11 replies to this topic

[xg4bx]

i wrote this in response to a blog on another board which expressed disgust at the influx of "casuals" into modern gaming and motion controllers-

" i've been playing for almost 25 years so i'd consider myself a hardcore REAL gamer (casuals didn't buy 3DO, jaguar, virtual boy, 32x and saturn at lauch like i did ).

the brand loyalty is as predictable as the day is long, it's to be expected. considering how many titles are bombing and studios are closing these days, the concept of "real" gamers is frankly bullshit. you're all buying the same exact games all the casuals are. not everybody who bought RDR or bad company is a "hardcore" gamer. i see the boards, every freakin excuse under the sun is made to not support "hardcore" games-"no online=no buy, too short, no replay, not AAA" etc. i take the concept of 'core gamers keeping the industry alive with a grain of salt.

know who buys games? the casuals. they think AAA is the automotive service but they buy games. who can blame them for going where the $ is? the "omfg hardcore" gamers certainly aren't spending any money.

these motion controllers are the industries life-support because you guys just ain't payin' the bills anymore. aiming everything at us is a dead end. this is the future of gaming so either accept it find another hobby. you don't get something for nothing. you demand cutting edge graphics, physics, online play etc but the $ for it doesn't come from thin air. yet people bitch about $60 price tags and dlc. you want bigger, faster, better and frankly keeping up with your demands is bankrupting the industry.  

if you don't like casuals infecting the industry the only people you have to blame for it are yourselves. stop putting unreasonable demands on developers to cater to your every graphics whoring whim, then maybe development costs could come down and they'd actually make a profit from hardcore gamers. "


i'm just curious if you guys agree or disagree with the sentiment. do i make a good case or am i out in left field?

Edited by xg4bx, Mon Aug 2, 2010 1:09 AM.

[BDW]

I personally agree.

[Mord]

While I agree, I do still bitch about the price tag and DLC and the like. Mainly because I'm not exactly hard pressed for games or expecting bleeding edge graphics. I'm still more than perfectly fine with last gen quality.

[xg4bx]

it may seem to be contradictory to statements i've made in the past but i've had some time to think about it.

i'm part of the problem and i can't begrudge companies from seeking new revenue or consumers to pick up the slack for me i.e. rarely buying new games. i'm certainly not as "hardcore" as i used to be, it's gotten easier and easier to wait for price drops.

companies that don't bring in new customers stagnate. and it's an easy step to go from stagnation to death. if petting virtual animals or waving an imaginary wand is going to allow sony or ms to keep funding god of war or halo, so be it.

i can't begrudge these new gamers either if lighter fare is what they seek. i'm sure at some point some guy diddling with his apple II talked trash about people like me sitting there playing atari too. it just seems so anathematic to be angry with people enjoying something thats supposed to be fun.

[hex65000]

It's not just that, to me, it's the combination of the DLC + borderline formulaic in approach+ cost + them being pretty darn whiny about it that is turning me off.

Today Amazon has three games by Square/Enix on sale... I think I won't buy any of them honestly. Remember when they could put out a turd and it was still regarded as pure silver if not gold? (The titles for the record are: FF13, Just Cause 2, and Supreme Commander 2)

While the sale addresses the cost issue, I just looked at all three and went 'meh.' All are within my threshold for making modern game purchases. All of them are genres I have gotten into in some capacity or another.

So I find myself now wondering in the face of this post, "So, why don't I care?" I like RPGs, but I'm not into spending a crazy amount of time to get over the tutorial hump. Not to mention all the other RPGs I haven't even started -- and a few I want to finish. (FF3[ds], Witch's Tale[ds], Eternal Sonata[360])

I like open world action games. Red Faction Guerrilla was a good time. I also enjoyed the Destroy All Humans series. (Not so much the GTAs -- the combat was always a turn-off) Just Cause looks pretty and fun, but I'm just not motivated to pick it up.

I play Starcraft with friends pretty much every week, and the only reason I'm holding out on SC2 is justifying the cost of the game. I'm not super good at RTS titles, but they are fun at times. On a console I don't think they carry over well and I'd probably go for the PC version. Still, the game just isn't screaming buy me. Even at $20.

The other issue might be the time required to play any of these titles. In my mind, I need to block out at least a couple of hours to sit down, go through the tutorial stage (in the case of FF13 a week or two ) and get a feel for and get into a game. I'm old and easily distracted by shiny things, this isn't conducive for this particular scenario.

Perhaps that's why the less involved 'casual' games have appeal. You could say the same thing about a lot of the classic Atari titles as well. It wasn't that you could get to the end. the challenge was to have the skill to be really good at a game that never really ended.

Hex.
[ Just staring blankly at the same problem from the weekend... ]

[HuckleCat]

I think that there's a difference between hardcore/casual games and hardcore/casual gamers.

To me, a casual game would be like Wii Sports Resort, Uno, Cooking Mama.  Something that anybody can jump into, without gaming experience.  Hardcore games would be games that require that someone know their way around a controller.  Ever watch someone who does not play FPS games try to play one?  It's not happening.

Gamers on the other hand... well to me, to be a hardcore gamer, you pretty much have to be in gradeschool or college.  You have to be in a position to sit on your ass all day long and play video games.  A casual gamer plays for a few hours a day, tops, mainly because they have other things to worry about like jobs, kids, marriages, and other real life stuff to tend to.

Most people who are fans of gaming seem to take it as an insult when someone tells them that they're not "hardcore" gamers, or try and brag that they are.  All it really says is how much time you have to spend each day with it as a hobby.

I used to consider myself a hardcore gamer back when I was in grade school, mainly because I had the time to be one.  Now, I play casually, when I have the time.  I play games that may be considered hardcore, but I can't remember the last time I had the opportunity to sit and play all day long.

I too bought a 3DO and Jaguar at launch, and looking back, I wish I hadn't.  I consider both of them among the worst video game purchases I've made in my life.  Thank god Funcoland took the 3DO back for over 400 bucks.  I also bitch about the DLC, mainly because as someone whos an older PC gamer from "way back", I remember when this sort of shit was always free.  Team Fortress was free.  Threewave CTF with grapple was free.  Player models and maps galore, free.  I actually don't complain that much about it, but I sure as shit don't buy it.  I have yet to buy any map pack for any FPS that's come out for the 360.  With Fallout 3 I waited and bought the GotY edition and got the rest of the addons for the same price as the game when it was new.

So, with that, yes, the casual gamers are buying the games, but not exactly the casual games.  Why?  The casual gamers are older.  We grew up playing this stuff, and now that we all have jobs and still play, we can afford to buy a game every other week.  "Hardcore" gamers are still waiting for their birthday and Christmas, because they're kids, and have all day long to play games.

It sounds like the issue with the thread you were posting in is the differences in opinion over the definitions of hardcore and casual, gamers and games.

[theloon]

Casual gaming is just another trend.  It's an attempt to get new market share - they already have us.  I personally think there is nothing wrong with simple game/lower price tag.  Every console generation production costs go up and reason to innovate (take risks) go down.  Snack sized games will (hopefully) allow developers to take risks again.

"Casual Gaming" is not a new thing.  Games have simply wandered away from pick-up-and-play.  I have a friend who hasn't touched a joystick in years but played Fairchild Channel F day in and day out.  The games were as simple (if not more) than anything "casual" today but he played like a "hardcore" - invested serious time and money.

Unfortunately, just as I think casual games are a good thing the pay to play and pay for parts thing is lame.  The (corporate) dream is to have everyone pay monthly and pay extra for added features or using features.  Heck, Kindle books and Android apps can be remotely TAKEN AWAY.  That's right: It's not bought-for property anymore.

Hopefully the market (i.e. us collectively not buying stuff from badly behaving companies) will sort these issues out.  In the meantime I see nothing wrong with the "hardcore gamer" or the one who wants snack sized games.

Edited by theloon, Mon Aug 2, 2010 10:01 PM.

[Rev. Rob]

What do you mean? Hardcore gamers, at least all of the ones I know, spend more money than any casual gamer. They each have two, if not all three, of the current generation of consoles, buy at least one new game a week, download a shit-ton of games on XBLA and the like, and have a handheld or two on top of that. The casual gamers I know play nothing but sports games, Rock band, or Wii Sports. They buy one console and maybe three or four games a year.

It's not that hardcore gamers don't spend money. It's that games that appeal to only the hardcore crowd, like strategy RPGs and spaceflight sims don't appeal to the casual, so there's a smaller pool of customers for such games, so small a pool that they just aren't worth making. Fortunately, with the advent of XBLA a lot of amazing games that normally wouldn't see the light of day are coming out all the time.

[HuckleCat]

Rev. Rob, on Mon Aug 2, 2010 11:29 PM, said:

What do you mean? Hardcore gamers, at least all of the ones I know, spend more money than any casual gamer. They each have two, if not all three, of the current generation of consoles, buy at least one new game a week, download a shit-ton of games on XBLA and the like, and have a handheld or two on top of that. The casual gamers I know play nothing but sports games, Rock band, or Wii Sports. They buy one console and maybe three or four games a year.

It's not that hardcore gamers don't spend money. It's that games that appeal to only the hardcore crowd, like strategy RPGs and spaceflight sims don't appeal to the casual, so there's a smaller pool of customers for such games, so small a pool that they just aren't worth making. Fortunately, with the advent of XBLA a lot of amazing games that normally wouldn't see the light of day are coming out all the time.

This confusion is sort of what I'm talking about.  The people you described are either rich kids, or they are people with jobs, who just happen to be big fans of video gaming, not to mention have a big pile of unplayed games.  You can play casually and still be into hardcore games.  Like I said, a hardcore gamer is somebody who spends most of their time playing video games.  If all the hardcore gamers you know are buying so many games, how the hell do they afford them?  In other words, once you're out of college it's dangerous to say you're a hardcore gamer, because you're admitting to being unemployed and that you don't go outside often, because you're too busy playing video games all the time.

I own 2 of the 3 systems, and have a DS.  I also have a gaming PC rig.  Due to other responsibilities, like a job, wife, my daughter, I simply cannot be a hardcore gamer.  I have to play my "hardcore" games on a casual basis.

So, yeah, it's the people who play casually who have the money to spend regularly on games, because they have jobs and can afford to.  You're confusing casual games with casual gamers, and hardcore games with hardcore gamers.  There's a difference.

[Rev. Rob]

HuckleCat, on Tue Aug 3, 2010 7:15 AM, said:

Rev. Rob, on Mon Aug 2, 2010 11:29 PM, said:

What do you mean? Hardcore gamers, at least all of the ones I know, spend more money than any casual gamer. They each have two, if not all three, of the current generation of consoles, buy at least one new game a week, download a shit-ton of games on XBLA and the like, and have a handheld or two on top of that. The casual gamers I know play nothing but sports games, Rock band, or Wii Sports. They buy one console and maybe three or four games a year.

It's not that hardcore gamers don't spend money. It's that games that appeal to only the hardcore crowd, like strategy RPGs and spaceflight sims don't appeal to the casual, so there's a smaller pool of customers for such games, so small a pool that they just aren't worth making. Fortunately, with the advent of XBLA a lot of amazing games that normally wouldn't see the light of day are coming out all the time.

This confusion is sort of what I'm talking about.  The people you described are either rich kids, or they are people with jobs, who just happen to be big fans of video gaming, not to mention have a big pile of unplayed games.  You can play casually and still be into hardcore games.  Like I said, a hardcore gamer is somebody who spends most of their time playing video games.  If all the hardcore gamers you know are buying so many games, how the hell do they afford them?  In other words, once you're out of college it's dangerous to say you're a hardcore gamer, because you're admitting to being unemployed and that you don't go outside often, because you're too busy playing video games all the time.

I own 2 of the 3 systems, and have a DS.  I also have a gaming PC rig.  Due to other responsibilities, like a job, wife, my daughter, I simply cannot be a hardcore gamer.  I have to play my "hardcore" games on a casual basis.

So, yeah, it's the people who play casually who have the money to spend regularly on games, because they have jobs and can afford to.  You're confusing casual games with casual gamers, and hardcore games with hardcore gamers.  There's a difference.

Guess what? You're a hardcore gamer. Someone who's "hardcore" doesn't spend most of their time playing games. They may spend a portion of their free time playing games.

A hardcore gamer:

• Participates on online communities like this one  
  
• Goes to gaming events
  
• Like arcades
  
• Owns more than one console
  
• Plays games as a hobby
  
• Plays more than just casual games
  
• Is well informed about the gaming industry and gaming history

You can't be a causal gamer and play hardcore games. Casual gamers would never play a game like Disgaea.

Casual gamers:

• Play games socially
  
• Invest in just one console at a time
  
• Don't have a PC gaming rig
  
• Only buy and play casual games (sports game, Grand Theft Auto, et cetera)
  
• Has never heard of Odyssey, Channel F, or Vectrex, and thinks Atari or Nintendo invented video games
  
• Is not well informed about the game industry

Sound to me like you're a hardcore gamer in massive denial because you have some bias against what you think a hardcore gamer is. "Spends most of their time playing games..." GTFOOHWTBS!!

Edited by Rev. Rob, Tue Aug 3, 2010 11:29 AM.

[iswitt]

I disagree with you, HuckleCat.  I consider myself a hardcore gamer. I, however, do not devote entire days to gaming.  I have a full time job, I attend college full time, a girlfriend of five years, bills, a social life, etc.  I have grown up responsibilities.  However, my XBL gamerscore would appear to tell a different tale, as it is quite high.  When I game, I make the most of it and pack a lot of quality gaming into the time I have.  I own two consoles that I have hooked up, no PC gaming rig to speak of (mostly because my computer sucks), I'm involved in online gaming communities and I play socially.  It would seem that I dip into many categories.  I buy casual and hardcore games, but I play them in a hardcore fashion.  Time involvement is not necessarily the prime trait of a hardcore gamer.

[HuckleCat]

I hear where you guys are coming from, so we'll just have to disagree.  I could argue, but since the definition of a "hardcore gamer" is opinion to begin with, it would be a religious discussion.

I have to say though, not being a "hardcore" gamer does not mean you like games any less, or are not as good as them.  Both of you seem to be insulted or upset at the notion that you may not be "hardcore gamers" with my definition, and it really seems like that is your biggest issue with what I'm saying.  I still stand by my opinion, and feel that I simply don't play enough anymore to consider myself a "hardcore gamer", no matter how much more knowledgeable I am about them than the average person.

As far as me being "in denial" because I admit this, well, whatever dude. You'll be ok.