Gaming Industry: We need more MORONS!

According to this <a href=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3620518.stm>article</a> at <a href=http://news.bbc.co.uk>BBC</a>, the gaming industry realized that there are millions of people who aren't <s>paying the industry</s>...err, playing games as much as the industry wants them to.

<blockquote>Mr Dromgoole told delegates at the EGN conference that it was important to look at ways of enticing these people to buy and play more games.

"There are loads and loads of casuals," said Mr Dromgoole. "It is worth chasing them. They are our new frontier."

Currently these players account for 11% of the $30bn spent annually worldwide on games, adding up to a sizeable potential source of revenue.
The games industry needed to learn how to tap into this lucrative market, Mr Dromgoole told delegates.
"We are in competition with all the other forms of entertainment. We need to make it easy for them to come to us."</blockquote>
Now, before I get my ass flamed, I'd like to clarify something. I do NOT think that casual gamers are morons. However, it's clear that the "ways of enticing" would be dumbing the games down and THAT would attract only the morons who are easily confused by rules, choices, and any elements of gameplay that require thinking.



Spotted at: <A HREF="http://www.rpgdot.com">RPG Dot</A>

I don't think it automatically leads into dumbing down games. Enticing can mean anything, from piss poor, juvenile marketing "Better than sex!" to product placement in games; although I agree it can go that way as well.

Interestingly, wasn't Dromgoole the name of the character played by Donald Sutherland in the movie Lock Up with Sly Stallone?

Role-Player said:

I don't think it automatically leads into dumbing down games. Enticing can mean anything, from piss poor, juvenile marketing "Better than sex!" to product placement in games; although I agree it can go that way as well.

Click to expand...

Usually ChessMaster 1,000,000 doesn't have advertisements like that, though. It's games like Fallout Enforcer that do.

Role-Player said:

I don't think it automatically leads into dumbing down games. Enticing can mean anything...

Click to expand...

I don't think it's a question of possibilities. Simplification is one of the canons of the industry, together with "TB doesn't sell", "MMORPGs are teh w1n", and "people can't get enough of RT fantasy games"

Also, check out this discussion at RPG Dot forums.

Well, I think we have all seen and understood this trend for a while now. Frankly, I am just waiting for the console market to "kill" the PC market. MMOs will slowly morph into small party Phantasy Star Online clones. CRPGs will showcase angsty teens with swordguns and incomprehensible stories with cliched themes. Action titles will increasingly turn into platformers with power ups, unlockable content and furry characters. Strategy gaming will get increasingly simple until it eats itself or becomes little more than a graphical upgrade to Herzog Zwei, etc etc. There will be no difference in the two markets. Publishers will then quickly move to consoles (who will then share the exact same audience) to make games that are harder to pirate for hardware that is more uniform and less expensive. That way those who wish to appeal to the mass market will make Nintendo games. Those that cant compete with those large console companies will go to the pc market and make more cerebral titles to appeal to assorted niches - just like how it used to be. By then, I probably wont care too much about gaming though. My interest is already waning (in large part due to this long run of lackluster releases).

Vault Dweller said:

Also, check out this discussion at RPG Dot forums.

Click to expand...

The only amusing part of that discussion is where the guy brings up Baldur's Gate as an example of how not dumbing down games to make them more accessable is a good thing. Anyone care to guess why Baldur's Gate had REAL TIME WITH PAUSE instead of turn based? To make it more accessable, that's why.

I take that back, there's also an idiot who claims game mechanics are secondary to the objective of making a good game. Umm, mechanics MAKE the design work. That's like saying pipes are secondary when designing plumbing.

Saint_Proverbius said:

I take that back, there's also an idiot who claims game mechanics are secondary to the objective of making a good game. Umm, mechanics MAKE the design work. That's like saying pipes are secondary when designing plumbing.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I like that guy too. "I play MW for its great qualities and I'm a hardcore gamer. I designed games and programmed RPGs!" These statements usually work much better when accompanied by links or references to such games.

Vault Dweller said:

Yeah, I like that guy too. "I play MW for its great qualities and I'm a hardcore gamer. I designed games and programmed RPGs!" These statements usually work much better when accompanied by links or references to such games.

Click to expand...

Probably one of the Final Fantasy clone generators that frequents rpg-dev.net.

Well, this stinks.

Role-Player said:

I don't think it automatically leads into dumbing down games. Enticing can mean anything, from piss poor, juvenile marketing "Better than sex!" to product placement in games; although I agree it can go that way as well.

Click to expand...

Dromgoole's own words :

"We need to make them comfortable," Mr Dromgoole told the EGN conference.

"We need to find a way of telling them that this is going to be fun."

Click to expand...

Better than getting casual gamers to part with more of their casual dollars would be to convert casual gamers with a quality, well supported product, to being regular gamers. You then assure yourself of a market instead of being constantly in competition. That's not going to happen with simplified games, or games that can be completed in a three night rental.

Look how well a unified, homogenous, mass market product has worked for the music industry. Shit, their sales are going through the roof!

I don't think the article made clear what they meant with casual gamer.
At first look you'd thought common Playstation gamer sitting on his cozy sofa is a casual, but I doubt that. They buy Halo, Final Fantasy and Splinter Cell like hell and give tons of buck to game companies.

But if you think of average people who aren't into gaming that much, don't know the trend games and just plays on the net Cards, Solitaire, Crossword puzzles...etc we have something of new stereotype which could be called a casual. And there's loads of them. Microsoft, Yahoo and other companies notice this group and make Tetris like games and put them on the net to get more audience. I don't think this makes a lot of money but I read somewhere that this audience group includes many adults, women and/or old people.

So they're going to ignore 89% of the gaming market to focus on a small section that likely, only have enough time to play 4 hours a week, no matter how much you try to sell them? What are they trying to do, make casual gamers buy more games and then expect them not to play them?

"We need to find a way of telling them that this is going to be fun."

Click to expand...

So make the game fun then, you arseholes.

The problem with trying to squash hardcore game types into casual games is that you end up with a something that neither camp likes. 'Fallout Tetris' is not exactly a sure-fire hit. You can however simplify most games considerably without losing any depth

by placing close attention to the user interface. This is something that people often overlook when trying to make a game more accessible. Instead they drop the things that give the game flavour while the UI remains a complex and confusing mess.

I think that 'morons' (actually people who are not skilled with computers) get way more confused by bizarre layered menus and obscure icons than complex plots, strategic combat and character development. But it is easier and cheaper to drop game complexity than add interface usability.

VD, you should be a game company executive!

The logical response from anybody trained in business or marketing to the dilemma of expanding into a new market is to introduce new products geared for and attractive to the new market demographic. Unfortunately, time and again game company executives have proven that they're neither trained in business or marketing nor capable of making rational decisions. The end result is that games targetted for and attractive to the hardcore demographic are "dumbed down" in the hopes of scraping more sales from the "casual" gamer. Unfortunately, game company executives seem to think that the majority of the "casual" gamer demographic is as stupid as them. The end result is a compromise that almost all of the time puts off more of the hardcore demographic than it does increase the sales with the "casual" demographic. Believe it or not, neither casual nor hardcore games like to be condescended to! Ah, the deep mysteries of the human psyche!

The point is that this new market needs new products, with their own unique features. Take the save system for example (I've been thinking about this a lot lately). There is no excuse that today's games do not let you save at any point in the game that you want to (the console sucks isn't an excuse - it's a reason not to buy the console!). This behavior should be restricted to the "hardcore" games (let's face it, the save system in Hitman: Codename 47 made it a totally different (and much more satisfying) game than either of it's sequels). Another save system that will make story-driven, progression-based (ie - not Tetris or Bejeweled) games easier to play on a time budget is what I like to call "save streams." It's basically object prevalence implemented so that any change to the game world you make is immediately saved in your current "save stream." When you come to a point where maybe you want to play again in the future, you just start a new save stream. Since everything here is done atomically, there's no possibility for a game crashing in the middle of a save and corrupting your save file. There's also no waiting for save screens anymore (well, unless you're starting a new save stream) - just waiting for loads. You can leave the game at any time, for any reason (game crash or not) and be sure the next time you can pick up regardless of where you left off. This system will also very likely clean up the current mess of save games that most gamers leave behind. Currently, only Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time does something like this with it's "rewind" feature (the reason they didn't do this for the save system is doubtless because they had to support PS2 and the GameCube). Like most things having to do with computer programming, this idea is about 30 years old (the Interlisp system had an "undo" history for any programming side-effects, complete with protocols for hooking in your own functions and modifying the save behavior).

Anyway, back on topic. The casual audience needs new games with new features and mechanics, not lobotomized versions of "hardcore" games. And if you see a save streams system in future games, you heard it here first! :D

Plenty of game studios should take time to consider hiring someone with a degree in ergonomics instead of removing pivotal features that actually make the game enjoyable. Deus Ex Invisible War for example was horrible by any standard of interface.

You know, that's the first time I've seen a percentage slapped on the casual gaming market, and it really lends some perspective.

Games Industry: "You 89%, fuck off. We don't like you. It's these 11% that pay our bills, and so were going to pitch our games to them exclusively."

Gamer: "I'd say 89% is a fairly clear majority though, wouldn't you say? Not to mention that we're a proven market, and many of us are more than willing to offer our own criticisms and praise of the previous games we've loved and hated. In fact, we make it our business to form communities of like minded gamers and fans to not only buy your games, but support the wider community, share your views with the masses and offer our own in return."

Games Industry: "Shut up! The grass is greener on the other side, even if the yard is a mere eighth of the size."

I think one of the prereqs to be a games industry exec is the ability and desire to inject heroin directly into your brain each hour on the hour.

That damned article said:

But a third of these are considered to be casual gamers, who play for less than 11 hours a week, according to GameVision research.

And a large number of them actually play for less than four hours a week

Click to expand...

Curious. By that assessment, I am a casual gamer, since I can barely find 6 hours a week in which to play games. I disagree with that assessment. And I wonder, who the hell can play games for more than 12 hours a week, aside from children, Arts students and unemployed losers (the last two are the same), do those groups really make up 89% of the market. The fact that the last two groups are generally dirt poor, makes me question the validity of these statistics. I'd like to know what kind of market research actually went into these statistics, because, in my experience, "casual" gamers are actually more likely to purchase games than the majority of "hardcore" gamers.

I ask again, who the hell can play games for more than 12 hours a week? Can you still have any sort of a life? Can you hold a job? Do you sleep? Who pays for your living expenses?

Deathy said:

I ask again, who the hell can play games for more than 12 hours a week? Can you still have any sort of a life? Can you hold a job? Do you sleep? Who pays for your living expenses?

Click to expand...

I've got a full time managerial role, and would play more than 12 hours a week easy. I figure for me probably 2 hours each week night, plus maybe 3 hours each weekend day. So call it 16 hours or so. That will increase markedly if I buy a new game I'm really into. IM sure if I had kids or something, it would decrease. I still cook dinner, walk the dog, spend most of the weekend out of the house, hang out with my fiancee, do the gardening etc.

But the thing is - I rarely watch television. I could go a whole week, and maybe watch an hour or two of a specific show. I had a crappy 15 year old 30cm TV (without a remote) for ages. I only got a nicer one because my Girlfriend moved in.

According to the US census, its projected that on average each US adult will watch in the order of 32 hours of TV each week.

(Im in Australia, but I am sure the stats are pretty much the same, and I cant be bothered finding them)

So if these "casual" players (however you define them) can be convinced via marketing efforts to watch less TV and play more games you have a huge potential market.

One of the reasons that game companies like to chase casual gamers is that they are often people with jobs and disposable income as opposed to kids and students.

Kids and students are more likely to spend time and effort cracking games, downloading them, and swapping them about between their friends. Gamers with jobs and family are more likely to actually buy the game, as much for conveniece as from principles. 30 quid is nothing to someone with a decent job, but time spent fiddling with downloads and CD burners is time and effort which could be spent on something more fun.

Also, the more casual gamers you get, the bigger the market grows. Just because it is a small market now does not mean that it could not be bigger with investment of effort and marketing.

JanC said:

One of the reasons that game companies like to chase casual gamers is that they are often people with jobs and disposable income as opposed to kids and students.

Click to expand...

Which is also why they go for a teen rating?

A teen who is incapable of getting his hands on a rated M game, watch a rated R movie, or sneak onto a porn site while parents aren't looking doesn't deserve to play ANYTHING other than maybe Barbie's Tea House.

There's a whole lot of aspects of marketing that just don't make sense. The unfaltering belief that 90% of any market is teenagers (evident in games, music, movies and even mass market literature) seems a little strange to me. Sure they have nothing but disposable income if they're not paying rent or food costs, but how far does a few bucks an hour for < 20 hours a week really go? Couple this with a youthful familiarity for all things tech, a poorly developed moral code/sense of maturity, and in the case of most student communities, effective networking and abuse of educational connections, and I think you've pinned down your most likely piracy group.

From my own personal experiences, the prime market is these kids once they grow up and hit the "real world" of careerism but haven't quite graduated to parenthood yet. Well, provided they haven't already decided that the games/music/film industry has turned to shit and lose interest in the latest batch of imitative pop culture shit aimed at the 11%.

I wonder if the whole bird in the hand proverb has any meaning to those who believe the casual market is worth chasing. I know for certain it's lost on inertplay.

Damned glad to see you back, Section8. Don't stay away so damned long this time.