This generation's casual market.

S

Squilliam

Beyond3d isn't defined yet
Veteran
Supporter
Will casuals be important again?

The total sales last generation were:

*100 Million Wii
*78 Million PS3 (according to some people has passed 360)
*78 Million 360
**54 Million active user accounts on Steam.
**24 Million Kinect

Currently we have:

*3.5? Million Wii U
*0 PS4
*0 Xbox One

Will the casual userbase that propelled the Wii and many of the Xbox 360 Kinect sales be important? This at the moment really seems to be one of the big unknowns. As much as it seems right to project the current projections forward the game market itself is being squeezed from both the high end (Steam/PC gaming) and the low end (iPad being *Good* enough). If the casual market doesn't come to the party then the console market as a whole is in for a rough ride. So who's party will the casual market attend? Apple? Microsoft? Nintendo? Sony?
 
There's a place for mobile gaming and there's a place for gaming in the living room. I see little changing in that advent. In order to capture the casual market then Sony or MS need apps/games that attract them. MS is going the right way with Kinect, but I don't thin they will have a monopoly on that specific market segment for longer than three years and there's one company out there that could likely enter the market with a serious gaming machine and have instant huge sales from their name alone. MS is playing their cards right and need to get a high enough install base before Apple decides one new market for growth is games.

Sony's got a bigger uphill battle when it comes to the casual gamer. They're now focusing on the core, which may be a bit of a gamble, but if they have enough sales then some casuals will follow. I just wish Sony would finally focus on having a games library that is completely fleshed out and attracts gamers young and old. Sony can add services later and they can make a big push for PS Eye at some point in the future and possibly including it as a pack in later down the line. But not having that functionality out the game could prove a major disadvantage.

And in the end, whoever's able to bring the price of their machine down the fastest has a huge advantage as well. The Wii wouldn't have sold that well if it were launched at $400 as clearly the Wii U is selling like crap. So there's a specific price point that casuals like as well.

I would prefer if their sales are relatively close, +/- million units, so that both machines thrive with quality titles and an ecosystem that makes both Sony and MS money. I can see MS taking the North American market again simply because that's what their entire plans seems to hinge on and the features of X1 definitely cater to this market. Sony's an obvious win in Japan.

But I do think casual gamers will again be enticed to the new systems simply because of the experiences they will provide and bring. I'm not a believer in the mobile gaming market cannibalizing sales of the home console market so don't see that as an area encroaching on MS/Sony territory. The weaker sales of the past few years can really be pinpointed to the Wii's quick downturn and a generation that lasted two years too long.
 
Casuals will pay $500 for an iPad. I think the key here is making the system relevant. The Wii was relevant because it represented a style of game play you couldn't find anywhere else and it was accessible. The Wii U represents none of the advantages the Wii had because it is neither cheap nor is accessible.

The current generation consoles aren't any better at being media players than previous generation devices, there doesn't seem to be any major push towards accessibility and graphics advantages have never held a huge sway for the casual market. Does the casual market have a champion this generation between the big 3? If not does it matter?
 
MS is poised with a fully fleshed out system. We'll see in a couple years if it matter or not.

They would benefit by having compelling Kinect experiences beyond just party games.

Here's my thinking at the moment. The market used to be fragmented - hardcore (360, PS3) and casual (Wii). Going forward MS is trying to integrate the two with one machine - Xbox One.

It has the potential to be compelling to both hardcore and family gamers.

On the other hand it might be too under-powered for the hardcore vs. PS4 and too content starved for the casual crowd vs Nintendo's legendary IPs.

Only time will tell.
 
There has always seemed to be something 'wrong' with the most vocal of the gamer types I have come across. I can't quite put my finger on it but there really seems to be something off-kilter with a large number of online commentators. Their perspective is certainly the loudest here on the internet; however numbers show that their bark is disproportionate to their bite. Moving outside of this group it gets hard to see through the noise on the internet to the clues which may decide how things will swing.

Maybe convenience and accessibility beat sophistication and technical excellence in the wider market? Things which would never bother people here may be a big deal like to far less technically adept markets. Maybe the truth is that who-ever offers the easiest way to go from 0-fun will win the casual market because on average humans are lazy and that rule of averages dictates the usual behaviour of people.
 
I think the title of the thread is incorrect. I really consider the casual gamer to be the infrequent gamer. When you consider the sheer amount of money some people spend on in-app purchases on free-to-play games, it's impossible to logically call them "casual".

If anything, one of these consoles needs to grab *mainstream* success. As much as gamers poo-poo Kinect, it is obvious it was a success. You don't sell 24 million units of a $100 peripheral ($150 at launch) if its a gimmick no one wants. That's called the PlayStation Move which few people have ever experienced.

I guarantee you the #1 reason people still use Kinect today is for the following 2 voice commands: "Xbox, pause" and "Xbox, play" when watching Netflix. Simple, hands-free, and responsive. And if the Xbox One actually delivers on its likely future promise of whole home automation, it will do very well.

I would just argue that these aren't pure gaming systems anymore and haven't been so for quite some time. Sony winning does not mean Microsoft losing.
 
dagamer said:
I think the title of the thread is incorrect. I really consider the casual gamer to be the infrequent gamer. When you consider the sheer amount of money some people spend on in-app purchases on free-to-play games, it's impossible to logically call them "casual".
Click to expand...

Well a hardcore driver might only spend a few thousand on an MX5 and some track tyres whilst someone else might have a Ferrari in their garage. I define casual as someone who isn't engaged in the hobby to the same extent. The hardcore audience will come to you whereas with the casual audience you have to grab their attention.

If anything, one of these consoles needs to grab *mainstream* success. As much as gamers poo-poo Kinect, it is obvious it was a success. You don't sell 24 million units of a $100 peripheral ($150 at launch) if its a gimmick no one wants. That's called the PlayStation Move which few people have ever experienced.

I guarantee you the #1 reason people still use Kinect today is for the following 2 voice commands: "Xbox, pause" and "Xbox, play" when watching Netflix. Simple, hands-free, and responsive. And if the Xbox One actually delivers on its likely future promise of whole home automation, it will do very well.
Click to expand...

Maybe the missing part of the message is that we haven't heard a cohesive message about what these two platforms are about to the people who actually need to hear it. So far we've heard the message given to those who really don't need anyone telling them explicitly. Perhaps the key is in the social features and other system level features which haven't been fully explained? The whole of these systems are really too complex to boil down into a simple message, but maybe you've got it, something like 'Xbox On' really could convey in 2 seconds what a 10 page marketing brief cannot. I guess the same thing applies to the social/sharing features of the PS4.

I would just argue that these aren't pure gaming systems anymore and haven't been so for quite some time. Sony winning does not mean Microsoft losing.
Click to expand...

I still feel the key is really in the casual market. It is the people who are silent right now and who aren't even aware of the consoles who will dictate which will be the most successful.
 
dagamer said:
I think the title of the thread is incorrect. I really consider the casual gamer to be the infrequent gamer. When you consider the sheer amount of money some people spend on in-app purchases on free-to-play games, it's impossible to logically call them "casual".

If anything, one of these consoles needs to grab *mainstream* success. As much as gamers poo-poo Kinect, it is obvious it was a success. You don't sell 24 million units of a $100 peripheral ($150 at launch) if its a gimmick no one wants. That's called the PlayStation Move which few people have ever experienced.

I guarantee you the #1 reason people still use Kinect today is for the following 2 voice commands: "Xbox, pause" and "Xbox, play" when watching Netflix. Simple, hands-free, and responsive. And if the Xbox One actually delivers on its likely future promise of whole home automation, it will do very well.

I would just argue that these aren't pure gaming systems anymore and haven't been so for quite some time. Sony winning does not mean Microsoft losing.
Click to expand...
Maybe only the WiiU can be considered a pure gaming system for the most part, but it is simply a thing of the past indeed.

Microsoft seem least bothered with core complaints, although they aren't abandoning the core, but they are desensitized now it seems to me. Even so, core gamers usually buy lots of stuff so it's always a good thing to keep them happy. Casuals are going to be very tempted by some of the machine's capabilities.

Sony are focused on the core but also tempted to try the casual market with their camera and move. They should be able to comfortably add the camera as a mandatory peripheral at launch date. What I notice is that the core market is more likely to go with Sony this time around.

WiiU and especially Nintendo have been stale for a long while now. And I don't see this changing in the future any time soon until the good Nintendo games come out, but I am not sure what WiiU is. It's not a true core machine... or is it?

They totally don't get the cores neither the casuals. Iwata should resign imho.
 
I think casuals were over exaggerated, I don't particularly consider 1/2 of the Wii owners as casual gamers. Point being I believe the majority of Wii owners were "gifted" the Wii, it was a novelty that they used for a little while then sat on a shelf somewhere collecting dust. Game sales reflect as much because of the remaining people who bought the Wii and use it (even casually) also purchased some of the big franchises from Nintendo.

I think the reason for the success of the Kinect was not proportional to the success of the 360. What I mean is Kinect sales are only 1/3rd of total 360 sales; of those 20+ million sales I'm guessing a great portion where not 360+Kinect but rather the peripheral itself. So did MS grab the attention of the casual gamer? If the peripheral outsold the kinect bundle wouldn't that suggest that few casuals picked up the 360 just for kinect?

If we were to take the numbers of just the people who bought the kinect bundle I don't think anyone would say the Kinect was a success with casual gamers. Unfortunately I can't find any data that compares Kinect addon vs Kinect bundle so this is just conjecture.

Casuals are more finicky than hard core gamers; they lose interest in things very fast because for them gaming is something to pass time, not a hobby. That distinction I think needs to be addressed when discussing casual gamers. As such my original point still stands, casual gamers were over exaggerated. If Timmy gets a XB-One and then Timmy's sister likes playing the Kinect games, it doesn't matter that MS reached Timmy's sister...Timmy already bought the console and his sister probably isn't going to be buying games for it.

Pushing a console to a home that normally wouldn't have bought it is not happening in spades like many people would believe. Wii was a perfect example of what happens when the focus is on trying to capture the "casual" market...it is unsustaining.
 
Dregun said:
I think casuals were over exaggerated, I don't particularly consider 1/2 of the Wii owners as casual gamers. Point being I believe the majority of Wii owners were "gifted" the Wii, it was a novelty that they used for a little while then sat on a shelf somewhere collecting dust. Game sales reflect as much because of the remaining people who bought the Wii and use it (even casually) also purchased some of the big franchises from Nintendo.

I think the reason for the success of the Kinect was not proportional to the success of the 360. What I mean is Kinect sales are only 1/3rd of total 360 sales; of those 20+ million sales I'm guessing a great portion where not 360+Kinect but rather the peripheral itself. So did MS grab the attention of the casual gamer? If the peripheral outsold the kinect bundle wouldn't that suggest that few casuals picked up the 360 just for kinect?

If we were to take the numbers of just the people who bought the kinect bundle I don't think anyone would say the Kinect was a success with casual gamers. Unfortunately I can't find any data that compares Kinect addon vs Kinect bundle so this is just conjecture.

Casuals are more finicky than hard core gamers; they lose interest in things very fast because for them gaming is something to pass time, not a hobby. That distinction I think needs to be addressed when discussing casual gamers. As such my original point still stands, casual gamers were over exaggerated. If Timmy gets a XB-One and then Timmy's sister likes playing the Kinect games, it doesn't matter that MS reached Timmy's sister...Timmy already bought the console and his sister probably isn't going to be buying games for it.

Pushing a console to a home that normally wouldn't have bought it is not happening in spades like many people would believe. Wii was a perfect example of what happens when the focus is on trying to capture the "casual" market...it is unsustaining.
Click to expand...

Let's try to move beyond stereotypes and half-truths, please.

l09.jpg


nintendothirdpartyredux.jpg


Whilst the core guy might see him or herself as a lone warrior, regular people on the other hand tend to get involved in a more shared way. Accessibility is very important because if you increase the number of users per household you can increase both the use of the system and the total number of systems you can sell. So arguably whilst the Wii was a crap system in many respects it still managed to do something for a lot of people even if it couldn't be sustained.
 
MrFox said:
Android had standardized controller support for 2 years now. It's in the mainline android source since 4.0, and the sdk.
Click to expand...

Things are changing in the mobile space, we now have 2 or 3 Android based consoles being released.

Personally I think the install base of phones and tablets will start to gain traction once Google and Apple officially start to make a push. If I am a parent and my choice is buy jr a 200 to 300 tablet and a 40 joystick which can also be used for reading books, doing homework and surfing the internet or spending 4 to 500 dollars on another video game system with 60 dollar games and monthly fees its pretty much a no brainer which way I'm going to go. And now that we are starting to see better quality development tools, solutions to the control issues this market is going to start seeing some established IPs venture into this territory.
 
Squilliam said:
Let's try to move beyond stereotypes and half-truths, please.

l09.jpg


nintendothirdpartyredux.jpg


Whilst the core guy might see him or herself as a lone warrior, regular people on the other hand tend to get involved in a more shared way. Accessibility is very important because if you increase the number of users per household you can increase both the use of the system and the total number of systems you can sell. So arguably whilst the Wii was a crap system in many respects it still managed to do something for a lot of people even if it couldn't be sustained.
Click to expand...

Additional evidence: http://www.vgchartz.com/analysis/platform_totals/Software/Global/

Wii sold more software units than the 360 or PS3. If it really cratered in 2010, then that means it sold WAY more per year than either. Plus the 360 has a year+ head start.

There's no way around it, the Wii won. Period.
 
Casual, infrequent gamers, poor/young gamers, I think a quiet relevant fact is that on console (Nintendo aside) online is no longer free, it is the third time I raise the issue but I think that it is quite relevant, real people reaction is still unknown.
On forum we expected the move but that say nothing about the reaction to that move. I met multiple people at work whom got the PS3 for their kids as online was free.
Does really nobody on the web see the issue? The title that sells the most (CoD), played by a bunch of kids/teens is going to require people to spend 60$ on a subscription. I wonder what Activision thinks about this.
 
dagamer said:
There's no way around it, the Wii won. Period.
Click to expand...
It is imo undisputable, the Wii won and Nintendo did not make anything out of their lead and let Sony and MSFT extend the life spam of their (technically superior) platforms instead of rushing them down with a new product.
I think people are confusing Nintendo misshandling of the Wii end life for a half success of the Wii.
 
liolio said:
Casual, infrequent gamers, poor/young gamers, I think a quiet relevant fact is that on console (Nintendo aside) online is no longer free, it is the third time I raise the issue but I think that it is quite relevant, real people reaction is still unknown.
On forum we expected the move but that say nothing about the reaction to that move. I met multiple people at work whom got the PS3 for their kids as online was free.
Does really nobody on the web see the issue? The title that sells the most (CoD), played by a bunch of kids/teens is going to require people to spend 60$ on a subscription. I wonder what Activision thinks about this.
Click to expand...

The number one platform for cod has always been xbox so the fee hasn't proven a huge barrier. Activision just wants their cut of that fee, that's how they feel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Video Game Console Cooling - A Hot Topic (pun kind of intended).
Replies
12
Views
2K
arandomguy
A
S
NPD January 2022
Replies
1
Views
1K
Deleted member 11852
D
O
Being the 'Odd Man Out' : how will it effect this generation of Consoles?
2
Replies
29
Views
5K
onQ
O
R
NPD July 2012
2 3
Replies
46
Views
12K
Rangers
R
R
NPD December 2011
4 5 6
Replies
100
Views
17K
Cheezdoodles
C
Back
Top