Hardcore to Be Pushed Aside This Console Generation? 142
Gamasutra asks questions directly of analysts on a semi-regular basis, in a feature they call 'Analyze This'. This week they quiz analysts about the rising influence of casual players, and what this means for the dedicated hardcore gamer. The ubiquitous Michael Pachter: "I think some portion of family growth will come from aging of original Xbox owners, who will have families of their own and will likely play games with their children. I also think that newer features on the Elite, like the 80GB hard drive, will encourage more family activities, like downloading TV shows and movies. In essence, I don't see [Microsoft] trying to cannibalize the Wii audience, so much as to trying to offer an alternative with the Xbox 360 as the home media center. I don't think that there is any real threat to the long-term survival of the Xbox 360."
What?! (Score:4, Insightful)
Downloading TV shows and movies are family activities? That doesn't sound like a very rich family life to me. Family activities are things like sailing trips, playing scrabble, and laughing at Dad's grilling abilities. Or even waving wands around in front of a TV in a game of Wii boxing...
Re:What?! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:What?! (Score:4, Funny)
ANYTHING you do as a family is a family activity, though you could definitely argue that some are healthier than others. Like, a murder spree in the south is probably not going to go over as a Family Activity with many people. But I challenge those people to hack through a couple of femurs with an ax... you can work up quite a sweat let me tell you.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say that playing Wii (or any console, really, but particularly the Wii) is a "good" family activity because it involves communication, learning how to cope with winning and losing, and learning how to share. Watching a movie, however, is a rather mindless, "selfish" activity.
I'm not saying that you should not watch movies with your kids, and I'm certainly not saying that gaming is better than going out and play
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. My parents read books to me, but we hardly ever watched TV at all. We usually went out and did something outside when we did somthing as a family. Please note that you're kind of making my point: You implicitly admit that the act of watching a movie with your family doesn't really qualify as important. It's discussing the act of watching which is the actual "family activity." Why not start out by doing something
Re: (Score:2)
I get the impression that you're still stuck in the days of "TV is bad for you" which, in an era of media, is simply wrong. Sure you don't want your child sitting in front of the te
Re: (Score:1)
Level 92 Xbox (Score:3, Funny)
This is hardcore. As good as you play your games, eventually the console will be emblazoned with the infamous words "Your deeds will be remembered" and it will stop booting.
You'll be less special, that's all (Score:5, Insightful)
Other than that, things won't change, except you'll have more choices. While the casual gamer market is growing and has the potential to be very large, the hardcore gamer market still has plenty of money to spend, the game industry knows that, and they're already set up for and experienced with serving that market. They're not going to completely abandon it to make minigames, the industry is just going to grow to cover the new types of games.
The only thing that will really change for hardcore gamers is that they'll increase the amount of bitching they do about all those ordinary people trying to pretend that they're real gamers. "They don't know what it's like, they've never played for 14 hours straight, they don't have eight obsolete consoles stacked in their basement, why don't you go play on your cellphone"
The market isn't shifting to casual games, it's growing to include them. Things might look a little strange right now because publishers are testing the waters a bit, but it'll balance out soon enough. Valve isn't going to abandon Half-life to make bejeweled clones, there will be plenty of MMO's and RPG's in the future. There's not much to worry about.
Re: (Score:1)
More annoying than them are the ex-hardcore-gamers, who everytime there's a game console story on slashdot flood it with their smug replies that they only play multiplayer nintendo party games now, and that's all developers should make.
Self-deprecation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know if it is something to worry about, but perhaps Valve would see it logical, business-wise, to abandon Half-life to make bejeweled clones, along wi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I question the whole basis of casual gaming on consol
Re: (Score:2)
Who's hardcore? (Score:5, Interesting)
I could give a shit about another "40-hour" FPS, but surgery or hypnotism would be involved.
The Wii is the best thing to happen to my console gaming experience in years. The PS3 is utterly irrelevant to me as a gamer. Yeah, yeah. Cue the people claiming I just can't afford one; I've had one since last December. I run Linux on it. The games are just more derivative crap. The total interesting play time of every PS3 game I've seen put together can't come within a full working week of what I've gotten out of Wii Sports Tennis alone. Paper Mario is the first platformer since the Genesis Sonic era to do something I haven't already gotten bored with.
You think I should consider kids who can't get off on a game unless it's gory and their parents don't want them playing it to be "hardcore" gamers? I don't. When they're into gaming enough to write games, when they've been playing games more than a few years, then they can talk. Until then, they're just wannabes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No doubt! I might have qualified as a hardcore gamer at one point in my life. I have been playing FPS games since Wolf3D and one of the big things that has driven me away from gaming is that pretty much everything out there is just a derivative of Wolf3D. Sure there has been some good stuff, I loved the story lines in the Marathon series and the AI in Half-life, but I swear, whenever I see quake or even halo there is a part of me that expects a Nazi to come around the corner shouting "Achtung."
Why play t
My Hardcore Video Card... (Score:2)
It still kick major ass... Starcraft looks awesome!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Family?! (Score:1)
Uh-oh, I owned an original xbox! And I've aged since I bought it! Does that mean I'm, supposed to have a family?! I'd better get to work! Who knew being 20 would be so much work?!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I cannot RTFA at work, but I did find that statement odd. I typically label gamer generations as such. Atari (70's), NES (80's), Playstation 1/2 (90's-00's).
Based on that, I would 1) never use Xbox as a generation defining system, not that it wasn't important (like the Genesis and SNES)
Atari say's please use caution... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Atari say's please use caution... (Score:5, Interesting)
While you are correct, I think it's important to understand that the crash of '83 can't happen again. The factors that made it happen simply don't exist anymore. Those factors are:
Re: (Score:2)
1) You're saying that console makers won't impose extreme demands on third parties? No AO-rated games (Manhunt 2) etc? Region-lock? Huge buy-in (devkit) fees? Have you seen how many homebrew games exist now on modded consoles/handhelds?
2) I was just thinking that there were SO many games coming out I couldn't possibly play all the ones I've pre-ordered for any decent length of time, let alone all the ones I want to. I'd say
Re: (Score:2)
Eh? I believe I said the exact opposite. The market crashed because Atari didn't impose licensing restrictions. Today's console makers impose licensing restrictions to prevent that issue.
Have you seen many of them for sale in Walmart? The market crashed because of a glut of titles on the
Re: (Score:2)
Keep in mind that Atari itself released ET for the 2600. We can't blame that on licensing agreements; it was
Re: (Score:2)
Since E.T. was released right around the same time as the crash, its ha
Re: (Score:2)
The console just didn't have the power of an arcade cabinet. Of course, it also didn't cost several grand either.
Want to see a difference between arcade and console that will make you cringe from a gameplay standard, look at Crystal Castles. Great arcade game (which used the trackball controller) turned into a fairly lame joystick controll
Re: (Score:2)
See what I mean? You guys are just so forgiving.
Take a look at these games:
Ms. Pac Man [atariage.com]
Jr. Pac Man [atariage.com]
Stargate [atariage.com] (aka Defender II)
Now tell me, was it really so impossible to make a Pac Man with the right maze and a character that turned his head, or a Defender in which the ship disappeared every time you fired?
I've programmed for the 2600. Its limita
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Atari say's please use caution... (Score:5, Interesting)
The casual gamer, on the other hand, requires new stimulation and new experiences. Casual gamers want to see new gameplay, new ways to interact with the medium; the kind of stuff the Wii offers. These are definetely a form of "expectations" too, an IMHO a lot higher expectations than those of polished recycleables.
Whether the casual market will be a mainstay of the console market is hard to tell. Developers will have to keep coming up with new ideas and will have to be competitive in a far less "measurable" way than how they've been dealing with hardcore gamers.
The past generations of consoles have been largely pushing increasing processor power. The Wii broke this mold by focussing on new ways to interact, and it'll be interresting to see whether they made the right bet. The market Nintendo "created" will be less easy to satisfy than the hardcore market and we'll have to wait and see whether their controller is just a novelty or the first step into the future of consoles.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Casual gamers will just play whatever looks like fun and move on when it stops being fun
On the other hand I think hardcore gamers demand more of a deeper plot and character development... they want to play Halo 3 not just because it's the gamep
Re: (Score:2)
Because, goddammit, I think g0at53xfuck3r would like a word with you.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
I've noticed that this is a very common problem amongst American posters. Aren't they teaching appropriate a
Re: (Score:1)
I've been a gamer ever since I could hold one of those funky rotating things you used to play pong, and find people who consider themselves "hardcore" to always be either
- 13-year-olds who think the best game in the world is GTA.
- Guys who take their videogames way too seriously (kinda like those star wars fans who know the name of obi-wan's first gilf
Re: (Score:2)
The article made the point that game complexity was going away in favor of more Brain Age, Tetris and Nintendogs. The Wii is great example right now, I ha
Re: (Score:2)
Whoa. Someone else who likes that shooter. Didn't expect to see that here. :-)
Have you seen how much the Gamecube version of that game goes for these days? I've seen incredible prices on Amazon, well over $100 a piece. eBay isn't much better with used copies going for about $50. I can't help but think that Atari was a victim of bad timing. If they re-released it now, it would be a much greater success than it was back in 2003.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
A few thoughts (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree that Sony will win the HD format war, but I don't believe that it will convey any real advantage to Sony. The uptake on HD formats has been incredibly slow. Even if Sony were to wipe out HD-DVD tomorrow, they would only inherit a very small piece of market share.
I have to disagree. If the PS2 proved anything, it's that very few gamers will support more than one console in their home. The hardcore types had a Gamecube (only $99!) as well, but that didn't stop the GCN from being the worst performing console that Nintendo ever released. (~22 million units worldwide) Microsoft didn't fare much better, just barely edging out the Wii's sales. (~24 million units worldwide)
All this adds up to a single, inescapable conclusion: The casual market is a zero sum game. There can only be one winner who takes the lion's share of the market pie.
This is what a lot of people keep missing. The PS2 continues to go strong because it appeals to the casual gaming crowd. It may have initially sold well because it was a cheap DVD player, but that offered the market a way to reach the casual gamer. (Whether it was understood at the time or not.) Those customers are extremely happy with their $120 DVD/Tetris/Guitar Hero machines, so why should they spend $600 for a PS3? The answer, of course, is that they're not going to. They may purchase a Wii, but it's only because it provides gaming possibilities that their existing machine doesn't. And they don't need to break the bank to get one.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I don't think we really disagree. My point is that the PS2 got it start from being a cheap DVD player. Which catapulted it into the role of a casual gaming machine. Which has become a self-perpetuating engine of sales thanks to the large library of casual games.
The point in history I'm discussing is specifically the chicken and the egg solution that the PS2 used. You can't sell consoles unless you have a lar
Re: (Score:2)
And I don't know any gamers serious enough to already own a PS3 or Xbox360 who don't also want a Wii.
I don't currently own any of them but once I do decided to purchase one it most likely will not be a Wii. I know a number of people who have a Wii and have played one a number of times. I'm not saying the Wii is a bad console, I'm just not seeing any games announced that appeal to me, outside of a few virtual console releases of old Sega games, which I already purchased once. Graphics aside I just don't see anything that compares to Lair, Heavenly Sword, Eye of Judgment, Folklore, Ratchet and Clank, and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's doubtfull we'll see those kinds of numbers for a VERY LONG TIME, if at all.
Since the PS2 only outsold the PS2 by 20% I don't see that as such a lofty goal. Though I am curious how you come up with the idea that the PS2 ran without competition for 3 years? It either ran without competition for 5 years, which would say nothing else in the last gen was competition, or it ran without competition for a year, meaning the Dreamcast was not competition, or it always had competition since the dreamcast was released before it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the XBox and GCN came in about 3 years later (or was it 2?) So maybe 3 years is an exaduration
As another reply already pointed out, even discounting the Dreamcast it was only 1 year in the US and 1.5 years in Japan/Europe before all three consoles where available.
by the time the XBox and GCN launched, it was so far ahead, that many developers wouldn't dream of switching.
At the time of the GC and XBox release the PS2 had a 10 million unit head start. In this generation the XBox had a 5 million unit head start. In a generation that sold over 200 million units, a 5 million difference is not much. Nintendo has show in this generation that with the right first party support you can make the strides you nee
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I just don't see it. I've never owned a PS2, but I bought a PS3 and I'm now buying all the games I've missed. I bought about two dozen PS2 games - the games that everyone considers the cream of the crop of PS2 gaming - and so far, I'm disappointed. Stuff like Ico, which is supposed to be super awesome, seems borderline unplayable due to the botched control. A lot of games have incredibly bad graphics bec
Re: (Score:2)
the games that everyone considers the cream of the crop of PS2 gaming
You mentioned Ico and SoC, both of which classify as some of the most dramatic cinematic in any video game. Not sure what your issue is with the controls of Ico since I have played it and read many reviews and never heard one complaint about the controls until now. It also seems that you missed many of the truly acclaimed games, by both players and critics such as God of War 1 and 2, or Any of the first 3 Ratchet and Clanks, or the Jak series with the highest polygon counts of any character up till then.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, fighting a Colossus is a dramatic cinematic experience, but the rest of the time, you're basically running around in an empty world doing nothing.
It feels like a first attempt at a 3D game. As if it was meant for the PS1. The control i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have to agree that most gamers will only have one console. The truly hardcore will get everyth
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
But that's the way it's always been! 5 years is the standard video game generation, and Microsoft's and Sony's recent attempts to shorten that should only invite contempt. I'll also throw out there that calling XBox 2 the "360" as a way to try to capture the PS3's name and try to convince gamers that it really is part of the same generation is no
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Usually a consoles' true popularity isn't felt until the next generation. The N64 did pretty well, but it made a lot of enemies. Therefor, Nintendo had to sit in the "time out chair" through the GameCube era. But everyone who had a GameCube loved it, and Nintendo has now been forgiven for their arrogence during the
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that Sony will win the HD format war, but I don't believe that it will convey any real advantage to Sony. The uptake on HD formats has been incredibly slow. Even if Sony were to wipe out HD-DVD tomorrow, they would only inherit a very small piece of market share.
The only thing to consider is that giant TVs are dropping in price. Last december, a top-of-the-line 46" flat LCD cost more then $4000; now it's about $1600. Likewise, a 70" TV that used to cost almost $8000 is now just over $4000.
Regular DVDs just don't look very good on giant TVs.
It's a Myth (Score:2)
Re:It's a Myth (Score:5, Interesting)
The sad thing is, as a 28 year old life long gamer, starting with a Commodore 24 and currently owning practically every home game console to be mass produced since (save the PS3 and the Xbox 360), I wouldn't even consider myself a gamer at this point. While I play games and own over a thousand, it seems that these days it's not about playing the games themselves so much as it is having the best gear, best graphics, most violence, cinematic sequences, etc. I used to smile when playing games, now it's all too serious and realistic. I've actually gotten anxiety from playing some of the newer games, and that's not really cool.
In that sense, maybe I AM a casual gamer. So, in this day and age, can a veteran gamer who's been gaming nearly 25 years be considered a casual gamer? I suppose so, by definition.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is that necessarly bad? Shouldn't you feel some anxiety playing Resident Evil? That seems to be the point of the horror genre, whether it be game, movie or book.
Re: (Score:2)
Some snippets from TFA (Score:5, Insightful)
What Pachter is forgetting is that the casual market very rarely buys more than one console, which completely screws up the whole "hardcore first, casual second" strategy he's suggesting for the 360 and PS3. That simply won't "work" in the way he thinks it will, because by the time the 360 and PS3 are ready for casuals the vast majority of them will already be playing the Wii. That the Wii has also attracted some number of hardcore players is the icing on the cake.
It will "work" in the sense that Sony and Microsoft might turn a profit, but not in any sense they'd like. It's a strategic failure to let a competitor horn in on your turf while simultaneously leaving them to frollic freely on theirs. The "tried and true" strategy worked previous because everyone was doing it. You don't have to delve far into history to see how often the "tried and true" got usurped as humanity moved forward.
By the time the 360 and PS3 hit the "magic number", it will already be too late. Assuming the PS3 drops at the current rate, that's a $100 drop every 8-9 months, putting the now $499 PS3 at $199 in August 2009. That's 2 full freaking years of letting Nintendo run amok with the casuals. Sony is going to need exclusive rights to Spore in order to rip casuals off of the Wii by then. Nothing short of that kind of casual star power is going to cut it.
Barton:
An 8 to 10 year lifetime might work, if the PS3 attracted the casual crowd. The casual crowd isn't quite as obsessed with aging graphics as the hardcore, and so will keep an older system long after hardcore players have shelved or sold it. The inherent problem here is that the Wii and DS are picking up all the casual players. Unless Sony can find a way to break them away from Nintendo's offerings, the 10 year lifetime won't happen. 4 years from now the hardcore will move onto the next big thing. The Cell is a neat processor, but it is not enough to keep up with the advances that will be made as time passes.
Re: (Score:2)
Yum Yum (Score:2, Funny)
I hear Steve Balmer eats three Wii users for breakfast, a Sony executive for lunch and banquets on 8 Google workers for dinner. For dessert he he eats puppies and ice cream.
The Wii is Hardcore - I have proof.... (Score:1)
Grown more casual (Score:2)
The epitaph of the hard core gamer (Score:1)
As a casual gamer I don't play many games. I don't have level 70 wizard
Only "hardcore" gamers (Score:1)
Sigh.
WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
What will make me buy a Wii (Score:2)
I certainly hope so... (Score:3, Interesting)
Is this bad? (Score:3, Insightful)
Were arcade games hardcore? (Score:2)
Nintendo has the solution for me: the Wii. Casual gaming is the most entertaining form of gaming: no stress, just having fun with your mates in the livin
Stop whining and be happy! (Score:2)
It's funny how the commenters can't even make up their minds what exactly this mythical "hardcore gamer" is. GTA is a hardcore game! But no, a lot of girls play it, and it sold a quantillion copies, so it must be a casual game. Bejeweled is hardcore, because people are obsessed with it and play it for days at a time! But it's an online flash game! It can't be hardcore!
People think FPS are hardcore, but FPS are one of the most common genres. How can FPS be hardcore if everyone plays them?
I consider myself
Casual vs Hardcore: the war that isn't (Score:2)
My first video game was Dark Castle on my Dad's Mac SE in 1987. I was three at the time, and I've played video games ever since. My first games console was a Sega Master System II (I lived in New Zealand, where Sega was generally bigger than Nintendo). Since then I've owned a lot of systems. I generally play FPS and RPGs, though I'll happily play other genres provided the game is good. While I haven't upgraded to a PS3 or Wii yet (lack of software I want) I currently have a 360, G
Re:*sigh* (Score:5, Funny)
The kid or the parent? I sure wish I could've fornicated with the neighbor (down the street, not next door mind you) while playing my video game system when I was a kid. That would be sweet!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Heh (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean like The Sims outsold any FPS ever, even without counting the expansion packs? Don't mistake your own preferences for the One True Blockbuster. There were a _lot_ of games that sold very well in spite (or maybe because) of having little or no violence.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against violence as such. But if you're going to make claims about what sells, it would be, you know, nice, to actually look at some sales numbers and not just extrapolate based on what _you_ have bought. Not everyone is a clone of yourself.
A mistake many people make is assuming, basically, "there are so many violent FPSs, because everyone wants to play a violent FPS." Actually, wrong. The rise of the FPS was based on the fact that what counts isn't the raw sales, but sales minus expenses, a.k.a. profit. At the time when FPS was rising and, say, Adventure games skirted with extinction, actually adventures were a growing market and routinely outsold FPS. But the costs of making a modern adventure were rising faster, whereas an FPS was damn cheap to make. A FPS could make a bigger profit even if it sold half the number of copies. _That's_ why everyone rushed to make an FPS.
Violent games as a more global category, are a vaguely similar case.
Coming up with an idea like Sim City or The Sims or Civilization or Tetris, is something that requires someone to come up with a brand new idea. And it turns out that there's a severe shortage of people with ideas that are (A) genuinely new, and (B) not crap. And there's a lot of risk involved, since basically you're not sure of point B until you actually launch the game. You're betting a huge bunch of money on something that you don't know how many people will like. Being a new idea, the marketting department can at best take a guess.
By comparison, it's a no-brainer to make a violent game. Wop-de-freakin'-do, so this time it's with more damage textures and more death animations. That's sooo creative. Not. And you already have a good idea of the market too. You just need to look at how many people bought last year's game, and you can have a pretty informed guess as to how many will buy the remake in higher (and gorrier) res.
So the fact that everyone and their grandma does a violent game, isn't because it's the only thing that sells. Quite on the contrary, the other category outsells it quite often. They do violent games, because it's the simple, cheap, no-risks way out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think so. Back then the market and the development studios where much smaller. You had EA back then, but they where nothing like the big ugly beast they have become today. You simply didn't have those huge all-dominating companies, instead a whole bunch of smaller ones. Thanks to the smaller budget experimentation was much more doable then today. That of cour