Couch potatoes and casual gamers
Aug. 4th, 2011 11:58 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
indigozealConsidering all the recent analysis of the gaming market in the wake of the 3DS price drop, it's interesting to note how the three main classes of modern gamers correspond to consumers of more traditional screen-entertainment.
- Casual gamers, iPhone gamers, are like channel surfers: they'll browse indiscriminately and stop at whatever looks interesting. As noted here, they'll try near-anything - just as long as they don't have to put too much of an investment in it. This is key: yes, they're more open to new things, but those new things can't be too challenging or costly. They're looking for a diversion rather than an experience.
- Second group is the frathouse gamers, who are the equivalent of the audiences that drive summer blockbusters. They go for what Yahtzee calls the "insipid Halo boomfests," the flashy console-taxing showpieces that headline the more dexterity-heavy genres. Frathouse gamers are a bit more discriminating than casual gamers - they demand high production values and want to watch only "good stuff," but what deem "good" consists mostly of explosions.
- Third are the hardcore gamers, those heavily invested in gaming as a hobby, interested in dissecting the mechanics of the games, advancing the medium as art, following its auteurs, etc. Hardcore gamers are most akin to arthouse cinemaphiles - they want originality and quality and will support concepts that might be too outré for the other two groups.
Both groups 1 and 3, in their own ways, encourage novelty in gaming, but group 1 has the advantage in both numbers and the fact that they're far more likely to pay for their games; the eyes and yen for experimentation of group 3 are bigger than their wallets, and they have the tech know-how to engage in piracy effectively. This is a problem for quality art games, which are harder-hit by their smaller audience base than are cheeky indie films; indie directors don't have their entire platform endangered for lack of support.
- Casual gamers, iPhone gamers, are like channel surfers: they'll browse indiscriminately and stop at whatever looks interesting. As noted here, they'll try near-anything - just as long as they don't have to put too much of an investment in it. This is key: yes, they're more open to new things, but those new things can't be too challenging or costly. They're looking for a diversion rather than an experience.
- Second group is the frathouse gamers, who are the equivalent of the audiences that drive summer blockbusters. They go for what Yahtzee calls the "insipid Halo boomfests," the flashy console-taxing showpieces that headline the more dexterity-heavy genres. Frathouse gamers are a bit more discriminating than casual gamers - they demand high production values and want to watch only "good stuff," but what deem "good" consists mostly of explosions.
- Third are the hardcore gamers, those heavily invested in gaming as a hobby, interested in dissecting the mechanics of the games, advancing the medium as art, following its auteurs, etc. Hardcore gamers are most akin to arthouse cinemaphiles - they want originality and quality and will support concepts that might be too outré for the other two groups.
Both groups 1 and 3, in their own ways, encourage novelty in gaming, but group 1 has the advantage in both numbers and the fact that they're far more likely to pay for their games; the eyes and yen for experimentation of group 3 are bigger than their wallets, and they have the tech know-how to engage in piracy effectively. This is a problem for quality art games, which are harder-hit by their smaller audience base than are cheeky indie films; indie directors don't have their entire platform endangered for lack of support.
