A study into the mind of gamers
by Nick Doerr 
{ Aug 7th 2006 at 5:00PM }
Sony fanboys, ever wonder why XBox fanboys are so eager and ready to flame the competition? Why they have the alpha male complex, but are distrustful to information that rebukes their arguments? XBox fanboys, ever wonder why Sony fanboys trust the potential of the PS3 and in some cases, Sony in general? Now we "know". A study about brand names and the psychological responses from them has concluded that those who see ads for XBox are "more self-confident and "power motivated" than those who viewed Sony's ads. But it also "increased levels of distrust," something Sony's branding did not do."Now, this isn't anything official, but if looked at through a humorous lens, it makes sense. At least, from the "argument" point of view. It does appear that the PS3 fanboys have to defend against the random bashings of a Microsoft supporter on a site that is, for lack of a better term, pro-Sony. Seeking power and being self-confident are at the least, convenient explanations. In the end, marketers just have to be careful. If they make too many bad moves (Sony's ad agencies have misstepped a few times) then there may be a falling out of brand support. It's just a silly study that really proves very little, but we all need a good chuckle now and again. Hopefully the results won't be used in any sort of "anti-violence in gaming" scheme.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
SuicideNinja @ Aug 7th 2006 6:24PM
One thing no one has mentioned about this yet:
The Xboxes are more competition oriented, while the Playstations are more single-player oriented.
XBox: 4 controller ports, leaderboards, online multiplayer, full voice support, and now gamerscore.
vs
Playstation: 2 controller ports, barely an online service, no kind of general ranking, and not much for competition at all.
It only makes sense that Xbox gamers would be more aggressive than Playstation gamers. It's the nature of Xboxing. I noticed my interests changed quite a bit after growing out of the PS2. Single player games just weren't as interesting without the longevity and entertainment factor of multiplayer.
If the PS3 succeeds with competitive online multiplayer games and a solid online service, then we'll likely see similar trends. Both the 360 and the PS3 really need to balance out between single and multiplayer.
Cage @ Aug 7th 2006 7:06PM
Nice point Suicide. Would be interesting to see which console gamers were better because of this (Sports, FPS, Strategy). Competition normally makes people better.
boots @ Aug 8th 2006 10:36AM
Also, Xbox is for FPS lovers, while PS2 is for nearly everything single player (i.e. most games).
The console that will win this round is the console that has most single player AND online multiplayer games (or combos). Not either or.
alienclay @ Aug 8th 2006 1:42PM
it's easy to call yourself the champ when you're the only one in the ring.
Kyle @ Aug 8th 2006 3:38PM
Cage - define "better". Better gamers? Sounds elitist. Because you can frag people in Halo makes you a better gamer? Maybe for Halo. But not in general. With those Halo skills, would you be able to run through Super Mario World in one hour (can anybody?!) or heck, even rule the map on a game of Counterstrike? I feel that our abilities grow on a game-by-game basis and sequels help mature that, since we're familiar with the structure of combat. Using "better" seems faulty.
ndoerr @ Aug 8th 2006 3:41PM
I deleted REX_DOGG's comment because... all caps are really straining to look at. If I delete comments, I'll try to explain why. If he wants to repost without caps, that's fine.
Cage @ Aug 8th 2006 6:07PM
You know a pet-peeve I have? I hate when people take one college course and start to think to themselves, "Hmm...that sounds ELITIST! I cant believe he would make an elitist comment! Unbelievable. So faulty". Its better...meaning better. Also means better. Could be translated as better. Maybe better? Hmm...that must mean better. Also gentlemen, I dont know what version you guys played (or if you even played it) but Halo 2 and 1 have single player modes. Maybe there arent enough cutscenes?????
PS. Kyle...the 360 hasnt what are called achievements. This means (try not to over think this or call it faulty) you gain achievements (you arent "entitled" to them because weak gamers will not earn them) for different points in the game. I would in turn try harder and become "better" at the game when I am trying to top someone elses high score. Did that make sense? I know it might be below your level and all. Maybe I could use bigger words and you will understand it "better" (that word again)?
Kyle @ Aug 9th 2006 4:46AM
I'll ignore the college comments, Cage, simply because there's absolutely no evidence for that assumption. It's wrong, but that's moot since there's also no evidence to back it up. About the elitist remarks, if spoken about games in general and someone being a "better gamer" than someone else, yes, it is. About a singular game? Not as much. You can indeed be better at one game than another, but that doesn't make you a "better gamer". A "master chief of Halo", yes, but not a better gamer. Don't put words in my mouth. And no, nothing you said is "below my level"... that's almost an insult.
Chris @ Aug 9th 2006 11:27PM
Wow, someone has a complex towards college students/graduates.
Dan @ Aug 10th 2006 4:36AM
I am so looking forward to buying the PS3, I have a 360 but the price of the PS3 (£550) puts me off a bit but I will still buy it as it is a gadget fan must.
Vasi @ Aug 14th 2006 5:17AM
I have to agree with the study except gaming is something nerds do with not time on there hands. Trust me I'm a gamer to I know. So I really think the people who own Xbox's play a lot of sports too and do those type of things, and eventually they will be too busy with sports and things like that. The reason I play video games so much is because I don't get along with people that well, and Halo is the only game Xbox has. Sure it's fun for multiplayer, fow awhile but it gets boring fast.