Is “gamers” one audience? What a study of 116,047 players found

A survey built to study problem gaming also produced something marketers rarely get: a map of 116,047 players, what they play, and the device they play it on. The four groups barely overlap.

Shooters are the favourite of 36% of console players and 17% of phone players; strategy games 35% on laptops and 4% on consoles. How to read the gaming channel, from 116,047 players.
Week of

4 May 2026

Marketing in 3 · Issue 17 · Week of 4 May 2026

Two players side by side at curved monitors in a dark gaming club, their faces and keyboards lit by the screens
Same room, same hour, often very different games. Photo: Raman Shaunia on Unsplash.

The short answer

No. Among 116,047 players from across the world, the machine someone chose predicted what they played far better than anything else on file. Shooters were the favourite game of 36% of console players and 17% of phone players. Strategy games ran the other way: 35% on laptops, 4% on consoles. Four in five preferred games had multiplayer in them, and those players reported the heaviest and most troubled play. Yet the same tags were close to useless for judging any one person, which is the part most media plans get backwards.

Key takeaways

  • Action was the common ground: it sat on about three in four favourite games on consoles and computers, and on 60% of them on phones.
  • Massively multiplayer worlds were the pick of 30% of desktop players and 14% of console players.
  • Phones were the least social screen: 66% of their players' favourites had multiplayer, against 82% on desktops.
  • Game tags barely predicted any individual's score on the gaming-disorder scales (R from .08 to .15), so they describe crowds, not people.

What the researchers did

Disclosure before we start: I am one of the four authors, so take the enthusiasm with a pinch of salt.

Davide Marengo (University of Turin), Halley Pontes (Birkbeck, University of London), Christian Montag (University of Macau) and I wanted to know whether the kind of game someone loves says anything about how much trouble their gaming causes them. The survey ran in 2019 through the Electronic Sports League as part of a healthy-gaming campaign, with no payment on offer; players got a personal read-out of their own habits instead. After cleaning, 116,047 people were left.

Everyone named their current favourite game in a free-text box. Those titles were matched to RAWG, a public database of more than 618,000 games, which supplied the genre tags and a yes/no flag for multiplayer. Each player also reported the device they mostly use, how long they play, and answered two standard questionnaires on disordered gaming, one built on the American psychiatric criteria and one on the World Health Organization's.

People
116,047 players, from an opening pool of 188,775 responses across 181 countries
Who they were
Average age 24.1 (range 12 to 80), 92.9% male, 51.6% educated beyond school
Time on the hobby
23.3 hours a week on average
Devices
Desktop 57.0%, console 27.1%, laptop 12.3%, phone or tablet 3.5%
Game classification
Genre tags and a multiplayer flag pulled from the RAWG database

Four screens, four shopping lists

Start with the common ground. Action tags sat on most of the favourites named on every screen. Below that line the four groups pull apart.

Console players leaned into things you can watch someone do: shooters (36%), adventure (31%), sports (9%) and fighting games (6%), the last at more than four times the rate found on any computer. Desktop and laptop players went for worlds that keep running: massively multiplayer games (30% and 25%), role-playing games (43% and 46%), indie titles (12% on both) and strategy, which climbed from 4% on consoles to 26% on desktops and 35% on laptops. Phone and tablet players were the quiet opposite: arcade (11%), casual (11%), card games (5%) and puzzles (4%), each several times higher than anywhere else.

These are the favourite titles of real people, not a panel's claimed interests, which makes the contrast useful. A sponsorship, a product placement or an in-game media buy that treats all four groups as "gamers" is buying four different rooms with one brief.

Share whose favourite game is a shooter, by preferred device
Share whose favourite game is a shooter, by preferred device010203040Console: 36.1%Console36.1%Desktop computer: 31.2%Desktop computer31.2%Laptop: 24.3%Laptop24.3%Phone or tablet: 16.7%Phone or tablet16.7%
Share whose favourite game is a shooter, by preferred device
Group Value (%)
Console 36.1
Desktop computer 31.2
Laptop 24.3
Phone or tablet 16.7

Table 2: 116,047 players, estimated marginal means from the published models.

Age lives in the genre, not in the channel

Marketers often reach for gaming when the brief says young. The data inside the channel is more interesting than that. Older players in this sample drifted towards board games, card games, puzzles, adventure and role-playing titles; younger ones towards action, arcade and shooters, and towards anything with other people in it.

Education tracked the same line. Players with a degree were more likely to pick board, card and puzzle games and less likely to pick action, arcade and shooters. Women, who made up 7% of this particular sample, showed a mild pull towards casual games and nothing else worth reporting.

So the age read comes from the genre, not from the fact that someone games at all. A puzzle app and a shooter sit in the same industry and sell to different decades.

Almost nobody is playing alone

Multiplayer was the rule rather than the exception: 78% of the favourite games had it. The habit was strongest on computers and weakest on phones, and it was not a fringe of hardcore titles either, since even casual and card games now routinely ship with someone else in them.

It is also where the weight sits. Players whose favourite game had multiplayer scored higher on both disordered-gaming scales, and on consoles the pattern was sharpest, with multiplayer, massively multiplayer, casual and shooter preferences all tilting upwards. Puzzles and platformers tilted the other way. The differences were small in statistical terms, but they ran in the same direction under both diagnostic systems and across 116,047 people.

For anyone buying attention in games, that is a double message. The audience you most want is sitting in social, never-ending titles, and those are the same titles where a minority of players are struggling. Pushing spend or urgency at that group is a risk worth naming out loud in the plan.

Share whose favourite game has multiplayer features
Share whose favourite game has multiplayer features020406080100Desktop computer: 82.0%Desktop computer82.0%Laptop: 81.0%Laptop81.0%Console: 70.5%Console70.5%Phone or tablet: 66.0%Phone or tablet66.0%
Share whose favourite game has multiplayer features
Group Value (%)
Desktop computer 82.0
Laptop 81.0
Console 70.5
Phone or tablet 66.0

Table 2: multiplayer tag taken from the RAWG entry for each player's favourite game.

Past the console

Here is the finding that travels furthest. When the team fed every genre tag and the multiplayer flag into a machine-learning model and asked it to predict an individual's disordered-gaming score, it managed almost nothing: a correlation between .08 and .15 between predicted and actual scores. The labels describe the crowd well and the person badly.

Reading past what the paper set out to test, that gap is the shape of most audience data. Device, genre, platform, channel: these are strong group facts and weak personal ones. They are good enough to decide where a campaign runs and what it looks like, and nowhere near good enough to decide what one customer is like, how much they can afford or whether they are in trouble.

The same split applies well outside games. Streaming services, fitness apps, trading platforms and betting products all sort their users by the surface they use and then draw conclusions about individuals from it. The first half of that move is sound. The second half, on this evidence, is wishful.

Marketing in 3 steps

Ready. Set. Market.

ReadyDecide and prepare
  • Split the audience by device before anything else. Get the console, PC and mobile breakdown for the specific titles or creators you are buying, from the publisher or the platform's own reporting. Treat the three as separate audiences with separate budgets.
  • Name the genre in the brief. Write "console shooters" or "mobile puzzle players" into the brief, never "gamers". Pick the genre from where your product actually fits, and let it set the tone, the length and the humour.
SetBuild it
  • Build the activation for two people, not one. Assume the player has someone alongside them: a co-op mode, a referral code that needs a second player, a reward that unlocks in a party. Solo-player mechanics leave most of the audience out.
  • Set the age and tone from the genre, not the channel. Write to the genre's own demographic: puzzle, board and card audiences skew older and more educated, action and shooter audiences younger. Never let "it's gaming" be the reason a campaign is written young.
MarketLaunch and measure
  • Offer a mirror instead of a prize. Give players something about themselves — their stats, their year in review, a personalised ranking — in place of a discount or a draw. It costs little and earns better data than an incentive does.
  • Report by device and genre, and never score a player. Build the dashboard around device and genre segments, where the differences are real. Do not profile individuals from the games they play, and cap spend prompts to the heaviest-playing segment.

What to expect

  • Large gaps between devices, small gaps between people. Genre splits of 20 or 30 points are normal here; the differences in individual behaviour behind them are slight.
  • Mobile is a different business. Arcade, casual and card games were several times more popular on small screens than anywhere else, and shooters far less.
  • Your own mix will not match this one. The sample is 93% male and PC-heavy, recruited through competitive gaming.
  • Both measuring systems agree. The WHO and American criteria produced the same pattern, so the findings do not hinge on which questionnaire you trust.

Where it does not work

  • A 2019 snapshot. Data were collected before the pandemic; mobile gaming in particular has changed a great deal since.
  • An esports crowd, not the market. Recruitment through the Electronic Sports League drew competitive PC players and very few casual ones.
  • Blunt tags. Genre labels and a yes/no multiplayer flag come from a community database, so a game with an optional co-op mode counts the same as a persistent online world.
  • A snapshot, not a cause. Everything is self-reported and measured at one moment, so nothing here shows that a genre creates heavy play rather than attracting it.

Questions marketers ask

Which device do most gamers use?

In this sample, 57.0% preferred a desktop computer, 27.1% a console, 12.3% a laptop and 3.5% a phone or tablet. Recruitment ran through a competitive gaming platform, so the mix leans towards PCs and away from the mobile-heavy picture most market reports show (Marengo et al., 2026).

Do console and PC players want different games?

Clearly. Role-playing games were the favourite of 43% of desktop players against 32% of console players; adventure titles ran the other way, 31% on consoles against 16% on desktops; and fighting games were around four times as common on consoles as on either kind of computer.

How many hours a week do committed gamers play?

An average of 23.3 hours in this sample, which is a working half-week and a reminder of how much attention the channel holds.

Is multiplayer gaming more risky than single-player?

On average, slightly. Favourites with multiplayer in them went with higher scores on both gaming-disorder questionnaires, while puzzle and platformer fans scored lower. Every one of these associations was small.

Can you spot a problem gamer from the games they choose?

No. A model handed the full set of tags for someone's favourite game predicted their score at a correlation of .15 at the very best, and .08 among phone players, which is close to nothing when the question is about one person.

Also new this week

Journal of Product & Brand Management · 2026

Online brand advocacy and video game consumers

Pourazad, N., Abedin, E., & Burgess, J.

More than 23,000 Reddit discussions from the Call of Duty and Battlefield communities were mined for the ways players stick up for the game they love. Six kinds of advocacy came out, from defending the brand to showing off knowledge of it. The two communities argued in different registers, one about story and the other about technical craft, and both produced the same intensity of support.

Operations Research · 2026

Algorithms for loot box design

Han, J., Ryan, C., & Tong, X.

Setting a price and drop odds for a randomised reward turns out to be a hard optimisation problem. The authors show when it can be solved exactly, when a good approximation is available, and how item values and rarity translate into a workable design. Anyone selling mystery boxes, blind packs or gacha pulls is making these choices already, usually by feel.

Source

Marengo, D., Schivinski, B., Pontes, H. M., & Montag, C. (2026). The role of videogame genre and platform in gaming disorder tendencies: A large-scale world-wide study of gamers' preferences. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 15(2), 735-745. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.2026.00022

This brief is written for practitioners from the published article. Open access (CC BY-NC 4.0): free to read at the publisher. Numbers are as reported by the authors; read the article for full methods.

Keep reading

More issues on Advertising · Research methods

Issue 9 · Week of

Test your ads in the feed, not on a slide

The same airline ad scored lower (4.31 vs 4.82 out of 7) when placed among flood posts. How to pretest social ads in a realistic feed, for free.

Issue 26 · Week of

The brand walks. The influencer burns.

In the Ferragni and Balocco case, 96% of journalists' tweets were about the influencer. Consumers followed the press, and the brand barely got mentioned.

Bruno Schivinski

Bruno Schivinski is Associate Professor of Marketing at Gdańsk University of Technology. He studies how consumers engage with brands in digital and social media.

About Bruno · All Marketing in 3 issues · Subscribe