AHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Here's a play by play of the pretty study and my opinion of it. Statistics are some of my favorite numbers because it's SOOOOO easy to make them say exactly what you want (Linux TCO compared to Windows TCO anyone? The numbers are there but we all know they are lies.).
Basically my problem is that with such a small survey group, I don't trust statistics without access to the raw data, so you can stop reading here if you are not interested.
Why I think this study is irrelevant to the subject it is trying to disprove
0. Vested interest by the study's creators
Does the Entertainmetn Software Association have some vested interest in whether the results of this study are favorable? I think we need to call Matlock on this one.
1. Poll group's demographics
"Typical American video game players"? The poll consisted of a random national sample of 802 adults. I don't know about you guys, but to me the typical "bad" gamer stereotype depicts a 15-18 year old male. What is the definition of "adult" in the context of this study?
2. Poll group's size
The group studied is far too small to satisfactorily represent all gamers in the nation. The gamefaqs.com poll for the past 3 days had an average of 50004 votes per day. 802 gamers would represent only 16% of this admittedly small set of gamers. Halo 2 sold more than 5 million copies, so I feel safe in assuming there are at least 5 million gamers in the US. This means the 802 people surveyed represent 0.016% of the gamers in America. I'd hardly call this a credible sample.
3. Misleading usage of units
Did you know that if I volunteer 5.4 hours a month, I only have to devote 0.19 hours (11.5 minutes) a day to "volunteer work"? It is possible that a few members of the group volunteered in the 50-100 hours a month range (probably not the "avid gamers"😉 while the bulk of the members volunteered more like 1-3 hours per month. If I was more in to it, I'd form the equation and figure out the likely figures, but I think it is self-evident by the nature of an average that this calculation is skewed by a few outliers.
The "avid gamer" and average gaming hours per week paints a picture of who they interviewed. In the context of this study, someone who spends an hour a day on gaming is "average" and someone who spends 1.5 hours a day on gaming is an "avid gamer". I'd like to see the raw data, because 30 minutes' time does not make you an avid gamer. I suspect a few people played in the 20-30 hour group, a few played in the 10-20 hour group, but the bulk of the people interviewed played less than an hour a day (though this is speculation).
4. Drawing false conclusions
One of the paragraphs implies that video games do not cause obesity because "79% of all game players" (664 American adults) report exercizing or playing sports an average of 20 hours a month! Gee golly! They obviously aren't obese since in February they are exercising at least 42 minutes per day! I'm glad the study included the average weight of the gamers so that we know-- oh wait, they didn't. Also note that though the point was made that people are blaming games for obesity, the following sentence only claims gamers exercise, NOT that they are of average weight.
5. Vague definitions of terms
I see no good definitions of terms in the documentation available at the link or the ESA's web site. Let's cover some key words and why they need to be explicitly defined:
a. "Reading": What do gamers read as part their 3.34 hours of non-gaming activity per day? There's a striking difference in the results of this conclusion when different reading materials are considered. Do internet forums count? Comic books? Gaming magazines?
b. "Exercising": Sometimes my wrists hurt too bad to keep typing. I get up and waggle my arms around to try and release the tension. Is this exercising? After 3 hours at my desk, I typically walk around for 10 minutes or so to get the stiffness out of my legs. Does this count too? I just covered about 20 minutes out of my 42 per day if you accept this loose definition.
c. "Religious, Creative, and Cultural Activities": If we are to believe that these activities are going to church, playing in a band, learning a second language, and bonding with the immigrants in your neighborhood then this is a great way to spend your time. However, I sometimes pray that I'll do well in a game, is that a religious activity? What about the time I spent in Mario Paint, is that a creative activity? Is posting on an internet gaming forum a social and creative activity (also chalking up hours for reading)? I'd like to know some of the activities included in this study.
When presented with statistics, always be on your guard. Sometimes numbers are more meaningless than they seem. I'll close with what my original post was going to be:
* Forty-five percent of gamers volunteer at an average 5.4 hours per month.
360 adults spend 11 minutes a day on volunteer work!
* Sixty-one percent of game players engage in some type of religious activity for several hours each month.
489 adults attend church on Sunday, which is 3-4 hours including Sunday School where I go, at least once a month.
* Ninety-three percent of game players read books or daily newspapers, while sixty-two percent often attend cultural events, such as concerts, museums, or the theater.
746 adults go to gamespot.com every day. 492 adults go to the arena when KISS is playing or go to the theater from time to time.
* Fifty percent spend time painting, writing, or playing an instrument.
401 adults are drawing fan art, writing fan fiction, and remixing their favorite themes.
* Ninety-four percent follow news and current events, and 78 percent report that they vote in most of the elections for which they are eligible.
754 adults watch CNN from time to time. 652 occasionally vote in the Presidential election but make up for it by doing the slashdot and gamefaqs daily polls. I want to know what "most" means in this context.