J1M
Arcane
- Joined
- May 14, 2008
- Messages
- 14,616
The game industry largely uses the terms 'core gamer' and 'casual gamer' to segment and target its potential audience. I will summarize why this is embarrassing and propose a more cynical (and useful) approach to categorizing different types of gamer.
The industry categorizes gamers largely based on how much time they spend playing. Casual gamers are labelled as playing less often and for shorter durations.
From what I have observed, the adoption of the moniker 'core gamer' started as largely a rejection of the input of 'hardcore gamers'. Second generation game developers didn't like the high standards present in the feedback of the hardcore audience. They took a path of ignoring the existing audience while attempting to replace it with one that was less discerning. Technically, the industry recognizes the existence of a third 'hardcore' type of gamer, but actively ignores it out of spite.
I don't think I need to go into why that model is horribly inaccurate. But it is worth pointing out how sad it is that such a large industry doesn't have a better way of thinking about its customers. Some sophistication exists around spending habits (ie. 'whales' in free-to-play games and pre-order bonuses), but that is limited to extracting more revenue from existing customers, not what motivates interest.
I propose the following model.
CUSTOMERS:
NON-CUSTOMERS:
Note that in this model we clearly label which groups have a worthwhile amount of disposable income to design and market a game to, and which ones do not. If you are confused as to why this doesn't align with who the industry is catering to these days you are not alone.
You could argue that certain studios have more sophisticated ways of looking at the core/casual model, but I'd argue that this model explains things that those models cannot. For example, why Puzzle Quest was much more popular with boys than girls. Using this model, it is easy to see that the match-3 mechanics that normally appeal to the Facile gamer had enough depth and challenge layered on top to appeal to a different audience.
In conclusion, this disparity in models explains some of the industry's missteps and it's what I would use to inform game design and marketing. Feedback welcome.
The industry categorizes gamers largely based on how much time they spend playing. Casual gamers are labelled as playing less often and for shorter durations.
From what I have observed, the adoption of the moniker 'core gamer' started as largely a rejection of the input of 'hardcore gamers'. Second generation game developers didn't like the high standards present in the feedback of the hardcore audience. They took a path of ignoring the existing audience while attempting to replace it with one that was less discerning. Technically, the industry recognizes the existence of a third 'hardcore' type of gamer, but actively ignores it out of spite.
I don't think I need to go into why that model is horribly inaccurate. But it is worth pointing out how sad it is that such a large industry doesn't have a better way of thinking about its customers. Some sophistication exists around spending habits (ie. 'whales' in free-to-play games and pre-order bonuses), but that is limited to extracting more revenue from existing customers, not what motivates interest.
I propose the following model.
CUSTOMERS:
- Polyluderes (connoisseurs)
play everything that meets a personal bar for quality and novelty
- Secutors (followers)
follow trends, buy what their friends are playing, motivated by not missing out
- Genreists (narrow)
will only play a limited number of genres or franchises
- Backseat (non-gamers who buy games)
actively dislike challenge, prefer walking simulators, story heavy experiences, also known as soyboys, journalists, and girlfriends
- Facile (women)
demand low challenge, will happily substitute gaming with another form of diversion, play hidden object games/romance stories/ad-driven phone games
NON-CUSTOMERS:
- Commentators (streamers)
drama-driven and click-driven personalities, easily bought for a microscopic portion of the marketing budget
- Semi-Pro (dreamers)
young people chasing the dream of turning gaming into a job, will play one or two games for thousands of hours
- Activists (sjws)
actively ruin games to virtue signal for retarded ideologies, commonly found in low-paying game journalism careers
Note that in this model we clearly label which groups have a worthwhile amount of disposable income to design and market a game to, and which ones do not. If you are confused as to why this doesn't align with who the industry is catering to these days you are not alone.
You could argue that certain studios have more sophisticated ways of looking at the core/casual model, but I'd argue that this model explains things that those models cannot. For example, why Puzzle Quest was much more popular with boys than girls. Using this model, it is easy to see that the match-3 mechanics that normally appeal to the Facile gamer had enough depth and challenge layered on top to appeal to a different audience.
In conclusion, this disparity in models explains some of the industry's missteps and it's what I would use to inform game design and marketing. Feedback welcome.
Last edited: