I wish I wasn't so fucking jaded with this industry...I can hardly get excited for any game these days, for fear of disappointment. I remember when I was a young boy, and knew nothing of the industry. I bought games based on the box art and back-of-the-box descriptions, and rarely felt any tinge of disappointment. Every game I had brought me joy. I didn't read dozens of reviews on the internet (or in magazines), look up gameplay videos, and ask people on the forums about games. The most I ever did was play the occasional demo disc from my old "Playstation Underground" subscription. And even then, I didn't play every demo. Just the ones that appealed to me via their little description boxes.
I used to enjoy games that were really quite shit when I look back at them.
Fuckin' JRPGs bros. I mean, I used to play them too but I can hardly anymore stand games where most of the combat is so inconsequential.
I think what it takes to level up your taste is to get up and go play a competetive game in a real high level setting. Go to a tournament. FPS, RTS, STG, FG, TBS or whatever your into. Even if you suck just play that shit.
I guess what I'm saying is that there's a higher level that makes discarding the time you spend with the subpar for a deeper commitment to what really drives you, worth it. I just don't think it's a high level of taste that can be reached by becoming increasingly picky about anime simulators.
What I'm seeing here is the argument that the article is wrong because the hardcore gamers are "more informed". Unfortunately the details of the this information are a bit skewed, and what the hardcore gamers do with this information is also a point of contention. Being "informed" as I understand what most commentators are referring to is the knowledge of reviews, which games are made by who, new releases on the horizon, etc. And, while it grants a boon of being able to pick games geared more towards your taste, the downside is the risk of becoming a developer fanboy or refusing to explore outside your tastes. I recently saw one comment in the Blizzard v. Bioware thread that said "Go Bioware. You can do no wrong." What are the odds that that person buys whatever Bioware puts out and practically nothing else? Not to mention, if the hardcore gamers are more "informed" as to what titles are better and what aren't then why were Psychonauts, Okama, and countless other gems virtually ignored? Let's face it, being knowledgeable of review scores and what developers are good for what genres isn't used to make one smarter with their money or to support only the best, it's used for what we all use information for: justification on something we already decided we were going to hate or love before it came out.
I think your dancing around the point. The bottom line is about money, the bottom line is that the casual market is full of undemanding people who will buy easily developed and low quality products.
Presenting a subjective opinion as an objective fact.
There is more money to be made from that group than from serious gamers who are a lot more demanding. It's not a matter of serious gamers not being a profitable audience, just that they are not AS profitable.
As far as the idea of casual games being cheap to play, that's not really the case.
Funny, I still haven't spent a cent on Echo Bazaar.
Most of them are designed to be easy to play and get somewhere with to begin with, however investing real money becomes a nessecity if you want to play for the long term, especially seeing as almost all of these games involve some competitive aspects. If you don't want to be someone else's farm in a lot of them, you have to pay real money to be competitive.
Likewise the timers get so long that if you actually want to play, as opposed to pushing a button once every 48 hours you need to pay money, almost to the point of paying every turn in some cases.
What's more, these games are designed to be very deceptive in getting people to sell money. We've had cases where children have spent thousands of dollars in real money without realizing it.
Amazon has a 1-Click service. Are they being "deceptive" too?
The menus are interntionally designed for this. You'll also notice that in games like "Mafia Wars" that the cost of various items also varies based on what menu you buy them from. Buying extra mobsters for your organization for example might get you a few more or less for the same price depending on where you are in the game and decide to buy them with real money.
I note that you seem to be rather eager to remove any responsibility from gamers of both stripes. DLC is entirely voluntary, and if Facebook games are as deceptive and nefarious as you claim, someone should call some sort of governmental oversight agency.
On the other hand I think one of the big differances is that serious gamers are typically aware of how much they are spending, I honestly think a lot of casual gamers don't realize it until they get the bill, or if they do, don't really consider how much money they are actually paying over a period of time. I've known more than a few casual gamers who think they are being "savvy" by "only" buying a single $20 gift card for say Farmville every month. Now consider the quality of that game, and the fact that they are paying more money for that than a serious MMO, and paying tons more money than they would for those $60.00 games. It's pretty telling when you see almost all department stores carrying cards for this kind of thing.
In addition to the "poor quality" remark, that's the second time you've insulted casual gamers.
The reason why serious gamers are so opposed to casual gamers is not because of some wierd sense of principle, but because so many developers are aiming at that market for the bigger money, and trying to adapt what "serious" games they develop for a more casual demographic. This means that the serious gamers wind up not getting the games they want.
If it was a situation where parallel development was happening and we actually had a lot of series games out there devoid of casual influance, alongside the ones aimed at a casual crowd, I don't think you'd see the kind of animosity that exists right now.
Yes you do! You've made remarks to the contrary in this very post! "Greater money coming from a bigger herd of even more easily exploited sheep", I believe were the words you used.
it is a business, but there is a point at which I think someone can go too far with it, and nobody should expect a neglected audience to be happy about it. Especially when that audience *IS* profitable, and has also been carrying the industry for a very long time.
I see no reason why you shouldn't be glad to shift the weight over to another's shoulders.
There are reasons why I usually wind up targeting the games industry as a whole (and sometimes single out paticular companies) rather than attacking casual gamers very often, other than to mention them as a target group. With the issues at stake however, it's not easy to be flattering, given the entire reason why casual gamers are being courted and why the nature of that market makes it so deliciously profitable.
In other words, you're begrudging businesses making money. Hardcore gamers have no right to be exclusively catered to, which seems to me to be the attitude you have employed throughout your post, even if you're unaware of it.
So, because I buy games based on my interests and reviews instead of blindly wasting money makes me a worse gamer? I feel like this article is insulting me for being careful with my money. I dunno about everyone else, but if I have the cash, I look into any interesting I might find sitting on the store shelf and later I buy it and enjoy it.
I was going to point out all the wrong things in this article, but as soon as I was done reading it I found that it was written by Jim Sterling.
Jim Sterling is to videogame journalism as Robert Kotick is to videogames. I don't really think I need to say anything else, especially since all the other people here are tearing the article apart for me.
Good to hear from you again, Jim. Interesting article, and well stated.
Looking over it, the first thing that caught my eye was the statement about sequels selling better than new IPs because of the skepticism of hardcore consumers. Being an ex-Gamestop employee who has hosted a number of midnight events over a span of two years, you are 100% correct. Nearly 100% of the midnight releases I took part in hosting were for sequels of a certain series like AC: Brotherhood and Call of Duty: BO. They sold like mad, even K&L2, which I knew would suck the second I heard about it. (That game never had a midnight release. Thank God.)
For example, when Risen came out, none of my regular customers gave it a second look, even when I told them I had bought and played it, and enjoyed every second of the game. It wasn't until I had a regular who was a grandmother come in and ask me about it that the game sold. She later told me she loved it, and that made me smile.
------------
The next part the caught my eye was the section devoted to piracy, a subject I know is hot button, and one which I know you have made plenty of statements on at Destructoid before. In one of your Jimquisition videos, you stated that pirates should admit they're thieves rather than try and defend their actions all the time, and in this case, there is plenty more reason to look favorably on that statement.
I have noticed the drop in the number of high quality, if not appealing, games on the PSP over the years, which saddens me. It wasn't until Invizimals came out that I bought a new, as in on the market new, game for the system, and ever since, I've been enjoying the game greatly. Sure, it's a bit faulty, but I like monster collecting games like Digimon World, so this game, with augmented reality, I picked up without hesitation because it appealed to me. (Even so, my PSP is more of a media player now than a gaming system.)
I will admit that I have pirated a number of the old DOS Ultima games, along with a number of other DOS games such as Blood, Duke Nukem, and Wizardry. I also did the same to Arena and Daggerfall before they became free, at which point I erased the pirated copies and downloaded the real ones.
That said, I have made it a point to myself over the last few years that I will never pirate a game, no matter it's age, that I like and am able to buy.
------------
All this said, I do not consider myself hardcore or casual. I play a lot of games that are not popular to the masses, but so long as I can find games that play like Borderlands, Gothic, Invizimals, Fallout: New Vegas, Arx Fatalis, and Dungeon Seige III, I'm more than happy to put my money where my mouth is and support the developers.
However, I play Pangya, Minecraft, and Dungeon Fighter a lot when I don't feel like spending anything, or cannot spend spend cash, and those games are just as fun to me as those I have to spend 40-60 dollars to purchase. This is an expensive hobby, but so are my D&D and Warhammer hobbies, so at times, budgeting is the answer.
If you're avoiding new IP's, I'd be more tempted to describe you as the industry's ***** than a hardcore gamer. If there were something like racial discrimination between video games, that would be it. It's shallow and ignorant to disregard a game based on the number in its name or the little watermark on the cover, and it's disrespectful to new and low budget developers.
Unlike a $60 game, Farmville and its kin are free experiences. It costs you absolutely nothing to get started, and there's a surprising amount of content to be enjoyed at the entry level.
This is a inaccurate statement in my opinion. You pay in information you give to advertisers via facebook. I would rather not share my data. Same reason I avoid FB in the first place. Congress is considering a privacy law to protect American consumers on the internet. (The EU already has such laws) You can imagine that FB is opposing it.
I went through a fairly serious Farmville stint last year. Even at the height of my addiction (and I was fairly addicted), I was never having as much fun as when I played other types of games. Planting and harvesting crops was a chore that had to be done, not a leisurely experience.
Enjoying farmville just because its free makes them smarter? If they were any stupider they'd get just as much entertainment out of a cardboard box. [/flame]
The next part the caught my eye was the section devoted to piracy, a subject I know is hot button, and one which I know you have made plenty of statements on at Destructoid before. In one of your Jimquisition videos, you stated that pirates should admit they're thieves rather than try and defend their actions all the time, and in this case, there is plenty more reason to look favorably on that statement.
Sure is a hot button, I've seen many discussion on that topic and I noticed that sometime the "piracy" that is being defended is not quite the same as the "piracy" that is being attacked. This is definitely one of those things that are more complex that what they look, it ain't just either "stealing" or "freedom". The anti-piracy side, for example, think only of the kind of piracy going on on handhelds (which I don't apreciate myself) while the other side is actually defending retro gaming. Something you've admitted to doing.
Your shame about once downloading games that ought to have been free already by then seems unjustified to me. But that's entering the debate on why copyrights just should not last as long as they do, I can provide links explaining why if you are interested.
Then there's the notion that Law is Law even if stupid, unfair, and ineffective. A matter of personal philosophy I guess.
When I defend the "piracy" of older media I don't try, I succeed.
Unrelated to the discussion on piracy, it irks me that "core gamers" are only FPS players. Most of them aren't much more than a bunch of fratboys and bros, just another population of casuals they are. What am I who plays all kinds of games old and new and enjoy them equally ? /rant
What a shitty, condescending article. In what universe does less discriminating equal better? Or for that matter, how is a game that the author freely admits is designed with nothing greater in mind than to be addictive (and the last time I looked, few addicts were actually taking the time to enjoy their addictions) make the player inherently superior to me simply because I choose a different style of game to play. I guess all those idiots that spent hundreds, and in some cases thousands, of dollars buying fucking smurfberries are having more fun and thus better than me.
If the author wrote this article simply to flamebait the gamers, who mind you are the ones reading this, not the soccer moms or other casual gamers, then mission accomplished. Otherwise, this guy has some weird ideas about what makes one person better than another.
The question is, if the "hardcore" games are such a difficult and niche audience, then why are games still being developed for them? I'd answer, for the same reason why fancy restaurants still exist alongside McDonald's: Because, as unbelievable as that might sound, some people actually take pride in their work and are fulfilled by satisfying a hard audience. Because, apparently, there are people who would rather work for Team Ico or 2k Games and barely break even, than work for Zynga. Shocking, I know.
That is a beautifully appropriate analogy, my friend. By Mr. Sterling's rationale, the people that eat garbage junk, fast food crap are better people than those of us that enjoy a quality meal that might cost more, or prefer a quality, healthy home cooked meal over something made from animal entrails, filler and fats.
It's an absolutely ludicrous position to take, and I can only assume the author is trolling us. Sure, there's nothing wrong with enjoying a fast food burger now and then, but if this very same author were to tell me that the obese person at McDonald's blissfully working on his coronary is "better" or "superior" to me because he enjoys his $4 Big Mac as much or more than I enjoy a $25 perfectly cooked steak and some steamed vegetables, he'd be laughed out the door.
Quality and discerning tastes are not a bad thing.
Dastardly said:
The reason he brought up games like Enslaved was to prove the point that far more people bought the new COD than bought games like Enslaved. The point wasn't that Enslaved is the best game ever. It's just that the "core gamer" audience is more willing to shell out money for sequels than to even try a new IP. You tried it and didn't like it, which is bound to happen, but you're still in a minority. Most folks wouldn't even give it the time of day because it's not a same-old safe bet.
This also presupposes that the audience for CoD and Enslaved are two separate entities. I'm sure there's actually lots of crossover. Also, and it's unfortunate that it's almost become a requirement for success, Enslaved offers no online competition, which is a huge selling point and a huge factor in replaybility for an FPS game.
"Hardcore" gamers hate "casual" gamers (regardless of how they define both of those terms) and the industry that caters to them because it means fewer games are being made that cater to 'them'. They feel entitled to have a large selection of (according to their personal definition) high quality games to pick from, and feel immediately threatened by (again, according to their definition) low quality products selling well.
They immediately and defensively rage against these games and those who play them because their success means a larger portion of games being made will cater to the large demographic that buys them.
The same applies to established titles "dumbing down" the experience to be more accessible, they reflexively see it as a start down the slippery slope to losing one of the dwindling number of "high quality" franchises that exist to the ever growing, uniformed mob that is the "casual gamers."
And the exact same reason is why they don't like to see an established franchise innovate. Oh sure, they cry and clatter for innovation, but at the same time they want to get what they expect when they pick up, say, Final Fantasy or Mario, and while they insist on innovation in general, they don't want to see the series they love potentially becoming "low quality" as a result of it.
Overall, it's a childish view and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see why this group isn't catered to. It's the rich kid who was raised a sheltered life with all the toys he could ever want suddenly stepping into the real world and seeing the mobs of "inferior" working class people and scoff at anything that caters to that crowd, while at the same time feeling threatened that this ever growing population may someday dethrone him from his position as being superior to them.
Sure is a hot button, I've seen many discussion on that topic and I noticed that sometime the "piracy" that is being defended is not quite the same as the "piracy" that is being attacked. This is definitely one of those things that are more complex that what they look, it ain't just either "stealing" or "freedom". The anti-piracy side, for example, think only of the kind of piracy going on on handhelds (which I don't appreciate myself) while the other side is actually defending retro gaming. Something you've admitted to doing.
Your shame about once downloading games that ought to have been free already by then seems unjustified to me. But that's entering the debate on why copyrights just should not last as long as they do, I can provide links explaining why if you are interested.
Then there's the notion that Law is Law even if stupid, unfair, and ineffective. A matter of personal philosophy I guess. When I defend the "piracy" of older media I don't try, I succeed.
I can see where you're coming from, but I do try and buy those games if I can. I have recently found copies of Blood and Ultima Complete, but those are never cheaper than 39.99 for a physical copy in any condition no matter where I look. I'm not a big fan of virtual games, but they're far cheaper in this regard.
If you wish to link the articles you were talking about, I'd like to see them.
Unrelated to the discussion on piracy, it irks me that "core gamers" are only FPS players. Most of them aren't much more than a bunch of fratboys and bros, just another population of casuals they are. What am I who plays all kinds of games old and new and enjoy them equally ? /rant
To be honest, I really like FPS games. However, my favorites within this genre are those that are 100% FPS, or those with some secondary elements of play, like RPG elements or puzzles.
Borderlands and Serious Sam are my modern favorites, while Heretic, Quake, and Blood round out the older ones.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
