Is Wii bad for the games industry...?

[patsu]

If you buy more games, you play more games, you invest more hours in games, you spend more money on games, you want to secure your money, etc.
Thus all mentioned, including magazines, is just a function of buying more games.

Yes, that's another good proxy indicator also. Ultimately, it depends on what you're interested to measure. There are people who buy games but did not end up playing all of them (like me !). Some avid gamers keep playing the same game for hours without buying new ones. Others may share the purchase (like me and my friends again). There are also cases where the people buying the games bought them for someone else.

I remember reading some Nintendo PR about # of gaming hours (for whatever purposes they deem appropriate). The number may be useful for product development and planning purposes for example.

This is why I said the definition is not clear cut. Just use whatever suits your needs best.

Nintendo left "big console" business and their first step was successful. This in no way means that their next step will be equally successful. And they will make it soon enough. We'll see.

Nintendo also has DS. Wii and Wii Fit are by no means their only bet. I am pretty sure there will be new stuff coming.

 

[vazel]

I don't think playing a certain amount of hours of videogames makes you hardcore. That's not that big a feat. You also don't have to have a thousand videogames to be hardcore, there are some hardcore gamers that still concentrate on a few select games like Ikaruga or the NES Mario games. Being hardcore means you master games, you wrap your head around the mechanics of a game and know how to play the game in every way.

 

[patsu]

Hmm... the point being none of us are wrong as long as what we define measures what we need accurately. For example, average number of gaming hours may be a good enough indicator assuming people need to practise before they become "hardcore" by your definition. Naturally, there may be some exceptions (gaming geniuses ). There is no one universal definition. Just look at the context, pick a good enough and _easily measurable_ definition and go.

This discussion reminds me of my experience with a major manufacturer. Their department managers spent 3 months arguing about the definition of average selling price (from marketing, sales and finance perspective). As a vendor, we watched in horror while they dragged on without commiting the project. These indicators are very important to them because they determine their performance indirectly. In the end, it may mean we need multiple definitions of the same thing for specific needs.

 

[Freak'n Big Panda]

I think the only way define hardcore gaming that makes any reasonable sense, is as a person that treats gaming as an integral part of their lifestyle. I don't think it matters what games, or what type of games, just the fact that gaming is a very important part of their life. If gaming is just a diversion and some entertainment for you, then you're casual, even if you're playing GTA or Metal Gear.

I don't think the Wii will damage the industry. I just think the Wii is proving there is room for another tier of gaming system. Previously you had your home console and your handheld. Now we have a handheld for something cheap and mobile, a high definition console for big budget games, and a middle-tier system that is a bit cheaper and will attract titles with modest budgets, which may be more casual friendly.

Completely agree, this is the only way to properly define a hardcore gamer IMO. I might add that a hardcore gamer tends to have an emotional reaction to games, and also tends to value a games that deeply immerse a player in the game world. A casual gamer would lack this emotional connection and put no value in immersiveness.

So in summary I would define a hardcore gamer as someone who:

-Makes gaming an integral part of their life
-Receives some sort of emotional satisfaction from gamming
-Values a games ability to disconnect the player from the real world

The vast majority of gamers do not fit this definition.

Anyways to get back on topic I have no idea if the Wii is bad for the games industry or not although I would tend to say that it isn't. Nobody is going to be put off gaming because of the Wii, shit games come out for all platforms and a hardcore gamer will dig through them and find the gold regardless of how much crap is in the pile.

 

[vazel]

Well the reason I don't think gaming hours should be an indicator is because I just think of my cousin and all the games he has and I would definitely not call him hardcore. Many people just play through games, they don't master them. I know some think they're hardcore because they buy one new game a week but I strongly disagree. I would say a lot of those that spend so much disposable income on a lot of games don't have enough time to properly master games before moving on to the next one.

The word hardcore is thrown around too liberally these days. There's casual, then there's being just a gamer, then there's the hardcore.

 

[patsu]

In your example, you may be able to use # of gameplay hours _and_ # of games owned as proxy indicator to estimate proficiency on a large scale. For real proficiency measurement, I guess you'll have to watch their gameplay videos or organize a tournament to find out. It all depends on how you want to use the information to advance your position/argument.

 

[vazel]

Being a hardcore gamer isn't something you can be general about. There are some hardcore that only primarily game on a few select games so # of games isn't an indicator. And gamers will be able to rack up more hours played in playing more games than hardcore gamers will in playing fewer games so hours played isn't one either.

 

[patsu]

Right, so can you use both indicators together to estimate ? i.e., # of gameplay hours and # of games owned.

 

[vazel]

I don't see why you're so adamant in coming up with a general definition. I already gave reasons why using those two as indicators for what a hardcore gamer is isn't valid. Having the most games and having the time to play more videogames making one a hardcore gamer is too simple.

There was documentary about hardcore gamers released recently. The King of Kong. A couple of people playing a nearly 30 year old game to get the highest score. The people featured in that documentary seem to only have a few select games they play. So using your indicators they wouldn't qualify as hardcore even though they clearly are. And then there are people that mostly play a few of the top shoot 'em ups like Ikaruga and Radiant Silvergun. And then people that still only play mostly a few NES or SNES games. Or people that mostly play a few fighting games.

 

[patsu]

If you use (# of gameplay hours / # of game owned) to categorize the player database, they may qualify (i.e., people who spent a lot of time on only a few titles). People want to use easily measurable indicators because they are more useful in large scale. They can also be more flexible. But this is way off topic anyway.

 

[vazel]

People want to use easily measurable indicators because they are more useful in large scale. They can also be more flexible.

And they would be wrong to try to measure niche/cult lifestyles/hobbies like this in generalities.

 

[patsu]

It should not matter if the marketers know what they want to measure. In your example, they need to normalize the consumption habits (e.g., to per game) and also zoom down to the niche areas they are interested in.

It is an estimate (Some may not improve beyond certain gaming hours), but by and large, they should be indicative.

 

[ninzel]

It's simple. You're hardcore gamer if you buy lots of games.
Which means in most cases more than 10 games per year.

Sorry but I don't agree at all. You don't get to buy your status as a hardcore.
You could buy a lot of games and play them very casually or never even finish any of them.
Or you could buy a few games a year and play them very hardcore. It has nothing to do with money spent IMO.

 

[ninzel]

Why do people think hardcore is about how much you play? Besides that I think the term hardcore should be something like enthousiast instead I also think what generally is seen as hardcore isnt hardcore at all. Hardcore isnt about how much you play. I like games, i've been playing games for years. However the older you get the less time you get for games. Does that make me less hardcore? I still like well designed games and I still dislike those who arnt. I think the fact that I can only play a couple of hours a week doesnt make me less hardcore than someone who spends 20 hours a week wasting his time on WoW.

It's a fair point,but there has to be some level of passionate investment on the hobby.
Exactly the makeup and level is up for debate.

 

[vazel]

Sorry but I don't agree at all. You don't get to buy your status as a hardcore.
You could buy a lot of games and play them very casually or never even finish any of them.
Or you could buy a few games a year and play them very hardcore. It has nothing to do with money spent IMO.

Exactly. Buying lots of games makes you one hell of a consumer. Not necessarily hardcore.

It should not matter if the marketers know what they want to measure. In your example, they need to normalize the consumption habits (e.g., to per game) and also zoom down to the niche areas they are interested in.

It is an estimate (Some may not improve beyond certain gaming hours), but by and large, they should be indicative.

Whatever lingo marketeers want to use is up to them. But they would still be using the term erroneously if they try to define hardcore like you do. The truth is real hardcore gamers wouldn't make much of a blip for marketers(the ones that know what hardcore really means) since hardcore gamers are a small minority.

 

[ninzel]

Exactly. Buying lots of games makes you one hell of a consumer. Not necessarily hardcore.

I'm sure it's an idea that the industry loves to perpetuate. "Buy more games,ergo your hardcore,hey don't you feel more special,SPEND SPEND SPEND and feed that ego!!"
I don't think so.

 

[vazel]

I'm sure it's an idea that the industry loves to perpetuate. Buy more games,ergo your hardcore,hey don't you feel more special,SPEND SPEND SPEND and feed that ego!!
I don't think so.

Don't forget gamerscore! That's a surefire way to prove how hardcore you are.

 

[one]

There was documentary about hardcore gamers released recently. The King of Kong. A couple of people playing a nearly 30 year old game to get the highest score. The people featured in that documentary seem to only have a few select games they play.

Aren't they investing a sizeable amount of their time in practicing the game? IMO how much personal resources they are investing makes them hardcore. But it's a subjective way to define it. From the gaming industry POV, those who contribute more money per each person are hardcore. Time spent is a probability indicator of how competitive gaming is among various entertainment forms. The less time it occupies, the less chance to draw money from a customer. Whether time is actually translated to money or not is another matter. But corporations don't stop advertising which is a way to raise the revenue possibility.

 

[patsu]

Whatever lingo marketeers want to use is up to them. But they would still be using the term erroneously if they try to define hardcore like you do. The truth is real hardcore gamers wouldn't make much of a blip for marketers(the ones that know what hardcore really means) since hardcore gamers are a small minority.

The problem is people on the forum wants to discuss sales data and Wii sales performance vis-a-vis "hardcore" gamers. Whether we like it or not, people will use the word liberally to measure success and impact.

From marketers' point of view, utility and purchase are both interesting measurements. It may be a misconception to think that they are only interested in sales data. They are equally interested in "unsold" data points, so that they can convert them to sales somehow.

 

[vazel]

Aren't they investing a sizeable amount of their time in practicing the game? IMO how much personal resources they are investing makes them hardcore. But it's a subjective way to define it. From the gaming industry POV, those who contribute more money per each person are hardcore. Time spent is a probability indicator of how competitive gaming is among various entertainment forms. The less time it occupies, the less chance to draw money. Whether time is actually translated to money or not is another matter. But corporations don't stop advertising which is a way to raise the revenue possibility.

I imagine they do spend a lot of time playing the game. But just because someone that buys more games spends more time playing through those games(not mastering and obsessing over them) doesn't make those others more hardcore.

And the industry defining hardcore as people that spend more money on games would be wrong. This whole calling people that spend more money on games hardcore thing didn't start until this gen.

The problem is people on the forum wants to discuss sales data and Wii sales performance vis-a-vis "hardcore" gamers. Whether we like it or not, people will use the word liberally to measure success and impact.

But people are using the word hardcore wrong. When most people these days say hardcore they actually just mean average gamers.