Core Gamers Mostly Male, Casual Gamers Mostly Female, Says NPD

[Delock]

The real question is, with all of the many casual games, and all of the casual gamers playing them, why do we still lean on this crutch of refering to this other class of games as the "core?"

Seriously, it would be like a guy from Mississippi walking around Kenya talking about how it's amazing there are so many "minorities" there...

You will rue the day that Yahoo Dominoes is considered a "core" game.

Denial doth not an argument make. If most of the people playing (and paying) are casual, that's the new core. If most of the folks in this country voted for Ron Jeremy for president, he'd be president. Doesn't matter if the wizened few think it's a dumb idea.

Now, me? I don't think casual games are some awful thing. Clearly, their existence isn't removing classically "core" games from existence. And I play a handful of goofy games on my phone, which I enjoy greatly. There's just this weird idea that even though MOST gamers play these casual games (which includes but is not limited to stuff like Yahoo Dominoes), the other section of games are still the "real" thing.

The real reason casual games do so well, in addition to being convenient, is that they have broader appeal. Candy Crush, the bajillion versions of Yahtzee and Boggle, Hay Day, you know something they all DON'T have in common? The same old gravelly-voiced white male protagonist.

What's weird is, as far as I can tell, you don't see this kind of divide in nearly any other kind of "nerdy" hobby. You like tabletop? Cool. The worst you'll see are people condemning certain systems because they don't like the rules, not because the audience doesn't have any less passion for the hobby than they do. How about comic books? Marvel/DC rivalries are like console rivalries: irrelevant and not a real issue. Beyond that, I don't really see any kind of line in the sand drawn between "real" and "fake" comic book readers.

I wonder why that is... :/

Oh, there's the elitism there too. All of these I've encountered:

You buy trades instead of following issue to issue? Not a real supporter of the series
You read superhero comics but don't follow Image, Darkhorse, etc.? Well, you read comics, but you shouldn't have opinions on the medium
Don't know what event is going on because your series didn't touch on it? Well, obviously you're still new to this.
Don't buy variants? Not a real collector.

It goes on

 

[eberhart]

So unreasonably threatened male gamers are still sticking to the completely arbitrary and meaningless core v casual distinction to make themselves better about no longer being the single most important gaming demographic ?

"nazis will take away our games!" = unreasonably
"interest groups, ideologists, parasitic commentators etc trying to affect franchises and studios that were funded by a specific demographic for literally decades (instead of funding a variant that could better match expectations)" = reasonably

I'd replaced "threatened" with "pissed off" though.

"Meaningless" is hardly meaningless when such a big difference in average spending exists. Certain casual games are famous for breeding whales - yet they are still behind even *with* them. That definitely means something.

As for "no longer the most important" - has this been established? Money mentioned above coupled with more dedication suggests otherwise - that this particular demographic is still out of reach. Things did change in terms of specific genres - or did they, really? Studies pointing at different preferences have been around for a while.

 

[eberhart]

"The big game developers should continue only catering to the demographic I am a part of in spite of the fact that we're now a minority and incapable of providing a profit on games solely targeted at us.

80 out of 100 is a majority.
(add plenty of women and some men due to gaming gradually mainstreaming)
100 out of 200 is not a majority.
(divide men into age brackets because reasons)
50 out of 200 - definitely not a majority... but what exactly is this approach worth?

But wait, here's more. The actual number of customers big game developers have the easiest access to didn't shrink - it grew. However, as we already know, those numbers didn't transform their demographic into anything close to 50:50. So yeah, IF they intend to capitalize on genres that gave them their current position, they really should continue. At least for now - and, given the source, at least on PC.

And in spite of the fact that this is because of the ballooning development costs from the constantly improving graphics we demand and our constant bitching about any game that doesn't flawlessly live up to our unrealistic expectations and entirely fan-generated hype.

Since budgeting and reeling in ad expenses are from some lalaland for certain studios, DLCs and other crap to the rescue! There's a number of good and shitty practices that can increase their profit, all carrying various risks. The biggest difference between them and diluting genres and content to fit random demands (or in some misguided "it's for everybody!" delusion) is that the former can exist without affecting the game proper (and if they try, like with some DLC models, fans express their annoyance... a lot). The latter is literally *that*. Even when it isn't, a perception of hand-wrangling taking place is already enough - especially when major outlets are capable of hiveminding when ideologically convenient.

If they want to actually earn a profit, then they have to produce entirely separate products for the profitable demographics while still providing us our own in spite of the inevitable financial losses." = Unreasonable.

Sorry, but if those "inevitable financial losses" became connected to the "core" demographic, I must've missed a total AAA crash that happened years ago, when casual market became so strong. Again, "traditional" demographic didn't shrink, it's on the same level of spending with other groups (at least talking about PC) and definitely outspending them per capita. As for production costs skyrocketing - we are not exactly privy to profit charts from the past, so "inevitable financial losses" claim is hardly sourced - especially when it's far from "smaller profit that before".

Let's not even start with costs associated with switching to "profitable demographics" (again, source?) - given how they seem to focus on significantly different content and genres.

But, in the end, one *can* justify bean bean counters trying everything to have more beans, so studios are, at least partially, off the hook. What is much harder to justify is any attempt to "make established franchises and studios better" from the outside.

If one demographic could spend years and piles of money helping big developers become, you know, big from a level comparable (if not lower) to current indies, then every other demographic should be expected to do the same. Unless, if it's suddenly "too expensive", that demographic is not that profitable as advertised.

I wouldn't mind *more* games from established studios either, but with, as you said, costs skyrocketing, it's hard to expect significant increase. "Better games" sound even more reasonable - but let's say there's a lot of "better" out there, just as there's a lot of "experts" on that. I think prioritizing opinions of those with actual achievements in the industry is reasonable.

 

[neokiva]

Core Gamers Mostly Male, Casual Gamers Overwhelmingly Female, Says NPD

Core gamers were defined as those who play "core" games for five or more hours per week.

Market research firm the NPD Group (who you may know as the guys who provide sales numbers for games every month) has conducted a large-scale survey of American PC gamers, and come up with some interesting observations. The 6,225 members survey were split into three groups - Heavy Core, Light Core, and Casual. Heavy Core gamers play "core" games for five or more hours per week, while Light Core gamers still enjoy core games, but do so for less than five hours a week, and Casual gamers only play non-core games. The survey found that the majority of gamers in the two "core" groups were male, while the casual group was "overwhelmingly female."

Just FYI, In order to qualify as a core gamer for the survey, respondents had to currently play Action/Adventure, Fighting, Flight, Massively Multi-Player (MMO), Racing, Real Time Strategy, Role-Playing, Shooter, or Sport games on a PC/Mac.

The largest segment is Casual at 56 percent, with Light Core at 24 percent, and Heavy Core at 20 percent. Though Heavy Core is the smallest segment, they spend a significantly higher number of hours gaming in an average week, and have spent roughly twice as much money in the past 3 months on physical or digital games for the computer than Casual PC gamers.

Of all the participants surveyed, 51% were male and 49% were female. The survey also determined that 37% of all participants above the age of 9 identified as someone who played PC games, and the average play time per week is 6.4 hours.

A few interesting patterns were discerned about PC gamers spending habits too. 46% of respondents had visited a digital storefront to buy games in the last year, and "half of PC gamers who play digital and/or physical games on the computer are expecting there to always be a sale right around the corner," said NPD analyst Liam Callahan.

Source: NPD Group [https://www.npd.com/wps/portal/npd/us/news/press-releases/37-percent-of-us-population-age-9-and-older-currently-plays-pc-games/]

Permalink

showing these surveys to gamers is a waste of time it's not the gamers who are stopping female protagonists it's publishers, and poor market research. show it to them.

 

[Karadalis]

What we're 'afraid of' is people trying to homogenize the market so much we end up with lots of middling, fully politically correct complaint grey piles of sludge and no truly great games aimed at lots of different niches.

Do you have any examples of this happening though? A lot of people are worried about it happening, definitely, but I've yet to see any evidence of that actually occurring.

Yes, some games have changed a bit to appeal to a wider range of demographics (Mass Effect 1 to Mass Effect 2, for example), but I'd argue those series still have their own identity while still being able to appeal to a broader range of people.

Its not so much that casual gamers are really at fault for it.

Its that the industry desperatly tries to tap into the huge casual gamer market to try to get them to play tripple A games.

The thing thought is: no matter how much "broader" they make their games.. it NEVER has the positive effect on sales numbers they want it to have.

Turning rather hardcore games like syndicate for example into a FPS... or Xcom into a FPS backfired horribly. The games where mediocre at best and total shite at worst.

Hardcore players didnt bought them, casual players werent attracted by those games cause they had no investment into these franchises to begin with.

So in the end everyone lost because the industry decided to try and hunt the white rabbit down the rabbithole.

So this conflict is not so much hardcore vs. casual

Its more like industry giants with moneybags for eyes doing stupid things in the name of a broader apeal without realising that they have two elemtarly different markets at their hands.

No matter how much you dumb down your game you will not attract facebook gamers, tablet gamers or social gamers aslong as your game is priced at 50 to 60 dollars.

People who blame casual gamers for the dumbing down of games are looking at the wrong culprit, simple as that.

Its industry idiocy, not casual gamers who for the most part stick to their own game genres and rarely go out of it (wich is fine.. everyone gets to play what they like to play)

Ofcourse it doesnt help that some people want to arbritrary force political correctness and catering to non existant markets into games who have indeed be traditionally be male dominated.. and for good reasons (try to get a woman to spend money on expensive action figures... and get a guy to spend money on expensive shoes, and not just a pair. In the end it wont work, and yes i am saying that guys spend alot.. ALOT more money on whats basically nonsense)

 

[Racecarlock]

I feel like repeating the word "Really?" over and over for about an hour. Partly because it's the morning and I've had a lot of caffeine, but also because we seem to be continuing this completely asinine casual versus core BULLSHIT so that we can continue to not give two shits about the female audience.

Stop trying to invalidate an audience because of the kind of games it plays. Because this distinction has never been anything but a pile of elitist bullshit.

 

[Fappy]

The real question is, with all of the many casual games, and all of the casual gamers playing them, why do we still lean on this crutch of refering to this other class of games as the "core?"

Seriously, it would be like a guy from Mississippi walking around Kenya talking about how it's amazing there are so many "minorities" there...

You will rue the day that Yahoo Dominoes is considered a "core" game.

Denial doth not an argument make. If most of the people playing (and paying) are casual, that's the new core. If most of the folks in this country voted for Ron Jeremy for president, he'd be president. Doesn't matter if the wizened few think it's a dumb idea.

Now, me? I don't think casual games are some awful thing. Clearly, their existence isn't removing classically "core" games from existence. And I play a handful of goofy games on my phone, which I enjoy greatly. There's just this weird idea that even though MOST gamers play these casual games (which includes but is not limited to stuff like Yahoo Dominoes), the other section of games are still the "real" thing.

The real reason casual games do so well, in addition to being convenient, is that they have broader appeal. Candy Crush, the bajillion versions of Yahtzee and Boggle, Hay Day, you know something they all DON'T have in common? The same old gravelly-voiced white male protagonist.

What's weird is, as far as I can tell, you don't see this kind of divide in nearly any other kind of "nerdy" hobby. You like tabletop? Cool. The worst you'll see are people condemning certain systems because they don't like the rules, not because the audience doesn't have any less passion for the hobby than they do. How about comic books? Marvel/DC rivalries are like console rivalries: irrelevant and not a real issue. Beyond that, I don't really see any kind of line in the sand drawn between "real" and "fake" comic book readers.

I wonder why that is... :/

Oh, there's the elitism there too. All of these I've encountered:

You buy trades instead of following issue to issue? Not a real supporter of the series
You read superhero comics but don't follow Image, Darkhorse, etc.? Well, you read comics, but you shouldn't have opinions on the medium
Don't know what event is going on because your series didn't touch on it? Well, obviously you're still new to this.
Don't buy variants? Not a real collector.

It goes on

I've been collecting comics for fifteen years and never really encountered that level of elitism. Damn, that'd drive me absolutely fucking mad lol (especially since I only buy trades these days).

 

[loa]

There should be a godwin's law kind of thing for using the term "core" and "casual".

So unreasonably threatened male gamers are still sticking to the completely arbitrary and meaningless core v casual distinction to make themselves better about no longer being the single most important gaming demographic?

No it's gaming media who excreted that stuff, as seen here. It's all marketing bullshit.
"Male gamers" just gobble it up and regurgitate it ad nauseum as if it had any meaning at all.

 

[Lightknight]

Wait... they say that casual gamers are overwhelmingly female while core gamers are mostly male but they don't present the numbers?

Does anyone have the actual numbers for this survey? Would it really have been so hard for them to slap a ratio in their article? (xx%/xy%)

The title of this thread should likely have included the word "PC" in it.

Other than that, this is exactly the distribution I would have expected to see. I just want to know by how much.

 

[KingDragonlord]

-Snip-

I think you're onto something here. I'm a woman and I'm decidedly in the "heavy core" category, but I'm also markedly more likely to play a game if it gives me a female option, and markedly less likely to play a game if all of the female characters are stripperific. It's not a moral judgement, it's just what appeals to me versus what doesn't. Sexy is fine, equal opportunity sexy is even better, but downright degrading and ludicrous isn't okay (like X-blades chick). I doubt my single sale counts for much, but I've noticed my female friends in the heavy/light core categories feel similarly, and as you say, together we could make or break someone's profitability margin.

I am relieved that at least one woman finds this reasonable. I can never be completely certain. I'm also relieved to have data so that we can have a concrete discussion. The good news from this is 1) It confirms that women are worth paying some attention to even with the core titles and 2) That most women are actually being served by the games they play (Casual games seem to be a lot more female friendly, just in my experience with many even clearly being targeted at female gamers over men, which this data shows is how it should be). Its good to know that men and women both to an extent are being served by sectors of the gaming market.

Side Note: I've always found the taste argument that you present more compelling than the moral argument when it comes to the sexual stuff. If games constantly featured guys walking around in little more than their banana warmers, I'd be grouchy about that too. There are more sensible ways to offer fan service. So you make a good point there and I think its one that would find more traction (if pitched correctly) than the moral argument as the latter puts men on the defensive needlessly.

 

[Something Amyss]

What we're 'afraid of' is people trying to homogenize the market so much we end up with lots of middling, fully politically correct complaint grey piles of sludge and no truly great games aimed at lots of different niches.

That's rich. Yeah, we wouldn't want a homogenised market. Except, we have a middling, homogenised market already.

 

[Something Amyss]

The thing thought is: no matter how much "broader" they make their games.. it NEVER has the positive effect on sales numbers they want it to have.

I would say it's more that it'll never be enough. Because no matter how big their audience, they will want more next time.

Ofcourse it doesnt help that some people want to arbritrary force political correctness and catering to non existant markets into games who have indeed be traditionally be male dominated.

Like who?

 

[michael87cn]

1) surveys are random so they are useless as the people they survey are random and their physical attributes mean NOTHING

2) everyone knows that the gaming population is mostly male. i have been playing online games of all varieties since i was 13 (currently 27) and the number of provably female gamers I've met I can number on both hands. There were a lot of men pretending to be women as well. you could say oh they were just in hiding. Okay sure I guess. What does that say about our culture as a whole? Not good things...

3) It doesn't matter...

4) It's really not surprising that something designed by a certain gender would appeal to that gender. There are very few games made specifically by a team of women/woman and maybe this APPEARS sexist but I feel those games would play very differently and be more enjoyable to the opposite sex if they were made by them. And I see nothing wrong with that.

5) Unfortunately I have had no problem finding men IRL that like video games. I have, however, never talked to a girl who liked video games other than facebook and phone games. Even my family members are like this. They'll try games and then just not have fun. Does that mean I speak for the entire world? Of course not but my life experiences are simply thus. Women seem to enjoy looking pretty (i am not even kidding) however that is attained. Clothing, makeup, working out, the women in my life spend a lot of time in front of the mirror, and like to hog the bathrooms. My mother enjoys buying purses and clothes. She says its not really having them that she enjoys so much as the search for them in the store. Fact is? Men and women *GAAAAAASP* are different. WOAH MATE THATS SEXIST! No, mate, that's fact.

6) Does it matter? No... if women want to play games they will. If they want more games they will eventually make them themselves. _I_ think its unfair to ask men to design games that women will love, because its hard to do just that without alienating men. It's very hard actually. It's hard to even understand women (as a guy) and vice versa.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

The reason being, "core videogames" still tend to aim directly to the straight male demographic, while "casual videogames" tend to be much more open to be all-oriented or even female-oriented.

/endofdiscussion

No no no it couldn't possibly be THAT!

Women must just have a `not a real gamer` gene. It's very sad.

OT: Five hours a WEEK? Five hours a DAY! Get on my level, scrubs.

Wait, I'm confused, why are you satisfied with this being the case? If that's true then to make a game appeal to female audiences it means to uber-simplify it, make it bereft of continuity or cultural references or a deep and meaningful story, remove most stats and advancement. They're basically glorified flash games which get face-lifts and cutesy graphics while they nickle and dime you. The implications of this should enrage you.


Why would you be happy if that's what it means to target female demographics? If that's how I was being targeted I'd be PISSED. Why do they not target you with actually good games that are hard and complex and intricate which cause you to feel deep emotions and simply revolve around more female-relevant topics? Why does a game need to be able to be played by an 80 year old non-gamer to be considered as a game which targets females?


No, I don't see this as them targeting females. They're targeting casuals. That the vast majority of female players play casual games is a fact but it's an irrelevant fact when we discuss this issue. The relevant philosophy behind these games is simple basic flash game level gameplay that can be enjoyed fully in the span of a few minutes between other activities. There's nothing inherently female-oriented about this unless you believe women can't get immersed and game for hours like guys do or that they don't like "hard" games or a million other stupid things which their design philosophies actually heavily imply. There's only casual-based design at work here and they're likening casuals to females. I think that's BS.

 

[Phasmal]

Wait, I'm confused, why are you satisfied with this being the case? If that's true then to make a game appeal to female audiences it means to uber-simplify it, make it bereft of continuity or cultural references or a deep and meaningful story, remove most stats and advancement. They're basically glorified flash games which get face-lifts and cutesy graphics while they nickle and dime you. The implications of this should enrage you.


Why would you be happy if that's what it means to target female demographics? If that's how I was being targeted I'd be PISSED. Why do they not target you with actually good games that are hard and complex and intricate which cause you to feel deep emotions and simply revolve around more female-relevant topics? Why does a game need to be able to be played by an 80 year old non-gamer to be considered as a game which targets females?


No, I don't see this as them targeting females. They're targeting casuals. That the vast majority of female players play casual games is a fact but it's an irrelevant fact when we discuss this issue. The relevant philosophy behind these games is simple basic flash game level gameplay that can be enjoyed fully in the span of a few minutes between other activities. There's nothing inherently female-oriented about this unless you believe women can't get immersed and game for hours like guys do or that they don't like "hard" games or a million other stupid things which their design philosophies actually heavily imply. There's only casual-based design at work here and they're likening casuals to females. I think that's BS.

??

How did you get all THAT out of my sarcastic post? Are you sure you quoted the right person?

I do not think `core` games need to be simplified in order to target women, that's hella patronising.
It's just they're marketed towards guys- that's pretty obvious.

Maybe women play more casual games because they're more easy to get into and often don't require having an expensive PC or console (which are usually seen by the public as `guy things` and often marketed specifically towards men). A lot of hidden object games tend to be aimed at women with interesting stories and female protagonists so that's not hard to see why women might play THOSE.
Add to that the gamer community's famous `welcoming attitude` and you've got plenty of reasons why women might lean away from those types of games.

Personally, I've always played `core` games, so I can only speculate- but I never once implied that games need to be `Uber simplified` for me or any other women.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Wait, I'm confused, why are you satisfied with this being the case? If that's true then to make a game appeal to female audiences it means to uber-simplify it, make it bereft of continuity or cultural references or a deep and meaningful story, remove most stats and advancement. They're basically glorified flash games which get face-lifts and cutesy graphics while they nickle and dime you. The implications of this should enrage you.


Why would you be happy if that's what it means to target female demographics? If that's how I was being targeted I'd be PISSED. Why do they not target you with actually good games that are hard and complex and intricate which cause you to feel deep emotions and simply revolve around more female-relevant topics? Why does a game need to be able to be played by an 80 year old non-gamer to be considered as a game which targets females?


No, I don't see this as them targeting females. They're targeting casuals. That the vast majority of female players play casual games is a fact but it's an irrelevant fact when we discuss this issue. The relevant philosophy behind these games is simple basic flash game level gameplay that can be enjoyed fully in the span of a few minutes between other activities. There's nothing inherently female-oriented about this unless you believe women can't get immersed and game for hours like guys do or that they don't like "hard" games or a million other stupid things which their design philosophies actually heavily imply. There's only casual-based design at work here and they're likening casuals to females. I think that's BS.

??

How did you get all THAT out of my sarcastic post? Are you sure you quoted the right person?

I do not think `core` games need to be simplified in order to target women, that's hella patronising.
It's just they're marketed towards guys- that's pretty obvious.

Maybe women play more casual games because they're more easy to get into and often don't require having an expensive PC or console (which are usually seen by the public as `guy things` and often marketed specifically towards men). A lot of hidden object games tend to be aimed at women with interesting stories and female protagonists so that's not hard to see why women might play THOSE.
Add to that the gamer community's famous `welcoming attitude` and you've got plenty of reasons why women might lean away from those types of games.

Personally, I've always played `core` games, so I can only speculate- but I never once implied that games need to be `Uber simplified` for me or any other women.

I'm sorry but that's what the implication of what you said was. If you are of the view that casual games are female-oriented, that means that the traits these games have which make em different from "core" games are what makes the difference between a game being female oriented or male oriented.


What are "hidden object games"? I've never heard of the genre. Are they like adventure style games? (like Monkey Island or something?) If so, yeah, those sound absolutely fine. I don't see em mentioned in this article though. I'd wager they'd count em as "core". Maybe they're just not quite that popular at all and just have a good size female audience. I'd much rather they get promoted over angry birds lol.


Finally, I may be biased but I take it as a positive, as opposed to a negative, if I hear of a girl being a passionate gamer. I really don't know much of anyone who'd degrade someone over it. I think this perception is an Xbox live thing which is outside my experience since I'm primarily on ps3 and tend to play fighters and Jrpgs. Maybe it's something to do with the anime scene being more welcoming than the broader gamer scene? It'd be interesting if it was.

 

[Phasmal]

I'm sorry but that's what the implication of what you said was. If you are of the view that casual games are female-oriented, that means that the traits these games have which make em different from "core" games are what makes the difference between a game being female oriented or male oriented.


What are "hidden object games"? I've never heard of the genre. Are they like adventure style games? (like Monkey Island or something?) If so, yeah, those sound absolutely fine. I don't see em mentioned in this article though. I'd wager they'd count em as "core". Maybe they're just not quite that popular at all and just have a good size female audience. I'd much rather they get promoted over angry birds lol.


Finally, I may be biased but I take it as a positive, as opposed to a negative, if I hear of a girl being a passionate gamer. I really don't know much of anyone who'd degrade someone over it. I think this perception is an Xbox live thing which is outside my experience since I'm primarily on ps3 and tend to play fighters and Jrpgs. Maybe it's something to do with the anime scene being more welcoming than the broader gamer scene? It'd be interesting if it was.

No, I think that core games are generally MARKETED to men whereas casual are generally marketed towards everyone or even specifically women. I do not think they have things in them that are implicitly male or the reverse for women.

I don't know why you're determined to imply I think women need things dumbed down. If I thought that I would have said that. I do not think that. I do think that perhaps after years of chasing the CoD audience the triple A industry hasn't exactly made itself look attractive to female newcomers.

And it's nice you don't know anyone who doesn't like female gamers, that's a good sign. I haven't run into any recently myself, but I have encountered them in all areas of gaming. I'm huge on lady gamers, we should have more. And games SHOULD NOT BE DUMBED DOWN FOR THEM BECAUSE IT IS NOT NEEDED.

 

[Guerilla]

The reason being, "core videogames" still tend to aim directly to the straight male demographic, while "casual videogames" tend to be much more open to be all-oriented or even female-oriented.

/endofdiscussion

Oh look, more assumptions based on absolutely NO evidence. Wow, I didn't know that videogames are SO sexist that women couldn't find even one game to play for 5-6 hours a week.

Casual videogames are more all-oriented because they started marketing them and making them for women AFTER women started buying them.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

I'm sorry but that's what the implication of what you said was. If you are of the view that casual games are female-oriented, that means that the traits these games have which make em different from "core" games are what makes the difference between a game being female oriented or male oriented.


What are "hidden object games"? I've never heard of the genre. Are they like adventure style games? (like Monkey Island or something?) If so, yeah, those sound absolutely fine. I don't see em mentioned in this article though. I'd wager they'd count em as "core". Maybe they're just not quite that popular at all and just have a good size female audience. I'd much rather they get promoted over angry birds lol.


Finally, I may be biased but I take it as a positive, as opposed to a negative, if I hear of a girl being a passionate gamer. I really don't know much of anyone who'd degrade someone over it. I think this perception is an Xbox live thing which is outside my experience since I'm primarily on ps3 and tend to play fighters and Jrpgs. Maybe it's something to do with the anime scene being more welcoming than the broader gamer scene? It'd be interesting if it was.

No, I think that core games are generally MARKETED to men whereas casual are generally marketed towards everyone or even specifically women. I do not think they have things in them that are implicitly male or the reverse for women.

I don't know why you're determined to imply I think women need things dumbed down. If I thought that I would have said that. I do not think that. I do think that perhaps after years of chasing the CoD audience the triple A industry hasn't exactly made itself look attractive to female newcomers.

And it's nice you don't know anyone who doesn't like female gamers, that's a good sign. I haven't run into any recently myself, but I have encountered them in all areas of gaming. I'm huge on lady gamers, we should have more. And games SHOULD NOT BE DUMBED DOWN FOR THEM BECAUSE IT IS NOT NEEDED.

Yeah, I didn't actually believe you thought that, that's why I was pointing out what I see as a contradiction.

Hmm, not made for men but simply marketed to men. I guess that's...possible. I still do wonder though, how deep does this go. I wouldn't be surprised if this aim to sell a game to a male audience would affect more than the marketing a game receives. I'd assume a game developer co-ordinates with the marketers and designs a product which, while may not be quite as gender-oriented in design as the marketers make it out to be, still retains some aspects of that.

I mean, with some games where there's tons of pandering sexual stuff and bouncing spaceboobs everywhere, it's pretty easy to tell. I wonder if there's anything similarly insidious with other types of pandering which hasn't been identified as clearly yet.

Finally, with you actually being female you've had more chances to encounter it than I have I guess. I only know what I saw when I was in a setting where me, a female gamer and some other third person was there. Yep, I'm all for female gamers who are super duper into games just as much as I am!

 

[Guerilla]

The reason being, "core videogames" still tend to aim directly to the straight male demographic, while "casual videogames" tend to be much more open to be all-oriented or even female-oriented.

/endofdiscussion

Oh look, more assumptions based on absolutely NO evidence. Wow, I didn't know that videogames are SO sexist that women couldn't find even one game to play for 5-6 hours a week.

Casual videogames are more all-oriented because they started marketing them and making them for women AFTER women started buying them.

I disagree, as I'm convinced it's the other way around.

I disagree with the entire mentality behind "women are into casual games" because I kinda see an underlying "women are stupid" behind that. I find it sexist, personally. "Men play Deus Ex and Metal Gear Solid and Heavy Rain. Women play Candy Crush and Flappy Bird and Farm Heroes." How about... no.

Yet another assumption. It could be a number of reasons including the fact that they're less competitive than men [http://www.nber.org/papers/w11474]. The fact is that all sensible industries target specific demographics where their customers are, doing otherwise would be catastrophic. They leave of course room for expansion but the notion that they should ignore their demographics is absolutely ridiculous.

I repeat, the reason why there are so many female oriented games in the casual games industry is because the industry reacted to women's preferences, not the other way around, and this is how is always works. Welcome to Economics 101.