Are casual gamers smarter than core gamers?

[Fonejackerjon]

Right before I get accused of flaming please here me out. Jim Sterling did something on this a while back. Core gamers seem to happily play $60 for a game, $15-25 for DLC then pay the same next year for the latest update.

Casual gamers get all there games for free, the dreaded free to play model is common with casual gamers, but they get enjoyment and pay nothing, Yes they have to grind or wait a set number of hours or pay up but the bottom line is if your patient and not too bothered about grinding you still get an enjoyable experience and you pay nothing.

ASk yourelf this honestly what upcoming AAA games are you looking forward too? Destiny the generic FPS MMO that will charge you constantly for DLC and updates remake after remake of the same game how is it that Core gamers are so blind to this?.

This may sound like a rant but I'm sick to death of core gamers getting on their high horse criticising mobile and tablet gamers as a 'cancer' to the industry, when in fact, AAA core games are becoming that generic, overpriced. rip off cancer that, in my mind, is far worse than a game that lets you play for free and continue to do so unless your inpatient and not very good at the game in which case you can 'pay to win' but lets face it AAA games are going this way, so what do you prefer? a game that charges $60, DLC and pay to win or a free to play that's pay to win as well.

I know what I'd prefer.

 

[senordesol]

It's not an either/or deal.

I'm a core gamer, and I almost never pay full price. For me, $60 is too steep and I won't pay it. I don't think that makes me stupid, even if casual games are (often) free

That said, I get far MORE enjoyment out of core titles than casual titles. Angry Birds, Asphalt 8, and Boom Beach are fine when I'm waiting to be seated, or am stuck on a train; but when I need to get my *game* on, I reach for the controller or the keyboard.

Remember, this isn't a zero-sum scenario. Both approaches have their vices. The core experience bilks you with pre-orders and DLC, but the casual experience constantly hassles you for money with no upper limit to how much one can pay to achieve the 'full' experience.

So, no, it's not a matter of who's 'smarter', it's more 'what type of corporate shenanigans do you prefer?'

 

[AmberSword]

I'd say the informed gamer is smarter than both, no matter which side they're on, no matter where they lean more towards.

senordesol already pointed out what I wanted to say, so this is all I can offer. I do admit though, the people on the extreme far side of the casual gaming scale do tend to get tricked into spending boatloads more money than those on the other end.

 

[Bombiz]

Dont assume that only "core" gamers play free to play games. Just look at path of exile or Dota 2. Both free to play and both appeal to "core" gamers. And people complain about the mobile games because of games like dungeon keeper and star trek. Games where it takes hours to preform basic actions.

Also I'd rather something like path of exile that's free to play with only paying for cosmetics. If something is pay to win then it automatically becomes worse then some generic AAA "game".

 

[Pizzarand]

This thread propably could have been named smarter(if you didn't want controversy/attention, that is).

To me both of those type of games are cynical products of an industry that regards its customers with about the same respect as people on the internet talking about furries. It's just that one takes your money, the other your time. There is a lot more that could be said here, like the increaingly bloated development process of AAA games, but I think everyone on this forum will agree with your notion, that AAA gaming charges way too much and gives too little.

Anyways, there doesn't seem to be much worth discussing here, except for the question if you're smarter than core gamers, which you obviously are if they're having fun and pay while you have fun and don't pay.

So, Congratulations on that.

 

[Fonejackerjon]

I dunno, I used to love core games but i find myself gravitating to the casual game, as weird as it sounds alot of them are quite addicting and you know 'fun'. I love playing redline racer, 8 ball pool and criminal case on facebook, as it has tons of replay value and costs nothing, hundreds of hours of entertainment for free vs 10-15 hour AAA title.

Yes maybe I'm weird but It just feels to me that AAA is going into a gradual and slow decline, with only a very few titles being the exception.

When was the last time we had the 'wow' factor?

 

[senordesol]

I dunno, I used to love core games but i find myself gravitating to the casual game, as weird as it sounds alot of them are quite addicting and you know 'fun'. I love playing redline racer, 8 ball pool and criminal case on facebook, as it has tons of replay value and costs nothing, hundreds of hours of entertainment for free vs 10-15 hour AAA title.

Yes maybe I'm weird but It just feels to me that AAA is going into a gradual and slow decline, with only a very few titles being the exception.

When was the last time we had the 'wow' factor?

Hmm...

Well, given that I usually wait for sales, I don't play stuff anywhere near release.

I really enjoyed AC4; the whole piracy on the high seas thing was immensely fun. I liked the Tomb Raider reboot; that was really fun.

Last of Us, the latest GTA, Tropico 5; all really enjoyable. So...that's a lot of 'wow' for me. Also, I've been delving into the independent scene and was surprised by how much I enjoyed 'Banished'.

Now I'm not about to be an apologist for the industry, there are a lot of titles that were either over-promised or have suffered with age as of late. And if the casual scene is developing better games in lieu of the core scene, then I only see that as a good thing for the industry as a whole; as it'll give the core scene something to learn from, and it gives us some great games for free*.

 

[Bombiz]

I dunno, I used to love core games but i find myself gravitating to the casual game, as weird as it sounds alot of them are quite addicting and you know 'fun'. I love playing redline racer, 8 ball pool and criminal case on facebook, as it has tons of replay value and costs nothing, hundreds of hours of entertainment for free vs 10-15 hour AAA title.

Yes maybe I'm weird but It just feels to me that AAA is going into a gradual and slow decline, with only a very few titles being the exception.

When was the last time we had the we factor?

well i don't know about you but there are a few recent games that come to mind
games like:
Xcom: Enemy unknown
Dark Souls (1 & 2)
Path of Exile
Witcher 2

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

Spending less money for their games doesn't make them "smarter", it just means they have different values. The casual gamer is called casual because they're just that: casual about gaming. They play free-to-play and cheap games because for them gaming isn't a big deal. It's an amusing aside. Something to pass the time while they're on the toilet or waiting for the bus. The casual gamer isn't someone who wants to sit down to play a game for hours on end, so of course they aren't going to spend the kind of money on a hobby that would require them to spend hours on it to get their money's worth.

Also, I would like to note that this topic seems to pretend that there isn't a booming indie market out there. "What Triple-A games am I looking forward to?" Probably none right now, but that doesn't mean I don't have a lot of games that I'm looking forward to getting.

 

[TrevHead]

The main difference imo is that core gamers have more discerning tastes and have an invested interest in the games they play selling well so more like it well get made in the future. Casual gamer's tend not to be so picky and are fine with whatever is popular at that time, which explains why making hit iphone games like Flappy Bird or Angry Birds is as much down to luck than a science.

Imo the only gamers who aren't acting smart are core gamers who like unpopular genres and don't atleast try to support the games they enjoy. Some fans of classic mid tier/Japanese console/arcade games spring to mind as particularly stupid considering this sub market of gaming is practically dead on it's arse atm with SEGA Capcom etc focussing on western games and mobile and many of the next gen titles like Bayonetta 2, Devils Third and Scalebound only existing due to platform holders needing exclusives for their new systems.

 

[stroopwafel]

Whether 'casual' gamers are smarter than 'core' gamers also presupposes that different types of games also tap into the same market, which I don't think they necessarily do. I think the people who play games on their phone/tablet would never buy a console, dedicated handheld or gaming PC if they had no Farmville or Angry Birds to play and similarly those who have gaming as a hobby would never see the current supply of phone games as a genuine alternative.

What many people crave most of all(and which is reflected by the massive initial sales of the PS4) is quality gaming. Obviously, the demand is there even if market forces tend to somewhat fail to satiate this demand fully. One thing is for sure though, a game shoveled together in an afternoon and dumped as a phone app or browser game wouldn't generate this kind of eagerness in a million years.

Ofcourse you can argue the quality of many 'AAA' games or rather the particular business philosophies many publishers employ to push their titles, but that's a different matter all entirely. It's no secret that many game companies are struggling under development costs that have ballooned tremendously since the advent of HD consoles. It's a genuine concern though ofcourse you have companies like EA that try to profit from this situation even if their titles sell well into the millions and they really have no reason for activation passes or cutting content and selling it later as DLC for their full price games.

Yet another problem is that management of many big time publishers have completely lost touch with ''what the market wants'' leading to an avalanche of samey shooters like Medal of Honor Freedom Fighter or whatever that aberration was called. Yet pressure from their shareholders urges these companies to have increasingly ridiculous sales projections, to the point that even the like 4 million copies sold of the Tomb Raider reboot was considered a disappointment. So they become even more risk-averse. Yet a company like Fromsoft that always stayed true to its design philosophies created a runaway hit with a mid-budget title that gathered critical acclaim, a spiritual sequel that became an even bigger hit and who is now developing one of the most anticipated exclusives for PS4.

So I think that, other than a few pioneers we see big publishers holding on their existing franchises with as little innovation as possible and(in the case of EA) trying to push them as 'ongoing services' or other publishers chicken out completely and resorting to the zero risk market of mobile apps. I personally have high hopes for companies like Fromsoft or subsidiary studios like Tango Gameworks or Rocksteady to infuse the gaming industry with some much needed creativity. For all its faults I think even many to most of Ubisoft's recent titles are of a generally high quality. They atleast seem to give their developers a degree of creative freedom and learn from consumer feedback.

 

[Duster]

"Core gamers seem to happily play $60 for a game, $15-25 for DLC then pay the same next year for the latest update."

Anyone can see that this data is bias enough to discredit any conclusions made from it.

Anyway, buying things like Activision or Bioware games does not make you a core gamer, their modern games that is.

 

[ScrabbitRabbit]

I mustn't count as a core gamer, then, 'cause I've bought, like, four pieces of DLC total and literally none of the franchises I'm into are annual. In fact, a number of my favourites are standalone and the ones that are franchises have many years between releases.

I virtually never buy AAA games full price, either. Hell, I rarely buy AAA.

Yeah, you seem to have a very narrow definition of both hardcore and casual. And asserting that somebody's video gaming preferences has any bearing on their intelligence is... well, stupid.

 

[LAGG]

Are people that spend their vacation at home smarter than people that travel?
Are people that eat McDonald's smarter than people than people that go to steak houses?
Are people that watch sports on TV smarter than people who go to the stadiums?
Are people that play DiRT smarter than people that participate in Rally events?

 

[Weaver]

IMO there is a difference between mobile gamers and casual gamers. I see the person who owns an xbox and buys only CoD and sports games as a pretty casual gamers, and these are exactly the type who buy things at full price and support DLC absurd practices. I rarely, rarely buy a game above $10 anymore.

Besides, have you played a mobile game? The few I play pop up full screen ads when the game loads, have an ad banner that runs below them, and have dedicated adspace that shows when I pause the game or bring up the menu. Sure it's free, but there are goddamn advertisements everywhere.

 

[fezgod]

IMO there is a difference between mobile gamers and casual gamers. I see the person who owns an xbox and buys only CoD and sports games as a pretty casual gamers, and these are exactly the type who buy things at full price and support DLC absurd practices. I rarely, rarely buy a game above $10 anymore.

Not to mention that they'll usually buy a new game every year. They scoop up all the new FIFAs, CoDs and Maddens each year since everyone they play with does the same.

 

[lacktheknack]

I tend to buy "Complete Editions" on sale.

Does this make me smarter than everyone?

 

[VyseRogueKing]

I tend to buy "Complete Editions" on sale.

Does this make me smarter than everyone?

and I bought the Borderlands 2 Collector's Edition early on at full price. Am I stupid for buying something that I feel was worth the investment?

Well that's an rather cynical divisive and possibly intentionally provocative take on this issue. I also feel you've missed Jim's point in whichever video you're referring to because he's ranted about both free to play and AAA. He may have touched upon the casual hardcore argument once maybe twice.

You're basically saying that AAA games are not worth the money and on the other hand play free to play. But you don't mention the pitfalls of free to play.(and not all casual games are free. Hell most of the free ones sucl but for arguments sake let's stick to free.) Waiting is actually a pseudo-difficulty thing meant to pad content. In the most vile instances, a la dungeon keeper or competitively based games, you can wait several hours to perform ONE inane task or you can pay a buck to save you that time. It's a test of patience to see if you break, or you break out your wallet. In competitive casual games someone could build an army in seconds and wreck your face. Not all games are like this sure but it's terrible to experience. The mobile market also suffers from being generic and lacking innovation. Hell clones are much more abundant because they are easy to make and want to siphon money of the big titles. Literally every negative thing you've said about AAA titles is equally true of mobile/casual. Only difference is scope of development and price. So much like AAA games, there's always good mixed with the bad in mobile casual games.

I identify as a core gamer, yeah. Occasionally I drop money on AAA titles after release, sure. The AAA industry has similar problems to the mobile market but all in all they are typically at the minimum decent games. Some may not deserve the price tag but prices go down. Have I regretted these purchases? At most slightly because I make sure to check my sources before purchase. For instance I had a blast with Watch_Dogs even if the story may have driven me a tad more insane.

Not all AAA titles do as you think they do, being full of dlc up the yin-yang, pay to win, etc. in fact only a few of the morw infamous companies do it outright to make a quick buck. Same as your shining definition of casual games. A lot of people will use what they can to make easy money. It's our (unfortunate) job to find gold.

Also what about indie titles? A lot of those are neither casual nor are they money-dumps. You've created a black and white issue when there's more to it than that.

So basically what makes someone smarter isn't whether or not what types of games they play or for how long. Seriously what form of intellect is based on taste? Rather, it's those who know how to find the good stuff amongst the muck and not be manipulated by the companies that would do our wallet harm.

Which game am I looking forward to?
Borderlands the Pre-Sequel Why? Because I know that it's going to be a good game by itself, I'll probably spend a huge amount of time on it and the dlc, I feel, is entirely worth it because it gives entire story campaigns.

 

[Erttheking]

Someone's intelligence is not connected to the video games that they play in any way, shape, or form.