"casual" gamers:reapers of gaming

[DUALDISASTER]

With all this talk on casual gamers expanding the market, i for one would like to make a thread discussing the detriment they pose on the market. For one, simplier games appeal to them, so where does that leave us? Sure one could look at this in the light of, "We can wean them into more complex games.". But what if developers become lazy and create mediocre games and market them as "casual" just to make a quick buck. That could have a devastating effect on the ingenuity in the market today. We keep pushing mediocrity just for the sake of "it's our favorite brand" and we will have to take atonement for our actions. It took a while for people to realise and take the market seriously and now we look to throw it all away because of this damn system wars. We should be pushing technology forward, not backward for the sake of sequels.

 

[tabs]

I think there is a place for all games and gamers.

There will always be a market for people who want the "hardcore" experience, whatever that may mean in a genre, and folks who want "casual" (likewise). What you'll actually find though is that a lot of folks want both. You don't always want to be absorbed in another universe; sometimes you want to have a quick break and play something simple.

As long as there is a market for it people will produce it. Look at simming. You can even get a sim for people who want to pilot cargo ships. Big slow hunks of metal with plains of blue for miles and miles. Can't say I'd enjoy it, or probably many others but the need is there so the game happens.

I don't think that more gamers changes much at all, apart from more people writing more games.

 

[Npl]

Has always been that way. There are already so many developers wasting time & resources to create boring games for other people than me (the only stable point of reference), a few more wont hurt.

I like both simple and immersive games, and at the same time hate other simple or immersive games. Its not like categorizing games works this way.

 

[NERO]

Sure one could look at this in the light of, "We can wean them into more complex games.".

Weaning casual/minigames into deeper games is fantastic and I am looking forward to Nintendo's offering in this regard.

But what if developers become lazy and create mediocre games and market them as "casual" just to make a quick buck.

Developers create very lazy and mediocre complex games also, wherein a lazy game should be consider such no matter the length.
IMO your fear of an increase in crap games in unreasoned. You can still say no to them. I do forsee a proliferation of what you and I might consider incomplete games as dl content, but hopefully devs won't charge full price for them. Do not worry friend.

 

[JohnyBeGood]

With all this talk on casual gamers expanding the market, i for one would like to make a thread discussing the detriment they pose on the market. For one, simplier games appeal to them, so where does that leave us? Sure one could look at this in the light of, "We can wean them into more complex games.". But what if developers become lazy and create mediocre games and market them as "casual" just to make a quick buck. That could have a devastating effect on the ingenuity in the market today. We keep pushing mediocrity just for the sake of "it's our favorite brand" and we will have to take atonement for our actions. It took a while for people to realise and take the market seriously and now we look to throw it all away because of this damn system wars. We should be pushing technology forward, not backward for the sake of sequels.

Could you give some examples of "mediocre" games aimed for casual players and "complex" games aimed for serious gamers? Your description is pretty vague.

 

[woundingchaney]

I think the casual players are very likely to pic up Oblivion or God of War as even us hardcore. I think a lot of the difference between casual and hardcore is the money spent on gaming and gaming related purchases (hell I would hate to think what I have wrapped up in electronic gadgetry that is mostly for games). I think a "hardcore" gamer is more interested in the quality of a title than advancing technology, much as a casual gamer is much more swayed by the media attention a game gets or its marketing towards pop culture (insert 50 cent BP here).

Perhaps we should differentiate between "casual" and "non-traditional" here. I think I may be confused on your definition of casual gamers.

 

[Pozer]

Casual gamers - Wii, retro games, windows solitaire, sims, guitar hero, Dance Dance Revolution...people that buy 2 games a year and mostly played in a social setting, the type of person that you would see in a coffee shop listening to their ipod. usually a woman or a femine man.

hardcore gamers - halo, ninja gaiden, jrpg, steel battalion, killzone, mmorpg's, anything with hyperviolence or buys games just for achievement points, or has ever called off work/school to 'level up' a character. Buys about a game a month and downloads just as many. Type of person that works IT and lives in their grand parents basement.

 

[Corwin_B]

Damn Solitaire and PopCap for ruining the industry. Also, damn those Madden and GTA players for ruining the carefully crafted Sega/Nintendo hardcore gamers paradise of old. Also, damn those casual MMORPGs like UO or WOW for ruining my grindfest ! Each time the market grows we get the same argument.

Although in this case, "Casual gamers ruin the industry" is the new "Nintendo is for th3 kiddi3 !" : a blanket statement used as ammunition against Nintendo in system wars. Just like the SNES generation before it that felt threatened by the Playstation, the Playstation generation feels threatened by somethings that changes its ecosystem.

I for one welcome casual gamers to the fold, for a variety of reasons.
1) it brings more people to the concept of gaming. My own mother is a study case in this regard. She had never wanted to touch a video game for more than 5 minutes in 20 years, being allergic to the controls. Two years ago, I asked her to try the ironing mini-game in Wario Ware Touched (DS) for 5 minutes, after what she spent about one hour playing Wario Ware (that's where I realised Nintendo was really up to something with the DS, and that was before Nintendogs or Brain Training). For her 50th birthday, I bought her a DSLite with Wario Ware and Brain Training, and she played BT everyday for a long time. For Christmas, I got her Cooking Mama and a Sudoku game (she complained that she had finished every grid in BT). Recently, I made her try Hotel Dusk and Another Code, and she liked both. I'll probably get her Phoenix Wright next. So she went from no games at all to casual games (BT, mini-games) to adventure games. Pretty decent evolution if you ask me. She also liked playing the bongos in Donka Konga, and I think I'll bring the Wii at their home when we visit them for Easter.

2) Lots of companies already make games I have zero interest in, all for the purpose of making a quick buck. I random publisher X wants to publish a "casual game" (whatever it is, let's say a clone of Brain Training) instead of a movie license shovelware or another generic GTA clone or mindless MMORPG, more power to them. At the very least, the "casual game" may not tie too much development resources.

3) "Casual gaming", in the immortal words of the famous DS animated GIF, "prints money". So if it can help publishers keep afloat in a climate of climbing dev costs, increasing risks, and (at least in Japan) shrinking traditional market, then everybody wins. It's not like Nintendo stopped developing Zelda TP after Brain Training became successful... There will always be games aimed at the "hardcore" crowd (especially since that "hardcore" crowd is the "casual" crowd of the SNES-era gamers...).

 

[archangelmorph]

1) it brings more people to the concept of gaming. My own mother is a study case in this regard. She had never wanted to touch a video game for more than 5 minutes in 20 years, being allergic to the controls. Two years ago, I asked her to try the ironing mini-game in Wario Ware Touched (DS) for 5 minutes, after what she spent about one hour playing Wario Ware (that's where I realised Nintendo was really up to something with the DS, and that was before Nintendogs or Brain Training). For her 50th birthday, I bought her a DSLite with Wario Ware and Brain Training, and she played BT everyday for a long time. For Christmas, I got her Cooking Mama and a Sudoku game (she complained that she had finished every grid in BT). Recently, I made her try Hotel Dusk and Another Code, and she liked both. I'll probably get her Phoenix Wright next. So she went from no games at all to casual games (BT, mini-games) to adventure games. Pretty decent evolution if you ask me. She also liked playing the bongos in Donka Konga, and I think I'll bring the Wii at their home when we visit them for Easter.

Nice!
I absolutely agree that casual games is the key to expanding the games industry as a whole.. Let's face it, video games are "fun" and such fun can be addictive at times.. In fact its not too difficult to view gaming as sort of a drug.. Once you play an awesome game you really enjoyed you start to look for similar experiences (same genre).. Once you've been through several before you know it you begin to yern for deeper, richer experiences which do more than the last.. This is the sole reason console hardware continues to develop and why I think if it come be done for the hardcore gamer (who started life playing Mario and Sonic in the days of old) then it can also do so for the casual (in this age where Sonic and Mario have been substituted for the variety of casual experiences such as DS, Wii, Eye-toy etc..)

Think of casual gaming as a sort of "weening" process for bringing non-gamers into the gaming realm and preparing them for the hardcore titles in that they'll finally be able to "get it" and thus "have fun with it"..

Ultimately I hope we can get to the same point that the movie industry has reached whereby a "hardcore" action movie like the Matrix has uber-mass market appeal across both the hardcore movie buffs and the average joe looking for an hour or too of entertainment..

 

[T Ghost]

My view is that the casual turn that nintendo proposes is a huge potential threat to the video games market as a whole.

It poses the risk of game developers become greedy and lazy, pushing cloned and repeated simplistic games one after another creating the exact same scenario of the 1983 video games crash.

Also if and when casuals turn in masses to simplistic games like Nintendo proposes, complex games that cost multiple million dollars to develop and publish will have no commercial reason to exist, leaving us, hardcore gamers literally gameless.

So I don't bet on the market "turning WiiSports". Too much too lose for the big boys involved in the industry right now and too risky for all open capital companies in the market.

Sorry, Nintendo, gotta try again.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Most games that go to market are not innovative at all, in terms of game play. Maybe they further some simulation technology, but that's about it. We're still playing the same RTS, RPG, FPS and racing games we've been playing since the 90s. I think any worry that Nintendo, or any other company attracting casual gamers, is going to lower the standards for games is unfounded, because the standards for games is already incredibly low. In my opinion, you'll see start to see a lot of new styles in gaming, which is a positive for the industry. I'm having a lot of fun playing Elite Beat Agents right now, and I can't say I've ever played anything like it. Look at Guitar Hero on the PS2. It's an incredibly fun, challenging, albeit simple game, and its one of the few unique gaming experiences to the home console market in a while.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

My view is that the casual turn that nintendo proposes is a huge potential threat to the video games market as a whole.

Just to let you know, I dont disagree but this really depends on your pov. If the far majority of people likes games like wii sports (wich isnt really that bad if nintendo would make a full version and not some tech demo) more than FF13, or games like wii sports is the only thing they want to play than who are we to say they cannot? Its just like democrasy, majority choose what is best even though that might not always be best.

It poses the risk of game developers become greedy and lazy, pushing cloned and repeated simplistic games one after another

That isnt really different from now.

Also if and when casuals turn in masses to simplistic games like Nintendo proposes, complex games that cost multiple million dollars to develop and publish will have no commercial reason to exist, leaving us, hardcore gamers literally gameless.

OTOH without copycat and small games most devs cant even afford to build complex games let alone build a complex games wich is different from other games.

So I don't bet on the market "turning WiiSports". Too much too lose for the big boys involved in the industry right now and too risky for all open capital companies in the market.

You need to see it from a different perspective. You now have the ''wiisports gamers'' and the ''die hard gamers''. Both are different groups and both will mainly buy different games. However that group of wii sports gamers might become interrested in the more ''diehard'' games because they release because of wiisports that gaming can be fun and isnt a ''nerd'' thing like they used to think. So it could help getting the ''diehard'' gamer group bigger.

I think thats kinda how nintendo views it. On the one hand they have the die hard gamers, but there now is also this gigantic group of people who for whatever reason isnt interrested in ''die hard'' games but they try to pull them into gaming by things like wiisports wich might eventually lead to diehard games. Ofcourse not every wiisports player will go that way but no matter how you look at it its a win - win situation because you will keep those 2 groups that you can earn money on.

 

[Corwin_B]

My view is that the casual turn that nintendo proposes is a huge potential threat to the video games market as a whole.

It poses the risk of game developers become greedy and lazy, pushing cloned and repeated simplistic games one after another creating the exact same scenario of the 1983 video games crash.

Yes, because those Tetris-wanabes, Warcraft clones, MMORPG Grindfests, yearly sport franchises, generic anime-like RPGs and WW2 FPS were the pinnacle of innovation.

Also if and when casuals turn in masses to simplistic games like Nintendo proposes, complex games that cost multiple million dollars to develop and publish will have no commercial reason to exist, leaving us, hardcore gamers literally gameless.

To be sure that I follow you, your reasoning is that there is an already existing, sustainable, large market of "hardcore" gamers, but that suddenly there will be no commercial reason to feed the need of that market ? That flies in the face of about every economic theory. If there is money to be made by catering to the need of the self-called "hardcore" crowd, then games will be made to feel its need. If there isn't money to be made, it won't be the fault of "casuals".

Sorry, Nintendo, gotta try again.

Nice from you to precise your agenda in the end, though. What so amazes me is that the anti-Nintendo crowd is making the exact same (clueless) argument that Nintendo fanboys made when the PSX started gaining traction : that the "casual" games of the PSX were going to make their existing "hardcore" market bankrupt, which, as we all know now, is a load of bull. There are still "blue sky in games" platformers being developed, and every single genre that felt on the wayside was not done so in order to cater to the new "casual" market needs, but because its followers let the genre down (cue space flight sims, point&click adventure games...).

 

[DUALDISASTER]

Nice from you to precise your agenda in the end, though. What so amazes me is that the anti-Nintendo crowd is making the exact same (clueless) argument that Nintendo fanboys made when the PSX started gaining traction : that the "casual" games of the PSX were going to make their existing "hardcore" market bankrupt, which, as we all know now, is a load of bull. There are still "blue sky in games" platformers being developed, and every single genre that felt on the wayside was not done so in order to cater to the new "casual" market needs, but because its followers let the genre down (cue space flight sims, point&click adventure games...).

I know at one point you were directing this statement to me so i'll bite. Let's get one thing strait, I am NOT in any way intimidated by the WII's temporary success. I'm truthfully afraid of what effect developing for a simplistic console would do to the industry. Playstation was different, many innovative games came from the tech it had at the time. Sony brought more non-gamers in that way without costing the "hardcare" group. What nintendo is trying to do is make non-gamers into gamers when infact most will never be. They don't want/too old for complication. They want easy to pick up games that needs no time obligation. Everything they want in a game is not in the "hardcore" group and thus they will not be interested in those type of games. The problem is people follow sensations, and right now it's the wii. If non-gamers and gamers can play, and both buy, we will definitely see clones on top of clones since they are so easy to make. Developer get lazy and exhaust the industry with crap. Let people try real games on their own through engaging stories and easy but deep gameplay.

 

[Zassk]

What nintendo is trying to do is make non-gamers into gamers when infact most will never be. They don't want/too old for complication. They want easy to pick up games that needs no time obligation.

I don't buy your analysis. It's not just non-gamers who want games that have less complication or time obligation. I would argue that most gamers want this. And watch how you paint with the "too old" brush: teenage gamers from the Atari era are now in their 40's, and most of them are still gamers.

The easiest way to make a game challenging is to make it complicated and/or time consuming. Historically, when games were very limited by their platforms, these were the only reasonable ways to introduce difficulty. But that doesn't mean that these two traits are required to make a game worthy. And just because gamers supported these games in the past doesn't mean they value these traits.

A change of direction doesn't necessarily mean the ruin of the industry. The collapse in 1982 was about dismal product quality. The potential shift being discussed here is not about quality, it's about accessibility.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

I am NOT in any way intimidated by the WII's temporary success.

I should know better, but ill ask. How do you know its temporary?

I'm truthfully afraid of what effect developing for a simplistic console would do to the industry.

How can you say anything like that? the wii is more advanced than gc, xbox and ps2 so its hardly simplistic. Its just less complicated than ps3 and x360. So if wii is simplistic, so is ps2, that would mean could do the same as psx and ps2 dis, attrackt more people to gaming.

Playstation was different, many innovative games came from the tech it had at the time. Sony brought more non-gamers in that way without costing the "hardcare" group.

Not really. What sony brought in with the PSX were more casual gamers, not non gamers as non gamers arnt interrested in the ''traditional'' way of playing games. Sony made gaming from a Nerd thing into a cool thing. I also disagree that they brought in alot of casual gamers because of the tech. Marketing did alot more than the tech itself.

What nintendo is trying to do is make non-gamers into gamers when infact most will never be.

No. Nintendo is trying to build games wich people who normally wouldnt play a game would play and in the proces they might hope a small group of that will turn into ''real'' gamers but the main idea is to get a ''nongamer'' group beside the ''hardcore'' gamer group.

The problem is people follow sensations, and right now it's the wii. If non-gamers and gamers can play, and both buy, we will definitely see clones on top of clones since they are so easy to make. Developer get lazy and exhaust the industry with crap.

There already is more than enough crap so I really dont see a point in your argument. There used to be crap, there still is crap and there will always be crap weater you have ''nongames'' or not.

Let people try real games on their own through engaging stories and easy but deep gameplay.

The whole point is that alot of people just arnt interrested in that type of games. They dont want the type of games as we known them for 20 years now, they want something like braintraining or wiisports.

 

[Corwin_B]

Sony brought more non-gamers in that way without costing the "hardcare" group.

Tell that to fans of the old, difficult Final Fantasy titles that they feel have been replaced by watered-down, easy to finish, full of stupid plot twists and cinematics travestys. Not that I agree, but those people are definitely more "hardcore" than what passes for "hardcore" nowadays (and which basically amounts to spending hours on forums trashing games instead of playing them, coupled with a generous helping of Nintendo bashing).

Also tell that to fans of 2D gaming in general, who felt very slighted by Sony's insistance that developers move toward 3D.

What nintendo is trying to do is make non-gamers into gamers when infact most will never be.

Yeah, I'm sure those millions of people who bought PS2s in cheap Buzz or Singstar bundles like an expensive and more versatile version of Trivial Pursuit are busy playing GoW2 and Okami right now. I've not seen the outcry by the current "Nintendo wants to destroy the industry" crowd back when Singstar was released and hyped by Sony, which furthers my belief that this is not about an actual threat to the industry, but about some good ol' fashioned system wars in disguise Note that this goes both ways, Nintendo fans were definitely some of the most elitist and annoying forum pricks pre-DS, insisting that the GC lackluster sales were somehow proof of its "hardcoreness".

If non-gamers and gamers can play, and both buy, we will definitely see clones on top of clones since they are so easy to make. Developer get lazy and exhaust the industry with crap.

As opposed to doing what exactly in the current business model ? Last time I checked, the PS2 had some of the worst amount of shovelware developed for any console ever. I consider that a testimony to its success, not to the supposed laziness of developers (by which I suppose you mean publishers). There are already some deep, "hardcore" games available for the Wii, with more announced. Just because it uses the Wii and nunchuk instead of a joypad doesn't mean SSX Blur is an easy, casual-friendly game.

BTW, keyword here in your argument is "both" : if "both" groups buy and each presents a profitable market, then games will be made to adress both groups tastes.

I've presented in this thread the argument that this industry is already based on cheap crap, clones and sequels, Wii or not. I'm still waiting for a compelling refutation. I've also presented the argument that genres that became "niche" after a market expansion still managed to find titles developed and published provided that the niche remained profitable. I have yet to see evidence for sales of "non-games" or "casual games" being detrimental to the amount of "true games" (bleh) being sold. I'd argue that there is a good case to be made for the opposite theory (who here think New Super Mario Bros would have sold over 4 millions units in JP without Brain Training, Nintendogs and Animal Crossing ?).

If your analysis was true, which it's not, the market would already be flooded with cheapo Brain Training clones, not only on DS, but on every platform known to man. It's simply not the case. The BT craze started in Japan nearly 2 years ago, and those titles take a couple months to develop, so by your reasoning we shouldn't have seen any actual game being released in Japan after, say, October 2005 at most ?

 

[T Ghost]

Yes, because those Tetris-wanabes, Warcraft clones, MMORPG Grindfests, yearly sport franchises, generic anime-like RPGs and WW2 FPS were the pinnacle of innovation.



To be sure that I follow you, your reasoning is that there is an already existing, sustainable, large market of "hardcore" gamers, but that suddenly there will be no commercial reason to feed the need of that market ? That flies in the face of about every economic theory. If there is money to be made by catering to the need of the self-called "hardcore" crowd, then games will be made to feel its need. If there isn't money to be made, it won't be the fault of "casuals".



Nice from you to precise your agenda in the end, though. What so amazes me is that the anti-Nintendo crowd is making the exact same (clueless) argument that Nintendo fanboys made when the PSX started gaining traction : that the "casual" games of the PSX were going to make their existing "hardcore" market bankrupt, which, as we all know now, is a load of bull. There are still "blue sky in games" platformers being developed, and every single genre that felt on the wayside was not done so in order to cater to the new "casual" market needs, but because its followers let the genre down (cue space flight sims, point&click adventure games...).

The part that you didn't get is that casual gamers nowaday consumes the "complicated" kind of crap that you like to bash :

Yes, because those Tetris-wanabes, Warcraft clones, MMORPG Grindfests, yearly sport franchises, generic anime-like RPGs and WW2 FPS were the pinnacle of innovation.

Those casual gamers make the current market model sustainable and keep the non inovative flow of crap coming.

Also because the river of uninovative "complex" crap keeps coming, the good things keep coming too, stuff that us, hardcore gamers love and cherish.

Now with a new kind of uber casual games coming up the situation is that the new etris-wanabes, Warcraft clones, MMORPG Grindfests, yearly sport franchises, generic anime-like RPGs and WW2 FPS are gonna be clones of the good uber casual games like wiisports&family.

Nintendo games are and always will be genious no mater how casual they are. Those are quality games. Nintendo 1st pty is NOT a threat at all.

The threat is when all the casual mass (80%+ of the games sales i.e.) comes from those uber casual games and the E.A.s start to realize that a 500.000 4 hour long game w/o storytelling sells more than a multi million dollar MGS, GT, Forza or GoW.

At that point and moment, you can kiss goodbye to the river of uninventive "complex" games and the few pearls that it bring in it's heart.

Again, relax, nobody here is trying to Nintendo Bash. If 50% of the big publishers had 25% of the honor and quality that Nintendo puts on it's 1st pty there would be no threat at all.

The problem lies at the EA's, Ubi's and 2K's of life...

 

[Sis]

With all this talk on casual gamers expanding the market, i for one would like to make a thread discussing the detriment they pose on the market. For one, simplier games appeal to them, so where does that leave us? Sure one could look at this in the light of, "We can wean them into more complex games.". But what if developers become lazy and create mediocre games and market them as "casual" just to make a quick buck. That could have a devastating effect on the ingenuity in the market today. We keep pushing mediocrity just for the sake of "it's our favorite brand" and we will have to take atonement for our actions. It took a while for people to realise and take the market seriously and now we look to throw it all away because of this damn system wars. We should be pushing technology forward, not backward for the sake of sequels.

You know, this may be the first time I've seen a perfect use for this quote from Billy Madison:

Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

I didn't even step into this thread until just now because I couldn't understand what "reapers of gaming" even means. Now, I'm not trying to be a jerk, so I have a couple suggestions that could fix the issues with this topic:

Can you be more specific? List which games you categorize as casual, and preferably categorize elements of games that make them casual. How segmented is that market (that is, is there a super casual, somewhat casual, only plays 2 hours a month casual)? Detail how large the casual market is, in both consumers and dollars. Discuss it's growth rate and compare it to the overall gaming market's growth rate.

Until you start listing specifics, your question has too many implied statements and biases. What you consider casual may not be a casual game at all. And the market you indicate as casual may not overlap and compete with the mainstream gaming market at all.

Just my advice and don't take the Billy Madison quote seriously :smile: