Casual Gamers are the Future
Posted on
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
by Gary A. Ballard
The hardcore gamer has driven the market for video games since the beginning. They are the main target for most video games produced in the last generation, they are the ones expected to buy new hardware within the first week of release, they are the ones who preorder anything they want and they generally are the most vocal about the video game industry. And yet, I've said for years that these type of gamers are merely a small, yet vocal minority and that the disproportionate amount of focus they garner from hardware manufacturers and game developers is stunting the growth of the video game industry. I've harangued MMOG developers for putting most of their focus on timesink gameplay and endgame raiding which alienates casual gamers. A recent article on E-Marketer now provides proof that the hardcore gamer really is a small fish in a very large pond.
According to the NPD Survey among gamers aged 6 to 44, heavy gamers account for only 2% of all the game-playing public. Heavy gamers are defined as owning "an average of 2.8 video game consoles, and [playing] an average of 39.3 hours every week." That 2% does buy a metric fuckton of games, mind you, spending more than eight times what the average gamer does. The other 98%? That's the rest of us, the people who buy one console, maybe two if they are really invested but play much less. We are the untapped market, the people who are willing to buy games but aren't willing or able to treat games as a full-time occupation. We are the ones who won't spend 30 hours a week raiding, we are turned right off by the PS3's $600 price tag and we don't care if a game has 100 hours of gameplay because we'll likely never see the end of it.
In short, we are the fickle masses that development companies should at least be considering when they draw up business plans. If a casual gamer spends $60 a month on games, that means the heavy gamer spends up to $480 a month on games. If the number holds true, out of 100 gamers, the two hardcore gamers spend their $960, and the other 98 spend their $60 each, the 98 injected the game industry with $5880. Extrapolating numbers like that out to thousands of games sold, it should be quite clear why the casual gamer should be much desired by the video game industry. The dollars are there for the taking.
Where the real challenge lies, of course, is in the fickle nature of the casual gamer. Whereas the hardcore gamer likes his usual genre of games, such as shooters and action titles, the casual gamer wants variety. The casual gamer doesn't fit into neat genres that the video game industry has been churning out for years. They won't dedicate themselves to learning an obtuse interface, and they won't accept punitive gameplay such as harsh MMOG death penalties. They want to be entertained quickly, in short, fulfilling bites that fit around their time schedule. And chances are, unlike heavy gamers, casual gamers generally will not congregate around one big hit, but will want multiple smaller mini-hit games. Whereas the 2% of hardcore gamers might all buy Gears of War, the 98 casual gamers might split their dollars among 20 different games.
So how does the video game industry target casual gamers? Should it focus its efforts on collections of multiplayer mini-games like many of the Wii's party game titles? Should it turn itself into the Sudoku industry? No. There is only so much market share for a single parlor game, and only so many parlor games that people will pay money for.
Where the game industry needs to focus its efforts is in changing its fundamental assumptions about the development of video games. The most obvious area requiring major rethinking is the interface. While I enjoy games that have used the typical DualShock controller in the past, these things lend themselves to obtuse interfaces and complicated series of button-mashing combos. A typical gamepad controller, with its dual analog sticks, two-to-four triggers, four face buttons and a D-Pad is a hand-mangling torture device, no matter how ergonomic it feels. It is in no way an intuitive device, and the casual gamer doesn't have time to learn how to use one. Like a keyboard and mouse combo, it requires effort to become acclimated to use and game developers have for too long relied on the hardcore gamers' familiarity with such a device. The hardcore gamer really hasn't understood just how powerful the Wiimote's motion-sensitive controls are to the casual gamer. While many developers have failed to utilize the Wiimote's strengths by shoehorning the typical gamepad's controls into predefined waggle motions, one shouldn't underestimate the initial success of the console.
But even more than interfaces, targeting the casual gamer is going to require rethinking the pricing structure for games. While I understand the game development is expensive, $60 for a next-gen hi-definition video game is truly too expensive. $600 or even $400 for a console is also entirely too high a price. $15 per month subscription fees for MMOG's, and XBox Live's monthly fees are also barriers to the casual gamers. It isn't that these prices are too expensive for the casual gamer, it's that his perception of their value is low. He isn't going to compare the MMOG subscription to his cable bill because TV is a ubiquitous technology and the video game is a luxury. While the casual gamer MIGHT get more entertainment out of that video game console than the price of a movie ticket, he will not see it that way. The Wii's sales among non-core gamers is due in part to its price tag being so much cheaper than both the 360 and the PS3. $250 is a decent chunk of change, but $400 is a car note. $600 is almost approaching a mortgage payment for some people. The video game industry has got to find a better pricing scheme, or it will continue to see its profits eroded by the used game market. MMOG's have begun to get the hint, with development on different funding models such as microtransactions and in-game advertising leading the way.
The hardcore gamer is not going away, nor should the game industry forget its roots and ignore this voracious segment. But it must find a way to engage the hardcore gamer without disengaging the other 98% of eager consumers in the process.
According to the NPD Survey among gamers aged 6 to 44, heavy gamers account for only 2% of all the game-playing public. Heavy gamers are defined as owning "an average of 2.8 video game consoles, and [playing] an average of 39.3 hours every week." That 2% does buy a metric fuckton of games, mind you, spending more than eight times what the average gamer does. The other 98%? That's the rest of us, the people who buy one console, maybe two if they are really invested but play much less. We are the untapped market, the people who are willing to buy games but aren't willing or able to treat games as a full-time occupation. We are the ones who won't spend 30 hours a week raiding, we are turned right off by the PS3's $600 price tag and we don't care if a game has 100 hours of gameplay because we'll likely never see the end of it.
In short, we are the fickle masses that development companies should at least be considering when they draw up business plans. If a casual gamer spends $60 a month on games, that means the heavy gamer spends up to $480 a month on games. If the number holds true, out of 100 gamers, the two hardcore gamers spend their $960, and the other 98 spend their $60 each, the 98 injected the game industry with $5880. Extrapolating numbers like that out to thousands of games sold, it should be quite clear why the casual gamer should be much desired by the video game industry. The dollars are there for the taking.
Where the real challenge lies, of course, is in the fickle nature of the casual gamer. Whereas the hardcore gamer likes his usual genre of games, such as shooters and action titles, the casual gamer wants variety. The casual gamer doesn't fit into neat genres that the video game industry has been churning out for years. They won't dedicate themselves to learning an obtuse interface, and they won't accept punitive gameplay such as harsh MMOG death penalties. They want to be entertained quickly, in short, fulfilling bites that fit around their time schedule. And chances are, unlike heavy gamers, casual gamers generally will not congregate around one big hit, but will want multiple smaller mini-hit games. Whereas the 2% of hardcore gamers might all buy Gears of War, the 98 casual gamers might split their dollars among 20 different games.
So how does the video game industry target casual gamers? Should it focus its efforts on collections of multiplayer mini-games like many of the Wii's party game titles? Should it turn itself into the Sudoku industry? No. There is only so much market share for a single parlor game, and only so many parlor games that people will pay money for.
Where the game industry needs to focus its efforts is in changing its fundamental assumptions about the development of video games. The most obvious area requiring major rethinking is the interface. While I enjoy games that have used the typical DualShock controller in the past, these things lend themselves to obtuse interfaces and complicated series of button-mashing combos. A typical gamepad controller, with its dual analog sticks, two-to-four triggers, four face buttons and a D-Pad is a hand-mangling torture device, no matter how ergonomic it feels. It is in no way an intuitive device, and the casual gamer doesn't have time to learn how to use one. Like a keyboard and mouse combo, it requires effort to become acclimated to use and game developers have for too long relied on the hardcore gamers' familiarity with such a device. The hardcore gamer really hasn't understood just how powerful the Wiimote's motion-sensitive controls are to the casual gamer. While many developers have failed to utilize the Wiimote's strengths by shoehorning the typical gamepad's controls into predefined waggle motions, one shouldn't underestimate the initial success of the console.
But even more than interfaces, targeting the casual gamer is going to require rethinking the pricing structure for games. While I understand the game development is expensive, $60 for a next-gen hi-definition video game is truly too expensive. $600 or even $400 for a console is also entirely too high a price. $15 per month subscription fees for MMOG's, and XBox Live's monthly fees are also barriers to the casual gamers. It isn't that these prices are too expensive for the casual gamer, it's that his perception of their value is low. He isn't going to compare the MMOG subscription to his cable bill because TV is a ubiquitous technology and the video game is a luxury. While the casual gamer MIGHT get more entertainment out of that video game console than the price of a movie ticket, he will not see it that way. The Wii's sales among non-core gamers is due in part to its price tag being so much cheaper than both the 360 and the PS3. $250 is a decent chunk of change, but $400 is a car note. $600 is almost approaching a mortgage payment for some people. The video game industry has got to find a better pricing scheme, or it will continue to see its profits eroded by the used game market. MMOG's have begun to get the hint, with development on different funding models such as microtransactions and in-game advertising leading the way.
The hardcore gamer is not going away, nor should the game industry forget its roots and ignore this voracious segment. But it must find a way to engage the hardcore gamer without disengaging the other 98% of eager consumers in the process.
posted by Gary A. Ballard @ 9:56 AM
0 Comments
|
|
Save This Page
| 
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home