The results of MIC’s study indicate that for student gamers under the age of nineteen, among the different types of games, the main group was those who had recently played smartphone and tablet APP games, which accounted for 83.3% of the research subjects.

As for the length of time that people played games, the largest group of gamers, which was comprised of 53.9% of those surveyed, spent less than an hour gaming each day, followed by the next group of 24.5% of research subjects, who played for between one and two hours a day. Heavy gamers, who played for more than two hours a day accounted for 21.6% of the total number of gamers surveyed. The study also found that on average male gamers spent more time playing games overall than female gamers.

Of all of the age groups surveyed, gamers over the age of nineteen stood out the most with over 60% spending more than an hour each day gaming, and 40% of them were heavy gamers who played for over two hours each day. This was nearly double the ratio of heavy gamers in other age groups.

In terms of gaming platforms, 63.2% of gamers were most accustomed to playing games on Android smartphones, and Android smartphones have become the most popular gaming platform. The second most popular platform was desktop computers, which accounted for 49.8% of user preferences, followed by notebook computers, accounting of 37.7%, and iPhones accounting for 22.6%.

In MIC’s study it was worth noting that nearly forty percent of gamers, or 37.7%, were in the habit of paying for games, with 21.9% of gamers paying to play the most popular type of games, smartphone and tablet APP games, followed by 11.7% who paid to play online games, 8.6% who paid to play video game console games, 7.3% who paid to play games on websites, and 6.8% who paid to play games on single computers.

The study also found that 47.5% of male gamers paid to play games, which was a significantly higher ratio than for female gamers at 28.7%. In addition, the ratio of gamers under the age of nineteen who paid to play games was significantly higher at 63.3% than for the other groups; hence, the purchasing power of students should not be underestimated.

(TR. Phil Sweeney)