Hardcore Gamers Embrace Zynga
- Thread starter Marshall Honorof
- Start date
You could question a few of these findings:
1. What do they consider a "hardcore" gamer (man, I hate that term), simply playing some CoD or WoW does not make you "hardcore"
2. Their pool consists of people who use Raptr, which should, in theory, skew the results a bit. I only had one year of statistics in uni, but it seems like this isn't the best control-group.
3. How do they measure how much time you spend playing a browser game?
1. What do they consider a "hardcore" gamer (man, I hate that term), simply playing some CoD or WoW does not make you "hardcore"
2. Their pool consists of people who use Raptr, which should, in theory, skew the results a bit. I only had one year of statistics in uni, but it seems like this isn't the best control-group.
3. How do they measure how much time you spend playing a browser game?
You read my mind. There is a big gap between "have played" and "enjoyed playing" and "play on a regular basis"Austichar said:
I've played facebook games, sure. But my combined time on ALL of them put together is probably about 10 hours. I got more fun out of bulletstorm alone.
I love stat's, and people trying to spin them to say stuff they are not.
Let's look again at the stat's posted. Again, taking the stats at face value as we don;t know how they were clooected. So at most 20% of people who how have played some supposed hardcore games have played supposed casual ones. That means 80% of people playing 'hardcore' game have not play these causal games. Not sure you can class that as embracing supposed casual gaming.
There was never going to be a case of supposed hardcore gamers playing never playing casual games. The fact that a lot more core gamers ignore the casual games that play them would have been the actual conclusion of these stats. The only way the case might have been made is if this had some historical context that should that previously cross over was 10% and so the cross-over had doubled in a say a year, that would have been interesting.
As you noticed I put in supposed casual and hardcore gamers as I really don't buy into this demarcation. Gamers will play good games full stop whether casual or not. But I do think there are a lot of gaming snobs about.
But this article is a bit of a waste of space.
Let's look again at the stat's posted. Again, taking the stats at face value as we don;t know how they were clooected. So at most 20% of people who how have played some supposed hardcore games have played supposed casual ones. That means 80% of people playing 'hardcore' game have not play these causal games. Not sure you can class that as embracing supposed casual gaming.
There was never going to be a case of supposed hardcore gamers playing never playing casual games. The fact that a lot more core gamers ignore the casual games that play them would have been the actual conclusion of these stats. The only way the case might have been made is if this had some historical context that should that previously cross over was 10% and so the cross-over had doubled in a say a year, that would have been interesting.
As you noticed I put in supposed casual and hardcore gamers as I really don't buy into this demarcation. Gamers will play good games full stop whether casual or not. But I do think there are a lot of gaming snobs about.
But this article is a bit of a waste of space.
Zynga are a total waste of space in general, IMO. But perhaps a lesson can be learned here, what are Zynga doing right is that they've made a game marketed at folks who are completely different from us - people with virtually no time on their hands.
Their games only takes about five minutes to play and require no skill and reflexes and don't have an infantile multiplayer crowd which screams "******" and "noob" every two seconds. Their games are free to pick up and operate nearly on a pay to play system.
Activision and EA have by far a better budget and imagination than Zynga could ever hope to possess and yet in terms of money - if they applied themselves to making separate games to this "social" crowd, they could make up (at least some of) the money lost to pirates.
By embracing the social crowd - as much as we don't want to - this could very well provide developer and publisher alike with money which can be spent on bigger and better games. With these social games being miniscule in filesize, digital distribution should be a doddle for any publisher. This could also be their ace-in-the-hole against Gamestop and retailers.
Their games only takes about five minutes to play and require no skill and reflexes and don't have an infantile multiplayer crowd which screams "******" and "noob" every two seconds. Their games are free to pick up and operate nearly on a pay to play system.
Activision and EA have by far a better budget and imagination than Zynga could ever hope to possess and yet in terms of money - if they applied themselves to making separate games to this "social" crowd, they could make up (at least some of) the money lost to pirates.
By embracing the social crowd - as much as we don't want to - this could very well provide developer and publisher alike with money which can be spent on bigger and better games. With these social games being miniscule in filesize, digital distribution should be a doddle for any publisher. This could also be their ace-in-the-hole against Gamestop and retailers.
You're not cooler than basic grammar or puntuation.RaikuFA said:
OT: I don't care even slightly. They are literally comparing things because they are on devices not because they have real, substantive qualities in common.
So if you were to play it once just to see how it was, that makes you count? Good call. That's like saying people who drink one sip of wine are regular drinkers/alcoholics.
So a percentage of people who play WoW identify with the core gaming demographic. A percentage of those people also play Zinga games. Therefore the Zynga is now catering to core gamers. QED.
Umm.......no? And who cares? Last I checked, there were, what?, eleven million people playing WoW? There's easily that many (if not way more) playing Zynga games. There are not that many gamers in world, there is bound to some overlap. And the implication that the "hardcore" gamers ONLY play "hardcore" games until Zynga is stupid. Long before Zynga came around, even "core" gamers were playing browser games on their breaks, or shovelware for their portables on the bus. Zynga is not winning over the "hardcore" demographic, they are just using a system that everyone uses (Facebook) that doesn't require you to be sitting in front of your TV. Considering the boom of "casual" games and the fact that many "casual" gamers sink more time into their social games then many "hardcore" gamers put into their "hardcore" games, at what point do you draw the line between core and casual? It can't be the types of games that are played (anyone willing to sink hours every day into Farmville is already pretty hardcore about it in my books), is it the mental effort that goes into it? How do you compare someone who dumps several hours a day into FarmVille with someone who hops into WoW, but only on the weekends because said person has a life/job/kids/whatever?
Is either of them more "hardcore" than the other? Does it even matter? To whom and why? Zynga shouldn't be focused on convincing the "core" demographic to buy it's games (and that is the only reason thee would release "statistics" like this), they should focus on making good games and on making their current games better. As long as they keep putting out quality products, people will play them. Otherwise, I find this information to be just noise.
Umm.......no? And who cares? Last I checked, there were, what?, eleven million people playing WoW? There's easily that many (if not way more) playing Zynga games. There are not that many gamers in world, there is bound to some overlap. And the implication that the "hardcore" gamers ONLY play "hardcore" games until Zynga is stupid. Long before Zynga came around, even "core" gamers were playing browser games on their breaks, or shovelware for their portables on the bus. Zynga is not winning over the "hardcore" demographic, they are just using a system that everyone uses (Facebook) that doesn't require you to be sitting in front of your TV. Considering the boom of "casual" games and the fact that many "casual" gamers sink more time into their social games then many "hardcore" gamers put into their "hardcore" games, at what point do you draw the line between core and casual? It can't be the types of games that are played (anyone willing to sink hours every day into Farmville is already pretty hardcore about it in my books), is it the mental effort that goes into it? How do you compare someone who dumps several hours a day into FarmVille with someone who hops into WoW, but only on the weekends because said person has a life/job/kids/whatever?
Is either of them more "hardcore" than the other? Does it even matter? To whom and why? Zynga shouldn't be focused on convincing the "core" demographic to buy it's games (and that is the only reason thee would release "statistics" like this), they should focus on making good games and on making their current games better. As long as they keep putting out quality products, people will play them. Otherwise, I find this information to be just noise.