I agree that there are real differences among even the various members of the Net Generation. I use the term “Gamer Generation” since I think video games have had a huge influence on this generation, although so have gadgets and, of course the web.

To deal with this, I break the “Gamer Generation” into Gamers 1.0, Gamers 2.0, Gamers 3,0 and Gamers 4.0 depending upon what games they played while growing up and how much they are into technology. Maybe there should be a Net Generation 1.0, 2.0 etc.

The Gamer 1.0 folks played no games or games like Pong. These folks shy away from the technology for the most part and when they played the games just really thought about where to hit the ball next.

Gamer 2.0 folks played games like Space Invaders, Oregon Trail and Where in the World is Carmen San Diego. Much more involved games, most looking for pattern recognition and consistencies underlying the game. In fact, some people where so good at these games like Pac-Man they could complete the level by following patterns with their eyes closed.

The third level, Gamer 3.0 involved games like Myst. Now the players were problem solving, interacting with the environment figuring out where to go next. These were highly involved games that caused thinking at a higher level.

Next are Gamer 4.0. These are the people that are using the platforms like Second Life to create enconomies and interactions(as discussed in the book Wikinomics…which I loved by the way). These are the people who use Twitter, text message all the time and are highly tuned into leveraging open platforms to create meaning.

So, I agree that even among the “tech-savvy” there are different levels of technology use and expectations.

Karl, I like your classification system – it makes a lot of sense. In that regard, I guess I’m Gamer 2.0. If I can brag a bit, I would say that I’m wicked good at Pac Man; although I’m still working on the whole playing with my eyes shut : )

Part of it for me is the fact that video games became less social as we got older. Pac Man, though a one-player game was somewhat of a social activity because the table-top format allowed you to sit across from friends and challenge each other’s top scores. The games were easy to play, so anyone could join in. StreetFighter remains for me one of the best fighting games of all time, not because of the graphics or the game play, but simply because anyone growing up in the 90’s knows how to play it. It provides a (relatively) level playing field and anyone can join in, making it a somewhat social activity.

As games became more complex they required more and more time to master and so became the sole purview of hard core gamers. The Internet made the games more social again, but also required investing time in a whole new set of online “play friends.” Something many of us are not willing to do. I think this is, in part, a reason for the great success of Nintendo’s Wii with its back-to-basic approach.

In the context of how the different types of games affect cognitive and leadership skills, John Seely Brown makes some good points about how playing World of Warcraft might actually enhance one’s employability (see “You Play World of Warcraft? You’re Hired!” from Wired Magazine http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.04/learn.html).