Is Wii bad for the games industry...?

[Dregun]

I would define "Hardcore" as something you do and know, not something you own or play.

For instance.

1. Would a casual gamer salivate waiting for the next E3?
2. Would a casual gamer stay up late waiting for footage from E3?
3. Would a casual gamer read previews about a game not being released for 8+ months?
4. Would a casual gamer compare the faults and weekness of a sequal?
5. Would a casual gamer know the names of ANYONE on a design team?
6. Would a casual gamer know Rockstar is a division of Take 2?
7. Would a casual gamer know the specs of not 1 but at least 2 consoles?
8. Would a casual gamer be proficient at learning new control schemes?
9. Would a casual gamer post on a forum debating the term Hardcore Gamer?

I think its pretty simple to see the difference between "Hardcore" gamers and "Casual Gamers" when you just look at what seperates the two mentaly. A casual gamer buys a game because they "heard" about it through family and friends or because they saw a commercial on TV. A hardcore gamer buys a game because they have been actively researching it for the last 3+ months and HAVE to HAVE IT. You can be a hardcore gamer if you only own 2 games and only play those games for 3 hours a week if those games are your passion. Just because you own 30+ games and play for 20+ hours a week doesn't mean your "hardcore" if you only do so because you saw the game on the shelf our your cousin told you it was awsome and go buy it!

So does the Wii have Hardcore gamers, certainly; is the Wii primarliy made up of casuals..definately. Can the Wii become a primarily Hardcore platform, yes; will this likely happen, more then likely no. The reason is that most Hardcore gamers have shun the Wii and unless the casuals convert and gain a large interest in videogames the Wii isn't going to be more then a casual gaming console.

What games appeal to the Hardcore demograph?

They generally have to have,

1. A premise of "Depth"
2. Decent Graphics
3. Characters that are adult oreintated (not saturday morning cartoon or Disney Channel types)
4. The "hype" of exceeding at something (be it physics, graphics, story telling etc)
5. A Challenge (difficult enough to reward your skill)

You look at most of the "Hardcore" blockbusters and they pretty much fit the list above. Some games are an exception to the rule but these are the things that get most "hardcore" gamers interested and as you can see Wii Fit and Wii Play don't line up very well with this list.


Dregun

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I would define "Hardcore" as something you do and know, not something you own or play.

For instance.
...

Nice ideas, but probably not accurate. In my case, i'm not a hardcore gamer, but I tick lots of those boxes. Though I have an enthusiasm for the console/gaming industry, my actual game-playing habits are pretty casual, spending relatively little on software.

Then in your subsequent example of a Hardcore gamer researching purchases rather than buying on recommendation/advertising, that's how I buy my TVs or whatever, but there's no way I'm an AV enthusiast!

I don't think the pursuit of knowledge within a sector of interest is indicative of keen activity in that sector.

 

[Scott_Arm]

I still think the only way to define it is as a lifestyle, rather than a set of criteria. If you have made gaming a significant part of your lifestyle, you're a hardcore gamer. All these discussion trying to pigeonhole people into hardcore in casual are useless, because you can't know how someone else feels about gaming. The only way to know would be through polling and asking actual users how they feel about the products they're using.

The hardcore vs casual debate as rarely useful, because there's no way you can validate results on a forum.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

I dont even think hardcore really exist anymore. Certainly not among the far majority that calls themselves harcore. Today you apperantly are hardcore if you buy gta4, or halo3 or something like that but imo those games are the definition of casual because its obvious they are intended to be played by a large amount of people nor are they very challeging to play. They made in such a way that they are playable for almost everyone. If there still exists something like hardcore I think you probably have to look for people that still play alot of old games that are almost impossible to beat (no saves, 3 lives, impossible leves) or maybe to people who also enjoy games that are out of the box and do something totally different in the style/gameplay department (something like killer7) but that probably shouldnt count to much as its also a matter of what you might like or not.

I certainly think that ps3, x360 and wii owners cant be called hardcore at all.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I still think the only way to define it is as a lifestyle, rather than a set of criteria. If you have made gaming a significant part of your lifestyle, you're a hardcore gamer. All these discussion trying to pigeonhole people into hardcore in casual are useless, because you can't know how someone else feels about gaming.

As the distinction is used in different contexts, the broad definitions should be scrapped. Different markets should be identified according to the debate at hand, such as 'frequent/infrequent purchasers' when talking about game sells, or 'mainstream players' when talking about software libraries, 'conventional/diverse demographics' when talking about who's playing with the console, or 'accomplished gamers' when talking about ability. The generic shorthand terms aren't a proper vocabulary helping facilitate discussion.

 

[Scott_Arm]

As the distinction is used in different contexts, the broad definitions should be scrapped. Different markets should be identified according to the debate at hand, such as 'frequent/infrequent purchasers' when talking about game sells, or 'mainstream players' when talking about software libraries, 'conventional/diverse demographics' when talking about who's playing with the console, or 'accomplished gamers' when talking about ability. The generic shorthand terms aren't a proper vocabulary helping facilitate discussion.

agreed.

I think most of the hardcore vs casual discussion isn't meant to be useful anyway. It's more of a gamers pissing contest with casual being used in a derogatory way. Sort of an, "I'm better than you are," affair.

 

[AlphaWolf]

I don't think hardcore/casual is an either/or scenario. I don't mean you can be both, I mean there's a large group that is neither.

 

[vazel]

I don't think hardcore/casual is an either/or scenario. I don't mean you can be both, I mean there's a large group that is neither.

Exactly! There is such a thing as just being a gamer. A gamer. Just that. Doesn't have to be either a casual or hardcore. By some people's definitions my cousin would be hardcore just by him spending so much money on games. People would be hardcore just because they keep up with gaming news and like to read gamefaqs and plays through(but doesn't master) through many games. And then there is a distinction with collectors. Most importantly in order to be hardcore you have to be damn good at what you dedicate yourself to playing, simply just really liking videogames doesn't necessarily make you hardcore.

I dont even think hardcore really exist anymore. Certainly not among the far majority that calls themselves harcore. Today you apperantly are hardcore if you buy gta4, or halo3 or something like that but imo those games are the definition of casual because its obvious they are intended to be played by a large amount of people nor are they very challeging to play. They made in such a way that they are playable for almost everyone. If there still exists something like hardcore I think you probably have to look for people that still play alot of old games that are almost impossible to beat (no saves, 3 lives, impossible leves) or maybe to people who also enjoy games that are out of the box and do something totally different in the style/gameplay department (something like killer7) but that probably shouldnt count to much as its also a matter of what you might like or not.

I certainly think that ps3, x360 and wii owners cant be called hardcore at all.

Yup. You'll find most of the hardcore mastering old games like Ikaruga or even the NES Super Mario games or really old PC games. It's funny how some think they're hardcore just by owning a x360 when most of the games on the system would've been considered easy several years ago before the design philosophies of what is called 'consolitis' hit the scene.

 

[ninzel]

I dont think so. For example I love cars. However i'm 21 so there is no way that I can afford anything beyond crap. Does that make me a lesser car fan compared to some dubai oil millionair that can afford 20 Ferrari's who will never see the light of day?

By investment I didn't mean monetarily.You could play alot of games and spend less money than people who buy games.You can rent or borrow or pirate or simple buy 1 game and play it religously everyday 10 hours day.
But when I think of the word gamer the "er: at the end suggests to me actual participation rather than just being a spectator.

 

[fearsomepirate]

If you pirate games, you're not a hardcore gamer. You're just an a-hole.

 

[vazel]

If you pirate games, you're not a hardcore gamer. You're just an a-hole.

Not necessarily. Owning a game would be important to a collector. But a hardcore gamer would only care about the actual game. The easiest way to get a lot of the older games is to just download it.

 

[I.S.T.]

If you pirate games, you're not a hardcore gamer. You're just an a-hole.

What about those who pirate out of print games?

 

[Fafalada]

I don't think the pursuit of knowledge within a sector of interest is indicative of keen activity in that sector.

Not indicative - "pursuit of knowledge within a sector" IS a keen activity in that sector.
Afaik the point of the label "casual gamer" is pointing out those that have been mostly ignorant of video-gaming at large (through choice, perception, or just never been exposed to it).
I don't think it's supposed to label their preferences in types of games or their buying habits - that has ultimately just been a bunch of guessing and mixed feelings about the new found popularity of so called non-games.

After all - we all started out as casual gamers at one point or another.

 

[NERO]

N number of gamers increases
N number of software players increases due to profit potential from "cheaper games"
N number of total games increases (both good and crappy)

Most people here are worried about the middle component and how it could eventually affect graphics technology in games. I don't know what's going to happen although something will happen (something will change).

 

[fearsomepirate]

Not necessarily. Owning a game would be important to a collector.

I hear that owning games is pretty important to the people who hold the copyrights. If you actually care about the games, buy them.

 

[vazel]

I hear that owning games is pretty important to the people who hold the copyrights.

In cases when you can buy them new in retail. Otherwise they don't see a dime from you buying it secondhand.

 

[fearsomepirate]

In cases when you can buy them new in retail. Otherwise they don't see a dime from you buying it secondhand.

So what? Pirating still makes you a pirate. Even if you largely buy used games (like me), you're limited to buying games that other people don't want anymore and are often limited to inconvenient channels, like ebay (which really is less convenient than just picking it up at Wal-Mart). You're limited to waiting until the title's popularity has dwindled to the point where you're actually saving a useful amount of money. I basically waited 10 years to get into the Dreamcast, and by then, titles became hard to find. Respecting the legal rights of the copyright holder and sticking to real copies of the game will quickly bring you to realize that you really have only two options: Either deal with scarcity or buy new games. A non-pirate such as myself will occasionally buy new games in order to avoid future scarcity. That's why I bought Killer7 and Geist new. The scarcity issue of used games keeps lots of people buying new games. If the shelves were just as full of used titles selling at less than half of the new title, the new titles wouldn't sell. Also, online communities tend to die out before used titles become common, meaning that if you care about online gaming, you'll probably have to buy the title new. Furthermore, collector habits can affect the choice of the original copyright holder to release legacy compilations, reprints, and remakes.

The inconvenience of buying used games keeps a lot of people buying new games. Piracy eliminates the inconvenience, the only barrier now being your willingness to break the law and your technical know-how. So yes, pirating does affect the copyright holder in ways that secondhand software doesn't. That's why pirating is illegal and selling your property to another person isn't.

 

[vazel]

I actually once read a developer saying in an interview that he would rather you pirate his games than buy them secondhand and instead put that money into buying one of his new games in retail. Of course he doesn't speak for all developers but it goes to show how some feel about the secondhand market.

 

[kyetech]

Nice ideas, but probably not accurate. In my case, i'm not a hardcore gamer, but I tick lots of those boxes. Though I have an enthusiasm for the console/gaming industry, my actual game-playing habits are pretty casual, spending relatively little on software.

Hey come on, theres alot of cross over with tech geeks and hardcore games players. I mean he should have made a caveat to his initial criteria saying : ps, excluding tech geeks.


then

it would definately have been a perfect list and match for harccore gamers.

 

[Entropy]

In cases when you can buy them new in retail. Otherwise they don't see a dime from you buying it secondhand.

The presence of a second hand market helps sell the expensive retail copy. If the first buyer didn't feel confident that he could recoup some of the cost involved with buying and trying a new game, the resistance to buying would rise correspondingly.

Wasn't this discussed at absurd length in a recent thread?