In the Money section of USA Today on Sunday June 10th, the cover story was "The Changing State of Gaming." My mom knows me well enough to have saved it for me to read, sadly, USA Today does not appear to know me well enough to write an even-remotely-interesting article on the changing state of gaming. I got much more interesting reports on the new Wii U by reading Twitter last week, than by reading this article. The blue and purple comparison graphic the article used added a sense of colorful playfulness and almost made it look like they knew what they were talking about. However, I found the graphic to be slightly condescending and confusing.
What I found annoying was the graphic shows average age, number of males vs females who currently play video games, and the type of devices people use/used today vs five years ago. It's an interesting snapshot of the gaming world, but that's all it is: a snapshot. Did the article discuss this colorful snapshot at all? Nope. The entire article glazed over Microsoft, Sony, and the history of consoles, but mostly focused on the new Wii U and social media gaming like on Facebook and Zynga, and-of course-what it means financially (I don't know why that shocked me quite as much as it did.)
The article also goes on to talk about how Nintendo is planning on keeping "longtime gamers happy" by making sure that the Wii U is focused towards them. Well, according to gamers whose opinions I value a lot more than Mr. Mike Snider (I don't know who he is, other than USA Today's media expert, as far as I can tell) Nintendo doesn't quite know who/what they're targeting anymore. I think this article is a financial update on the gaming industry attempting to disguise itself as an article of the overall state of gaming, and failing miserably. It was a snoozefest, reporting stuff I already new, but any "news" that was news to me I didn't actually care about. zzzzzzz.
Did anyone else read this article and get more out of it than I did?