Gaming is going to the casuals

[Manji187]

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.

I sincerely hope that you are right, but I fear you may be wrong.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-6-most-ominous-trends-in-video-games/ (page 1, #4 and especially page 2)
http://www.industrygamers.com/news/epic-99-cent-apps-are-killing-us/ (Epic...of Gears of War fame)
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-stupid-facebook-games-made-zynga-the-most-profitable-company-ever-2011-2

Say what you will about Cracked...some of the articles are rather enlightening.

EDIT: also

http://altdevblogaday.com/2011/06/06/gamedev-we-need-to-aim-higher/

Part of a specific comment (Tim Trzepacz) is especially relevant:

"However, raising the cost of development also means raising the RISK of development. As costs rose to a point where developers could no longer self-fund, the large publishers rose to handle the funding and marketing of games. As publishers are paying all of the bills, they call all of the shots. Ask Ted sometime what happens if you miss a deadline with Sony...

Publishers, having a lot of money on the line, try to reduce their risk. Mostly they do this by making things that they know how to market. Often that involves slapping a license on something, imitating a game that is already successful. They also try to reduce their costs, which generally means paying for only what gets used, and not doing any R&D or experimentation. This is directly what leads to "me too" game syndrome."

Basically...it's all about financial risk. Risk that has become too high in the triple-A title arena. Risk that the industry is seeking to avoid in one way or another....to survive.

 

[Pedro The Hutt]

I found that "article" on Cracked to derail into an angry fanboy rant rather than an honest attempt at genuine journalism. But hey. You go on ahead and give as much credibility to that article as you want if it makes you feel better.