Gaming is going to the casuals

[Triskadancer]

I sigh every time I see a topic like this, but not because I'm angry at "the casuals."

Let's say the big-name devs do start making casual games. Consider this- cheap, easy to make, addictive casual games that sell a bunch of copies will help fund their bigger, risk-taking games. If the company has something they can fall back on for profit, they've got more room to experiment with the other games they put out.

That's just one way to refute the "casuals are ruining our hobby!!1!1one!" panic.

 

[TheDooD]

Gaming circles really never change it more or less what they have time to play and what they like to play. The problem is the publishers and PR yes men dictating what games are worth you're time. I give ya an example BF3 and MW3 are hyped extremely yet to me both are gonna be boring as all hell because I'm sick of "realistic" military shooters. Then there's Uncharted 3 from the beta seems like it better have a very good story or I'm gonna skip it completely. The shooters I'm looking out for are RAGE and Armored Core 5. I'm looking forward to Id's plans in Rage to make every enemy faction in that game fight uniquely. I'm wondering how deep will the team based combat and customization will be AC5.

I've also noticed that really hyped games are played by a lot of people but I keep thinking do they really enjoy it? Or is it because they have friends that play it. Are they just in it trying to be cool and say "yeah I played said game." Casuals gamer is basically an everyday gamer that plays every now and then. Which is a lot of people now I'm a casual gamer because I really don't have time to game like that. Light is more accurate to what "casual gamers and games" are labeled as. Yet even then most "casual" games have an high level of mastery. look at Tetris, Pac-Man, Missile Command, Asteroids, and Galaga. by there extremely easy pick up and play gameplay they're basically "casual" games. Yet the fact most can't "beat" these games makes them more hardcore then any AAA title and MMO.

 

[Manji187]

The game market is expanding. The casual market won't just supplant the hardcore one, they're aiming at two entirely different sets of people.

We have blockbuster films, and indie arthouse ones; they can easily co-exist since there'll always be different niches for different people. Gaming will change, but there'll always be something for you. Because you have money, and by god they want your money.

You didn't get the gist of the OP.

Two different sets of people...sure....in different numbers too (majority/ minority)...willing to spend different amounts of money on products of differing complexity/ cost. Sure, casual will not completely supplant hardcore...but it might divert a substantial amount of resources (time and money) if it really turns out to be the place "where the money is" (what the analysts are trying to achieve by way of a self-fulfilling prophecy).

Sure...the industry wants your money....but they would rather have the less risky, but larger aggregate of it. And that's what it's really about...risk-aversion and profit maximization. The industry is tired of producing costly blockbuster titles with zero room for failure (and therefore practically no room for radical innovation). Going casual is their way out...but there's a price: one the hardcore gamer will pay. The hardcore gamer will be taking the backseat and getting a lot less titles that are catered to him....because the bulk of the attention/ resources will be going to the casuals.

I hope this fear proves to be based on nothing....but following business logic alone it is credible enough.

 

[Outright Villainy]

Two different sets of people...sure....in different numbers too (majority/ minority)...willing to spend different amounts of money on products of differing complexity/ cost. Sure, casual will not completely supplant hardcore...but it might divert a substantial amount of resources (time and money) if it really turns out to be the place "where the money is" (what the analysts are trying to achieve by way of a self-fulfilling prophecy).

I think it'd be silly to say that the casual market is where the safe money is. The safe money is right here, because it's tried and tested, for decades. They know what we want, they nearly always know if it'll sell or not. With a casual market, who knows. It's still largely untested waters. Copying a gimmick that caught the public eye might be seen as old hat, trying something new might not catch their attention. They don't know what's repeatable. And it's telling that Nintendo, the clear winners of the last console generation, are moving away from casual audiences (for their home console anyway). The casual market doesn't have as much an interest in buying software over time, and they're not as likely to be repeat customers.

We'll still crave the games they know how to make. We're the safe bet. There's certainly money there, but there'll always be money here too. They want to get money somewhere else, but they're not giving up the chance to get our frickin' money, when they know exactly how to do so.

 

[TehCookie]

It very well might be, like like how it went from platforming to RPGs to shooters. It sucks when your favorite genre becomes less popular and some new crappy one takes it's place but there will still be good new games and it gives you time to play through the older ones you missed. If anything just wait and see if the next popular genre if better. Companies are not going to stop making "hardcore" games altogether, and you may find a few games in that genre you like.

 

[veloper]

Enthousiast gamers will become more and more marginalized.

 

[Bassik]

As a huge fan of the nintendo wii, all I can say is: so?

 

[Continuity]

snip

Casual gaming of the sort you mean is a bubble in the industry, most developers and analysts are too close to the industry to see it (wood for trees etc.) but thats exactly what it is, it will rise, fall, then stabilise at a certain level.
The traditional games market isn't going anywhere either, consoles will be around for at least another 10-15 years in my estimation and PC gaming will probably not die in my life time... though the incidence of gaming on an actual desktop may drop dramatically over the next 10 years.

 

[Spartan X1]

I have one thing to say, I hope this motion gaming gimmick goes out real quick, I mean really have you seen some of the motion controlled games a monkey could play them by just fliaing around

 

[MetalDooley]

Analysts also said that the DreamCast was going to destroy the PS2. So I don't put much stock into what they say. I'd just as quickly trust one of those fortune telling machines.

Exactly.These "analysts" also predicted that Nintendo was finished as a console manufacturer after the Gamecube and that the PS3 was going to comfortably outsell both the 360 and Wii.It's all guesswork

 

[Hyper-space]

Did that spark a little bit of annoyance? I hope so, this is exactly the same feeling I get when people especially analysts keep saying that iPhones, Social Networks and the likes of Motion Gaming is where the money is and is where gaming is going.

Even if that were true, how exactly is that good news? As much as I love angry birds, I don't want to have a future where the likes of angry birds sells more than GTA games and thus Rockstar starts making more casual games and less hardcore. Yes that's probably being cynical, but that's the picture that analysts paint when they say there is no market for 3DS, Vita and soon home consoles as well :/

So what do you think? Do you see the Kinect as a sign of things to come? Is casual gaming a threat to you?

No, as the assumption that a studio such as Rockstar would start making ONLY casual games suggest that a good chunk (and i mean about 60-80%) of the people that play these "hardcore" (another one of those terms that i hate, its usually meant to elevate one form of an hobby over the other) would suddenly stop playing said games and move over to titles that require less investment.

You see, the reason why casual gaming is growing is because people like to pass the time, whether they are waiting for the bus or just wasting away, and titles like Angry Birds and Bejeweled or whatever fit the bill. They do so remarkably well and are genuinely fun and a good time-waster, which is why its so popular.

These "hardcore" titles however, fit a completely different purpose. They are meant to be enjoyed as you would a movie or a book, either at home or wherever is fit and require much greater player investment than the time-wasters. Games like these can never be replaced by something that is meant to be enjoyed as a time-waster and saying that they will is like saying that because of youtube, the movie industry is in danger (or that because of bicycles, the auto-mobile industry is soon to fall).

There is a reason why these two types of games are usually separated and any doomsday prophecy about the demise of the "hardcore" market is ignorant of the concept of supply and fucking demand. Last time i checked, the hardcore market was making money so there is obviously a demand for these types of games (and will always be).

EDIT: oh and people stop this:

...and some new crappy one takes it's place

 

[Halo Fanboy]

Did that spark a little bit of annoyance?

It did for completely different reasons, because gaming has always been casual, unless you play games for money it's a hobby and therefore casual. Besides games like Tetris, Space Wars, Pong, and Pac man all came before the style of games that we play today and I say all of them belong in the casual genre of games. Casual games aren't new, we just have a better way of distributing them now. We'll always have are so called hardcore games so get over your superiority complex and just let everyone have fun.

I don't use the word casual because it doesn't strictly mean anything but I can see why people hate the "casual" games of today. The games that are commonly known as casual today don't even stack up to those games you brought up from 30 years ago. Space War has more nuance than any any versus game in wii sports, Pac-man and Tetris were more inventive than Angry Birds which is practically a run of the mill newgrounds game. Entry level games of today are worse than early games and I think that's a valid reason to complain about "casual" games imo.

 

[Halo Fanboy]

Two different sets of people...sure....in different numbers too (majority/ minority)...willing to spend different amounts of money on products of differing complexity/ cost. Sure, casual will not completely supplant hardcore...but it might divert a substantial amount of resources (time and money) if it really turns out to be the place "where the money is" (what the analysts are trying to achieve by way of a self-fulfilling prophecy).

I think it'd be silly to say that the casual market is where the safe money is. The safe money is right here, because it's tried and tested, for decades. They know what we want, they nearly always know if it'll sell or not. With a casual market, who knows. It's still largely untested waters. Copying a gimmick that caught the public eye might be seen as old hat, trying something new might not catch their attention. They don't know what's repeatable. And it's telling that Nintendo, the clear winners of the last console generation, are moving away from casual audiences (for their home console anyway). The casual market doesn't have as much an interest in buying software over time, and they're not as likely to be repeat customers.

We'll still crave the games they know how to make. We're the safe bet. There's certainly money there, but there'll always be money here too. They want to get money somewhere else, but they're not giving up the chance to get our frickin' money, when they know exactly how to do so.

If there's always money in the dedicated player then how did the arcades in most countries dry up into VR, motion control and Dandy Bear type stuff? Is there really enough people willing to spend the money to bring in a SnR, Melty Blood or dodonpachi machine in the US or Europe, is there really a market big enough to support them?

 

[razer17]

Did that spark a little bit of annoyance?

Yes, it sparked annoyance, but not at the fact that gaming is going to the casuals. IT sparked annoyance because I though "Oh crap, not another idiot complaining about the casuals"

No casual gaming is not a threat. The hardcore market is growing, not shrinking, so there will always be developers making AAA titles. The casual market is also growing, and so people will try and break into the market to increase cashflow.

Hardcore and casual gaming aren't mutually exclusive. Casual gaming isn't going to suddenly topple the hardcore games industry.

 

[franconbean]

The only reason Facebook/social networking site games annoy me is that when someone else in my household plays them, they ruin my net connection when I'm playing my games.
I've heard the argument that they are "pointless". But self-proclaimed "Hardcores" or "anti-casuals"; what really is the point in the games that "non-casual" gamers play? ultimately, what is the point of Call of Duty, other than enjoyment (which is what all these "casual" games have as their point also)?

"casual" gamers deserve to have their fun just as much as anyone else. It's not right to try and stop them; that would be a terrible hypocracy

Disclaimer: Using the same definition of "casual" as the OP

 

[BlumiereBleck]

But isn't it helping the "gaming industry" with these causal games, more people are playing and its becoming more accepted in culture beyond the "geek crowd." Come on be happy! Twenty five cents says your next girlfriend could be a gamer...and better at you in such games!