Make up your mind. If core gamers continually ask for something new while casual gamers can ask for the same game over and over again, how can you say core gamers are the ones stifling creativity?
I hate to be this guy, actually no I don't, but is there anymore context to these quotes?
I honestly think there has to be, because I don't think anyone could possibly say that without more context around it. There are dozens of ways this could actually be worked into a logical point and no one with half a brain would give someone such a brutal set of quotes without at least something else to say.
If there is more context to this can we please get the whole story and not just the few bits to make a random developer seem like he is an ass. If there isn't more context then please proceed insulting an ridiculing him, because he earned it.
So a mobile game developer does not care about gamers of the stationary platforms... call me surprised.
Kind of funny considering that a lot of those F2P games live off whales. Those whales are anything but casual...
I think their point is this:
These days, you don't make the real money by selling games.
You make it by selling DLC, season passes and microtransactions.
The people who switch from one game to another often will less likely spend extra money on 1 game so, in the eyes of these publishers/developers, they're not important.
This is especially true for F2P games, where the people who switch games often won't spend anything on them.
The people who stick to a selected few games and who spend extra money on the extra useless stuff are the ones that these companies are after.
Call me stupid if you want, but doesn't this logic scream that indeed piracy isn't a issue for the Videogame industry?
If their target is the casuals, who I guess they don't know the concept of piracy, I think this make sense in reality.
I think this is a classic "Quantity Versus Quality" dilemma.
That why the most well-known videogame series, which have lot of fans as well, doesn't matter if they are good for their standards: They know they will get their game no matter what.
So in other words, yes, I can see clearly why they think like that.....I think...
Just checked and apparently his studio mainly developed freemium games.
Ah I see, you don't like players that own ten or more games because they've got better things to do that helps them avoiding falling into the trap your microtransactions laid.
I think their point is this:
These days, you don't make the real money by selling games.
You make it by selling DLC, season passes and microtransactions.
The people who switch from one game to another often will less likely spend extra money on 1 game so, in the eyes of these publishers/developers, they're not important.
This is especially true for F2P games, where the people who switch games often won't spend anything on them.
The people who stick to a selected few games and who spend extra money on the extra useless stuff are the ones that these companies are after.
Also this is a very good point as well.
Casual gamers will just stick with one game which in their eyes is "good" to have fun.
Also I know that many people can throw easily few euros to get some game items/powers/etc for putting many hours in the game.
A friend of mine play daily an MMO [I don't remember its name], said openly he don't care. He just want his daily fix and throw some money to make his life easier.
Very simple cause he have also a job like me and some euros are NOTHING in comparison what we pay in our daily lifes.
Uh-oh! I think Cook is going to get some hate from the Internet. Recent history shows that lots of gamers really hate when they are told that they don't matter in the gaming industry.
I hate that the Escapist makes a click bait article to give this asshole credence.
I would like it better if the article was written from the perspective of the core audience. He is a lottery winner laughing at people doing hard work for not playing the lottery, laugh back at him for being a moron, don't entertain his idiocy.
So they keep telling us and a large number of people keep telling them, screw you and sell me a complete game. Which a lot of developers keep doing, cause in the end we have money and they want it.
The people who switch from one game to another often will less likely spend extra money on 1 game so, in the eyes of these publishers/developers, they're not important.
When they say we're not important and we should stop talking about core games what they are really saying is that we should stop spending money on core games ... they can not abide a separate market existing, they want to drag it all down into their abyss.
So someone I don't know who develops games I don't play told me my choices as a consumer and hobbyist aren't important to the medium as a whole.
In other news, folks, water's wet and the sky is blue.
Anything else you'd like to contribute, mister Cook? Any other awe-inspiring chunks you'd like to lob in my general direction? Because I'll probably disregard them and keep playing whatever the Hell it is I like.
Someone tell this guy that acting as of core gamers don't matter is what put Nintendo's Wii U in the situation its in right now. It shows in the sales in a hell of a lot of 3rd party games on the Wii U that couldn't sell for the life of them on a console that has over 100 million units sold. Games that would have been sleeper hits on the PS3 or 360. Imagine if Dark Souls came out on the Wii.
This guy just told the majority of his audience that they don't matter. I mean...I don't mean to bring up THAT controversy, but is that not how that led to a bunch of people losing their jobs.
Uh-oh! I think Cook is going to get some hate from the Internet. Recent history shows that lots of gamers really hate when they are told that they don't matter in the gaming industry.
That's just capitalism isn't it?
Whoever was imagining that they mattered to the videogame developers would be coming home dissapointed anyway.
Even developers that do develop for a certain hardcore crowd don't develop for their playerbase anymore these days just look at what's happened to the Total War games.
Despite the fact that Warhammer as a setting is immensely refreshing for a Total War game, Tech Tree and interface are basically a carbon copy with different paint taken from Atilla and Rome2.
I think their point is this:
These days, you don't make the real money by selling games.
You make it by selling DLC, season passes and microtransactions.
The people who switch from one game to another often will less likely spend extra money on 1 game so, in the eyes of these publishers/developers, they're not important.
This is especially true for F2P games, where the people who switch games often won't spend anything on them.
The people who stick to a selected few games and who spend extra money on the extra useless stuff are the ones that these companies are after.
Also this is a very good point as well.
Casual gamers will just stick with one game which in their eyes is "good" to have fun.
Also I know that many people can throw easily few euros to get some game items/powers/etc for putting many hours in the game.
A friend of mine play daily an MMO [I don't remember its name], said openly he don't care. He just want his daily fix and throw some money to make his life easier.
Very simple cause he have also a job like me and some euros are NOTHING in comparison what we pay in our daily lifes.
Here's the thing though, he specifically called out (or rather, attacked) people who own games on "Steam," and by extension, any "main stream" form of gaming, whether you're a child who owns his first system - a 3DS - and a dozen Pokemon, Mario, and more games to go with it, a hardcore PS4/XBone gamer dude, or a PC person with a steam library of 20 million.
If he was referring to his mobile market and their playerbase, or such similar freemium games, he would have a sound argument. People who flit from one freemium mobile game to another (hence, owning "10 or more" mobile freemium games) really ARE irrelevant to their profits. They really ARE the people who are seeking "novelty" as he put it. Get a free experience from Dungeon Keeper Mobile, then go to Candy Crush Saga, then go to FF All the Bravest, then go to...whatever (I don't know fremium games, cut me a break). The real money in the freemium industry doesn't even come from the people who go from game to game and do spend $5, or $10, or even $50. Their money comes from a small, dedicated whale community who plays one game to the detriment of their life, spending thousands and thousands and thousands.
But you guys already know this. And that's the point. His argument only makes sense if he was talking about mobile games and freemium games that live and die on the backs of their whales. Instead he attacked us and our games, neither of which are really that drenched in freemium bullshit. I mean, yeah, we've got a couple choice developers who have some issues with DLC, but they still make their money, with or without the DLC, and so does the rest of the industry.
i sort of get the novelty seeking side.. how many of us for example own so many games on steam we have never played half of them and probably never will? it comes across as we constantly jump games rather than spending huge amount of times with a couple of purchases so why would developers put time and effort catering to that group if you are only going to spend an hour or so at most.
that said its very badly worded and insulting to say the least and has probably burned alot of bridges with gamers.
sure personally ive got 700+ games on steam but equally ive got hundreds of hours in some games that catch my attention like fallout 4.
I don't get it. Most of the games that developers define as targeted for "core audience" are the opposite of novelty. They are usually AAA titles that play it safe and take little risks.
He's right.
The issue isn't games on Steam, it's the fact that those people are statistically more ingrained in the PC market.
From a steam spy analysis:
In fact, 1% of Steam gamers own 33% of all copies of games on Steam. 20% of Steam gamers own 88% of games. That?s even more than Pareto principle suggests.
So, to be a member of the ?1% group? of Steam gamers you have to own 107 games or more. That?s not much considering how Steam is selling games at discount prices and how easy it is to obtain games in bundles.
We?re talking about 1.3M PC gamers that could fall into definition of ?core gamer that buys several games per year?. And that?s including discounted games as well.
Of course we could extend it to, I don?t know, ?softcore gamers? ? the 20% that own 88% games. To be included you?d have to own 4 (FOUR) games or more on Steam ? not exactly a huge number, right?
taken from https://medium.com/steam-spy/your-target-audience-doesn-t-exist-999b78aa77ae#.y6sd60aj7
TLR - to be included in the top 20% of steam users, you need 4+ games. Top 1% (~1.3million) own 107.
Another quote, same article: "Because if you?re developing a downloadable game for Steam you?re not even fighting for 135M of its active users, you're fighting for the attention of 1.3 million games that are actually buying lots of games. The 1% group"
The AAA industry got its ass handed to it in recent fiscal years by the mobile market. Big mobile companies make massive amounts of profit on very quick turnarounds. Personally, I'd argue that philosophy has lead to stagnation in innovation, and despite rapid prototyping we have a "chase the leader" mentality. It's the same attitude that lead to Medal of Honor chasing Call of Duty - just on a three month turnaround.
But that's not important - developers on tight budgets look for ways to make money. And targeting the steam user that impulse buys isn't valid anymore. There's too much there for the time. However, mobile audience may be flooded, but is a much less scary money dump. Hell, Workinman is an example of this, as they make money from mobile games. Their recent steam game, Deathstate, almost definitely didn't recoup costs.
More money is moving faster in mobile, in a way that's just as large a gamble as steam but with less cost to sit at the table. They don't care about someone with 10+ steam games. Statistically, it's a narrow audience highly devoted to one platform. The part of games bring in the most money cares about how many apps you download, how often microtransactions interest you, and how to keep you away from other devs.
This isn't a PC is dying post/talk, or anything like that. Instead, it's a perspective issue that many new and growing devs are having to address.
F2P is winner take all, PC gaming not so much. The risk factor of mobile gaming will shoot up, lots of low cost games failing can be as large a loss as 1 AAA game failing. It will be, efficient markets and all.
PS. I think they should just split up the F2P developers to a separate conference, they are not like normal people.
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.
R - to be included in the top 20% of steam users, you need 4+ games. Top 1% (~1.3million) own 107.