Chair actually looks half decent in terms of shape. Too bad the upholstery will be chafing away within a year.

Been there done that... :P

Vayra86Chair actually looks half decent in terms of shape. Too bad the upholstery will be chafing away within a year.

Been there done that... :p

Hm, my partner had a Markus and I had a Volmar, both for 5+ years, used for quite a few hours every day, and neither had visible upholstery wear when they were replaced. I'd be more wary of Ikea's sofa fabrics personally - their chairs have held up pretty good in my experience.

Oh, and for those out there who prefer leather chairs: ew. Why? Why would you do this to yourself?

Vayra86Chair actually looks half decent in terms of shape. Too bad the upholstery will be chafing away within a year.

Been there done that... :p

Eh? I've had a couple of IKEA office chairs and never had issues with that.

ValantarOh, and for those out there who prefer leather chairs: ew. Why? Why would you do this to yourself?

Trust me, wool is not nice in the tropics, leather is better, as at least it can be wiped clean...
Mesh is the way forward imho and IKEA missed an opportunity here.

TheLostSwedeEh? I've had a couple of IKEA office chairs and never had issues with that.


Trust me, wool is not nice in the tropics, leather is better, as at least it can be wiped clean...
Mesh is the way forward imho and IKEA missed an opportunity here.

I would definitely avoid wool as well (though if treated properly and woven well it can be both cool, breathable and comfortable, it rarely is). I'm fine with the cloth seat on my Ergochair 2, but love the mesh back. A leather chair in the tropics sounds like a recipe for some sort of fungal infection to me. No thanks! :P

TheLostSwedeEh? I've had a couple of IKEA office chairs and never had issues with that.


Trust me, wool is not nice in the tropics, leather is better, as at least it can be wiped clean...
Mesh is the way forward imho and IKEA missed an opportunity here.

I'm never buying a non-mesh chairs again.

Had an Eames replica since 2010, and replaced it with a €300 Ergohuman fake/copy with more adjustment just before the pandemic hit.

Chrispy_I'm never buying a non-mesh chairs again.

Had an Eames replica since 2010, and replaced it with a €300 Ergohuman fake/copy with more adjustment just before the pandemic hit.

I have something very similar to the second one.

MentalAcetylideNot for me. I'll stick with my Steelcase Think chair, which is a lot more comfortable and will probably outlast any of those gamer chairs... thrice over.

I don't believe steelcase think is really in the same market range as IKEA's chairs, and, seeing how it costs about 4 times as much as a Markus.... it ought to.

TheLostSwedeIKEA estimates that there are no less than 2.5 billion gamers globally

I highly doubt that number... They must define gamer as anyone with the ability to lift a controller...

Easy RhinoI highly doubt that number... They must define gamer as anyone with the ability to lift a controller...

How many people have a smartphone?

A stain on IKEA.

Easy RhinoI highly doubt that number... They must define gamer as anyone with the ability to lift a controller...

Hi,
Cell phone gamers
But they don't need gaming chairs any chair will due lol

Easy RhinoI highly doubt that number... They must define gamer as anyone with the ability to lift a controller...

ThrashZoneHi,
Cell phone gamers
But they don't need gaming chairs any chair will due lol

Well, the ESA says there are 227 million people in the US who play games weekly, out of a population of 332 million. That's 68%. Of course the US is both a very wealthy country and has a long history of (and broad social acceptance of) gaming, so it's clearly not representative of the globe. But let's say they're at 2x everyone else (which they aren't, as Europe, India and China all have very significant player bases, in addition to many other countries particularly in south and east Asia). That would put us at 34% of a global population of 7.9 billion. That would put us at 2.69 billion weekly players. So, overall, Ikea's 2.5B number really isn't very unlikely.

And yes, clearly this includes gameplay on all kinds of platforms - PCs, consoles, phones, whatever. It's all gaming.

ValantarWell, the ESA says there are 227 million people in the US who play games weekly, out of a population of 332 million. That's 68%. Of course the US is both a very wealthy country and has a long history of (and broad social acceptance of) gaming, so it's clearly not representative of the globe. But let's say they're at 2x everyone else (which they aren't, as Europe, India and China all have very significant player bases, in addition to many other countries particularly in south and east Asia). That would put us at 34% of a global population of 7.9 billion. That would put us at 2.69 billion weekly players. So, overall, Ikea's 2.5B number really isn't very unlikely.

And yes, clearly this includes gameplay on all kinds of platforms - PCs, consoles, phones, whatever. It's all gaming.

Yea, if you count mobile games then that 2.5 billion number is just for marketing purposes...

Easy RhinoYea, if you count mobile games then that 2.5 billion number is just for marketing purposes...

Hi,
Could of went by win-10 & candy crush for all we know lol

ThrashZoneHi,
Could of went by win-10 & candy crush for all we know lol

"For all we know" - the ESA publishes their reports in full. If you're looking for the mobile/console/PC mix, it's on page 7. 77% of "players" play more than 3 hours a week, 51% more than 7 hours a week. Maybe actually look at the data before commenting?

Easy RhinoYea, if you count mobile games then that 2.5 billion number is just for marketing purposes...

... so mobile games aren't games? Please stop the elitist, gatekeeping nonsense. Mobile games might generally be lower quality, and the preferred genres might be different, but they're just as much games as CoD or whatever you like on PC.

Valantar[ ... ] Mobile games might generally be lower quality, and the preferred genres might be different, but they're just as much games as CoD or whatever you like on PC.

but are they the target audience of a gaming desk or chair ... ?

Selayabut are they the target audience of a gaming desk or chair ... ?

Hardly, but I also doubt Ikea is aiming to sell 2.5 billion desks or chairs either. They're just pointing out that "gamers" is a freakin' huge group of people.

Valantar"For all we know" - the ESA publishes their reports in full. If you're looking for the mobile/console/PC mix, it's on page 7. 77% of "players" play more than 3 hours a week, 51% more than 7 hours a week. Maybe actually look at the data before commenting?

... so mobile games aren't games? Please stop the elitist, gatekeeping nonsense. Mobile games might generally be lower quality, and the preferred genres might be different, but they're just as much games as CoD or whatever you like on PC.

What I am saying is that anyone can be considered a "gamer" if they have a smart phone. If mobile games count as "games" then they can claim 2.5 billion gamers because all of those people have smart phones and can download and play angry birds once. That does not make them gamers IMO.

Easy RhinoI highly doubt that number... They must define gamer as anyone with the ability to lift a controller...

Or smartphone. Or tablet. Or gameboy. Seems accurate that way. Doubtful it requires ROG IKEA ROFLZOMG gear :p

Valantar... so mobile games aren't games? Please stop the elitist, gatekeeping nonsense. Mobile games might generally be lower quality, and the preferred genres might be different, but they're just as much games as CoD or whatever you like on PC.

Elitist? Saying mobile gaming is the cesspool of said hobby is pretty accurate IMHO. In the same way, some music is the cesspool of anything audio. It simply is that way, because tastes vary. Nothing elitist about it. Its differences between people, to each their own goes both ways and yes its perfectly fine to have criticism on what you don't like and why. And yes, it is definitely also a value judgment in that sense. Let's consider 'drillrap music' that has been replacing hip-hop; - now add your perspective on its value. Today we have young kids no older than 12 stabbing each other down because of influences portrayed in that scene. Its been researched and is a growing trend. Other factors matter, but still. Writing's on the wall.

In the same way, for gaming, especially mobile, what quickly got erased on the PC and other paid platforms because the bar is much higher in terms of gaming (there you have it: direct commercial competition is ALSO a value argument, elitist too?) still survives on smartphones because the bar of entry is super low and it caters to the bottom of the bottom of casual gamers, who in many cases have no notion they're running after a gambling machine or a carrot they'll never catch. There is no fun here, its a psychological effect being abused to make companies money.

Today people have this annoying thought 'everyone is right' - no they're not. Some notions are just utter stupidity and this is what separates people in many ways. For good reasons more often than not.

So sure, mobile games are 'games' - you're often not the player though, you're getting played. Let's keep our heads on straight.

There's also a very easy question to ask to people if they vigorously defend 'their thing'. If its something really close to their heart, and not something commerce drew them into for no reason of their own; every single person can tell you 'why' they think their thing is so great. And those reasons will make sense if they're more than 'its fun'. For example, I can dislike classical music, but almost everyone could appreciate that people like it because of the instruments used or its compositions. Try doing that with your average MTX infested, timegated mobile game. I dare you :)

Easy RhinoWhat I am saying is that anyone can be considered a "gamer" if they have a smart phone. If mobile games count as "games" then they can claim 2.5 billion gamers because all of those people have smart phones and can download and play angry birds once. That does not make them gamers IMO.

So you're assuming their methodology is flawed. While I would love to see how they arrived at that number, I argued above for why it's not unreasonable from known data - if the rest of the world has half as many people frequently playing games as the US, then you have more than 2.5B gamers.

And yes, mobile games are obviously games. Casual games are games. And the people playing them have just as much of a right to call themselves players or gamers as anyone else.

Vayra86Elitist? Saying mobile gaming is the cesspool of said hobby is pretty accurate IMHO. In the same way, some music is the cesspool of anything audio. It simply is that way, because tastes vary. Nothing elitist about it. Its differences between people, to each their own goes both ways and yes its perfectly fine to have criticism on what you don't like and why. And yes, it is definitely also a value judgment in that sense. Let's consider 'drillrap music' that has been replacing hip-hop; - now add your perspective on its value. Today we have young kids no older than 12 stabbing each other down because of influences portrayed in that scene. Its been researched and is a growing trend. Other factors matter, but still. Writing's on the wall.

You're conflating a bunch of things here though. The cesspool you speak of consists of shovelware, predatory f2p games, and a bunch of other stuff. Does that invalidate the value of high quality f2p games, or high quality ad-financed or paid mobile games? Obviously not. And while a too-large proportion of players do get lured into these crap games (thanks in large parts to recommendation algorithms and the like), that doesn't mean the most play time or the most money go into these games (though again, predatory apps and games do sadly pass far to easily through all kinds of checks). None of that invalidates mobile gaming as gaming. Whether your game of choice is PUBG mobile, some idle game, whatever the most recent Candy Crush is, or whatever else, as long as you enjoy it and spend significant time on it, that's enough to meet any reasonable standard.

Vayra86In the same way, for gaming, especially mobile, what quickly got erased on the PC and other paid platforms because the bar is much higher in terms of gaming (there you have it: direct commercial competition is ALSO a value argument, elitist too?) still survives on smartphones because the bar of entry is super low and it caters to the bottom of the bottom of casual gamers, who in many cases have no notion they're running after a gambling machine or a carrot they'll never catch. There is no fun here, its a psychological effect being abused to make companies money.

Sorry, but have you browsed Steam any time lately? It's chock full of shovelware and utter crap rip-off games. This is by no means exclusive to mobile. And these games on PCs can be just as predatory as on mobile (though thankfully the platform doesn't facilitate this quite as easily).

Vayra86Today people have this annoying thought 'everyone is right' - no they're not. Some notions are just utter stupidity and this is what separates people in many ways. For good reasons more often than not.

That's a nice straw man you've got there. Did you make it yourself? I never said "everyone is right". I said that PC (and console) gaming isn't the only type of gaming out there. And if you draw some arbitrary line there, then yes, that is elitist and gatekeeping; actively defining out others doing a variant of the same activity you are doing as "not worthy" because of their choice of platform, their economic resources, their preferences, or whatever else. All that's reasonably demanded for fitting within a "gamer" or "player" label is to want to, enjoy, spend time on, and value the playing of some form of digital game (though there's an argument to be made for board/card games also belonging within that classification). Delimiting those terms any more than that? That's gatekeeping. Delimiting those terms on the basis of the games others like or perfer not being "good enough", or their choice of platform (or lack of resources to choose otherwise)? That's elitist and gatekeeping.

There are tons of crap games out there. There are also tons of good ones - across all platforms. And tons of players who spend significant time, effort and money, and put a lot of themselves into gameplay on all platforms. And all of them qualify equally for categories such as these. The only non-arbitrary line that can be drawn is by defining out people who don't spend significant time playing games, don't see themselves as game players, don't think of games as an important, interesting, rewarding or relaxing activity, etc.

ValantarThat's a nice straw man you've got there. Did you make it yourself? I never said "everyone is right". I said that PC (and console) gaming isn't the only type of gaming out there. And if you draw some arbitrary line there, then yes, that is elitist and gatekeeping; actively defining out others doing a variant of the same activity you are doing as "not worthy" because of their choice of platform, their economic resources, their preferences, or whatever else. All that's reasonably demanded for fitting within a "gamer" or "player" label is to want to, enjoy, spend time on, and value the playing of some form of digital game (though there's an argument to be made for board/card games also belonging within that classification). Delimiting those terms any more than that? That's gatekeeping. Delimiting those terms on the basis of the games others like or perfer not being "good enough", or their choice of platform (or lack of resources to choose otherwise)? That's elitist and gatekeeping.

There are tons of crap games out there. There are also tons of good ones - across all platforms. And tons of players who spend significant time, effort and money, and put a lot of themselves into gameplay on all platforms. And all of them qualify equally for categories such as these. The only non-arbitrary line that can be drawn is by defining out people who don't spend significant time playing games, don't see themselves as game players, don't think of games as an important, interesting, rewarding or relaxing activity, etc.

You're right about those arbitrary lines, I'll agree fully. But I think what mobile games are widely and well known for, indeed as a 'platform', is the overabundance of f2p/MTX/timegated crap you can find. For every good game there are a few dozen spin offs that emulate (or straight up copy) the visual style and setting but plaster an abomination of a game concept over it.

The 'everyone is right' was never meant as a strawman and never directed specifically at you, but more so at the 'elitist' counter that is fár too simple to cover the aspect of the mobile platform and its 'problems'. The problems are inherent to the characteristics and ease of entry of and to it, really. Does that make it impossible to find a proper game on it? No, certainly not, but those proper games aren't what a majority tends to play - especially when we speak of the 2.5 billion mentioned here. I'm sure you know what comprises the bulk of mobile game revenue.

This is essentially yet another example of the problems of the internet and its possibilities. It creates loads of opportunity and it enables humans to be humans, with almost no checks or balances. Value arguments about that, certainly are important ways to lead people away from the crap and onto the better stuff they can also find. If we want to grow in our use of internet, we'll need better filtering for our own selves, that is my point, really. And those 'blanket' arguments are quick ways to do that. Not fully accurate, but pretty damn close as a guideline, bar those exceptions.

Vayra86You're right about those arbitrary lines, I'll agree fully. But I think what mobile games are widely and well known for, indeed as a 'platform', is the overabundance of f2p/MTX/timegated crap you can find. For every good game there are a few dozen spin offs that emulate (or straight up copy) the visual style and setting but plaster an abomination of a game concept over it.

The 'everyone is right' was never meant as a strawman and never directed specifically at you, but more so at the 'elitist' counter that is fár too simple to cover the aspect of the mobile platform and its 'problems'. The problems are inherent to the characteristics and ease of entry of and to it, really. Does that make it impossible to find a proper game on it? No, certainly not, but those proper games aren't what a majority tends to play - especially when we speak of the 2.5 billion mentioned here. I'm sure you know what comprises the bulk of mobile game revenue.

This is essentially yet another example of the problems of the internet and its possibilities. It creates loads of opportunity and it enables humans to be humans, with almost no checks or balances. Value arguments about that, certainly are important ways to lead people away from the crap and onto the better stuff they can also find. If we want to grow in our use of internet, we'll need better filtering for our own selves, that is my point, really. And those 'blanket' arguments are quick ways to do that. Not fully accurate, but pretty damn close as a guideline, bar those exceptions.

You're right about all of this - there are huge problems to be solved thanks to the "openness" (yes, that does require quotes) of the internet and internet-based platforms. Any sufficiently large system with lax or no oversight will inevitably overflow with predatory and exploitative "products", as long as it operates within a capitalist society (which, to be clear, doesn't whatsoever mean that other ideologies are immune to this; just that it's inherent to capitalism). That's a much bigger and unrelated-though-overlapping problem though, and IMO doesn't relate to who can or can't be called a "gamer". Heck, the games industry crash in the '80s, and the dot-com bubble around y2k were both largely caused by crap-level products being overhyped and then tanking. Trash isn't just inherent to these platforms, it's everywhere. The places that don't have tons of trash put a lot of work into keeping it that way.

But that's also the problem with the "it's not elitist" argument: it will always collapse on itself under scrutiny, as gatekeeping terms like "gamers" or "players" attacks actual players rather than systems or those with actual power within/over those systems. And that's just counterproductive, serves to maintain and strengthen the status quo, all the while creating conflict and animosity between groups of people who ultimately share the same interests - in this case, better quality and less exploitative games.

ValantarSo you're assuming their methodology is flawed. While I would love to see how they arrived at that number, I argued above for why it's not unreasonable from known data - if the rest of the world has half as many people frequently playing games as the US, then you have more than 2.5B gamers.

I guess. But it doesn't really matter I guess.

ValantarAnd yes, mobile games are obviously games. Casual games are games. And the people playing them have just as much of a right to call themselves players or gamers as anyone else.

No, mobile games don't count. Neither are filthy casual games actual games. Also, notice, they only say gamers. They could be including table tops in there. :laugh:

Easy RhinoNo, mobile games don't count. Neither are filthy casual games actual games. Also, notice, they only say gamers. They could be including table tops in there. :laugh:

Well, said jokingly or not, we have the elitism confirmed at least. Also, including board games really isn't likely to increase the numbers much - have you noticed how massively popular video games are? And just to reiterate: if the test of the world plays games at half the rate of the US, 2.5 billion is a low estimate. These numbers are, overall, quite realistic. Gaming is not an exclusive hobby, and self-proclaimed "gamers" need to get over themselves and realize that this is a great thing.

ValantarWell, said jokingly or not, we have the elitism confirmed at least. Also, including board games really isn't likely to increase the numbers much - have you noticed how massively popular video games are? And just to reiterate: if the test of the world plays games at half the rate of the US, 2.5 billion is a low estimate. These numbers are, overall, quite realistic. Gaming is not an exclusive hobby, and self-proclaimed "gamers" need to get over themselves and realize that this is a great thing.

Right... now, let's get both feet on the ground again and circle back to the context in which 2.5 billion was used here.

Do you really think we have 2.5 billion non-couch-gaming, desktop-oriented gamers that can somehow make use of the IKEA gear on offer? Whát is the stereotype room you see here? Heck, its not even console gamer oriented as it shows. The couch is an object they're not marketing here.