...Hence why the game didn’t sell all that well and why multiplayer is on life support...

Making the game a realistic representation of the sport of boxing won’t make it easier for anybody...Just because I know more about the science doesn’t make me a better gamer than you...You still have that gamer edge and thus we’ll both have a learning curve…Like Reignmaka said, I’ll have to master the gaming side and you’ll have to master the strategic side…

Is this really that hard for you to comprehend?

...and there are thousands of more post like these on EA forums.

[POETICDRINK2U]

Demographics Of Video Gamers | e-Strategy Internet Marketing Blog
The Demographics of Video Gamers
The Entertainment Software Association’s 2005 Essential Facts About the Computer and Video Game Industry report [PDF] reveals that 75% of heads of households play computer or video games and that the average game player’s age is 30 years old. Not surprisingly, a significant percentage of gamers are teenagers: 35% of gamers are under 18 years old. Most gamers, however, 43%, to be exact, are in the 18-49 year old age bracket, while only 19% are over 50 years of age.

Let me see that's 43% + 19%= 62% to 35% under 18. hmmm.. do the math!


*If you have Facebook please support my petition because companies think the over 40 group doesn't play or want a boxing game represented realistically.

Petition to let EA know players over 40 years old play boxing videogames | Facebook

[Rob Morris]

I would of thought that boxing has more 40 year plus fans than most sports to be honest.

[POETICDRINK2U]

Originally Posted by Rob Morris

I would of thought that boxing has more 40 year plus fans than most sports to be honest.

It does and EA is trying to sweep them under the rug like they don't exist. We are the most passionate fans and that will make them have to work harder.

[professordp]

My hand/eye coordination was never the best to begin with. Now that I'm in my early 60s, I try not to think about it.

That said, I guess for me it's really more generational. You know, pre-video games. Until about sixteen years ago when I purchased my first pc, my sports gaming was paper, pencil, and dice.

Now don't go thinking I'm a total Neanderthal. I have a son (forty years my junior) who was brought up on video games. Almost twenty years ago, I bought him his first game system (then another, and another....). Along with the Mario stuff, I picked up a couple of RPGs for myself as well.

I'm a slow-thinking, contemplative, figure-out the strategy type of guy. I'm used to functioning as the manager/coach in sports sims rather than the guy hitting the ball, running down the field, or throwing a punch.

Graphics are seconday to me. They certainly make the experience more fun with a sports sim. But we older dudes come from a different generation of game players---table-toppers are we.

You didn't have much in the way of graphics back then. Just some cards and charts---and of course the trusty dice. Thus, you got in the habit of visualizing it all in your "mind's eye."

Nothing wrong with the graphics in video games today. It's just that for the older gamers, the "eye candy" might be a little too intrusive.