I don't know adom, but im not interested in a discussion since you're clearly ignorant to the subject. Just stay that way if you wish to.

Like i said, it might be like that in america but it's certainly not like that here, and playstation did that.

And don't bother to respond.

@Claude. It's funny how all your posts contradict the first line in your signature.

So in other words you failed to proof your point, i.e. "anyways, Kutaragi is soooo more important. It's not even up for debate. He made video games more than a kids toy." - and just said to me that I need to stfu? How nice of you!

Should I support my point with data? Why not: http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/4th-qtr-2008-console-gender-usage-abridged.pdf ?

Denial. It's funny how you're still in it. :)

You just proved my point. According to your documents the highest average days of usage is in the 18-24 age group. Which is not kids.

Not only that but it's common knowledge. Sony made europe as big a video game market as america whereas previously it was only about a third. Sony made the playstation a icon that you could have in the living room where other consoles were concidered toys and were in the kids bedrooms.

If you want to i suggest watching the playstation retrospective over on youtube or visiting wikipedia.

The reason i asked you not to post is because I don't really feel like accomplishing nothing. At the end of the day nomatter how many posts we retaliate against eachother with (if you can call it that) we'll both leave and think we're right. That's how it works. And i've done it enough times that i can't be arsed to anymore.

@Claude. Again you contradict your signature and I suggest you stop with your baseless accusations as you're clearly the one in denial.

Saying that I'm the one in denial doesn't change the fact that you're the one in denial.

This thread is racist.

Kutaragi contributed convergence of technology. That's not really gaming as far I'm concerned, he took what worked and made something that was technically optimal. Then through politics and persuation convinced talented game developers to support his platform. That's so different, of course it was important but it's not making gaming what it is. I would put Sega's contributions to 3D, and many of the developers working under the PlayStation above what Kutaragi did, and that's not saying much.

As far as marketing to more mature audiences, that was borrowed from the Gameboy and Genesis. It was a convergence of what worked and done optimally, that's fine and good but let's not turn it into something it's not. He brought unity of the things that worked well, but were started by others, that was good and something that Sony as a whole built. We're proud of that and we enjoyed it, I enjoyed it. The PS1 and PS2 were both very fun systems.

Ehhh where's the valve guy with the love handles? also what is peter moore and kaz hirai doing in there?

@Staude

Stop being so defensive, I'm not attacking Sony or whatever you're caring about. This's about industry as a whole. I'm speaking about industry being too dependant on one particular gender-age group rather than trying to reach out other people.

^This's just a glimpse of home console usage at holiday season of 2008. Chart is showing how limited gaming audience is. PS3 as more pricey choice is tend to attract more wealthy gamers such as college students (who aren't exactly who I mean by more mature people), which is NOT the case with PS1\PS2, those are mainstream consoles populated by kids and teenagers contrary to PS3. PS3 game content is equal or close to X360 which is dominated by teenagers at least in US (Nielsen tracks US only). So what's the difference? There're no difference between them. There're no content on PS3 compared to X360 that appeal to more mature gamers.

Plus this graph don't show female\male ratio, but don't expect it be too high everywhere except Wii. What about 35+ males? Pretty much non existence, huh? The main reason why gamers getting older over time not because industry is happen to attract more older people, but beacuse those who played, say, NES being as a kid are now under 30. And even those are drifting away from gaming, they're unable to find it rewarding and interesting as it used to be. How many of modern teenagers have dads that use to play A2600 but gave up on gaming afterwards?

So the point is... despite of huge revenue generated by game industry, despite of all it's offerings, videogames after 30+ years still couldn't be considered an entertainment with wide or universal appeal like... what? Film industry, for intsance? As a result, cultural image of gaming outside of it isn't exactly impressive, though games as an art form have big potential. Maybe this will change over time, but that's not a given... e.g. comics and manga as an art form are still too teenagers-oriented, could games be more than that? I don't know.

@mai you can't deny that the gaming market more than doubled with the ps1. That wasn't people that simply spawned. Im not being defensive im just highlighting facts. You can ignore them if you will and i don't care. Go ahead. You can highlight other things ..Do it. Just don't claim that I am wrong when i am not. I don't care if you post the exact same thing in response to someone else. This isn't about them being sony, this is about you calling me out on something, when all I said was the truth.

Another thing is that they made developers move onto 3d because it was so simple on the ps1. Most developers preferred doing 2d games but they managed to convince them to do 3d games with tech demos and showing how easy it was on the console. Again watch the retrospective on youtube and consult wiki.
Again like I don't live in america and I can't speak for how it is over there but over here you are wrong. And your chart confirms you're atleast partially wrong about america too. So just stop it.

@Claude.
Whatever floats your boat. A posting pinnackle of ignorance wasn't something i expected to get any sort of reasonable response from in the first place.