Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

2006 Casual Games White Paper

Posted by Zonk on from the casual-gaming-under-the-microscope dept.

Dubane writes "The 2006 Casual Games White Paper (pdf) has just been released by the IGDA Casual Games SIG. The 116-page report was contributed to by nearly 40 professionals in the casual gaming space, spanning all aspects of the industry, including developers, publishers, portals, tool providers and more. Notable updates from last year are the Business Models section with up to date information on how casual game companies are making money today, and the Publishing section which contains results from a publishing survey of over 50 players in space. These results provide information how companies earn their revenue, what genres of games perform the best, and typical royalty rates seen for the various players in the space (among other things). This year's paper is also available on the IGDA wiki where it can be continuously updated by the community."

15 comments

  1. What's Next? by makwy2 · · Score: 1

    Any ideas on what is really coming up next from this?

    1. Re:What's Next? by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 1

      What's next? The 2007 Casual Game's White Paper.

      --
      God spoke to me.
    2. Re:What's Next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that sig is a joke right? please tell me it's a joke!

    3. Re:What's Next? by Dubane · · Score: 1

      Hehe maybe :) Seriously though, one of the goals we have with the wiki is for the main information to be continuously updated, so there might not be a need for another large-scale paper like this. We may move onto much smaller reports on more targeted areas of the space such as designing for upsell, production issues, skill-based gaming, etc.

  2. Disappointing by p0tat03 · · Score: 1

    It's a bit dissapointing that your standard Bejeweled and Holdem clones are still apparently dominating the marketplace. Where indie development was said to be a dream of innovation and creativity, it really looks more like yet more connect-4 and royal flushes.

  3. I've always been a casual gamer... by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 3, Funny

    I never dressed up for gaming anyway, I just never saw the point of trying to fit in with all those phonies.

    --
    You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
  4. Meaning of Casual Games by SupremoMan · · Score: 1

    Casual Gamnes seems like another loosely defined market sector, that's nothing really but a buzz word used by corporations to prop up their stocks. The genre is so broad they create an illusion of an ever expending market by stretching the definition of casual games. At first it may be just puzzle java games, with know player base of x. Next month they decide to also include non-puzzle java games with player base of y. X + y = x, and they can say that x grew by a percent value of z. This creates illusion of ever expending market. Soon there are news stories of publishing company ABC starting up their own casual games development department to compete with company XYZ in the casual games market. This kind of stuff repeats itself all the time on Wall Street. For me casual game has and always will be a game with loosely defined goal that progresses at your own pace. There is no need to hurry up blazing to the end, you should slow down and enjoy the ride. Sadly there are fewer and fewer games like that out there.

    1. Re:Meaning of Casual Games by Saurian_Overlord · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The thing that bugs me is the different ways to take "casual." They're defining a "casual game" as one with "simple controls" that doesn't require a long-term commitment. But there are so many different ways to interpret that. And what's simple to one gamer might not be so easy for another. I think what they're really getting at is "entry-level gaming," meaning a game that a non-gamer can pick up and play with minimal instruction and/or a knowledge of whatever pre-existing game or skill it might be based on (i.e. solitaire, sudoku, etc.). When someone says "casual," i think of something you might be able to play at the office. But that could be taken different ways as well. Some people may only be able to get away with card games or perhaps Tetris. I have a friend who works in a call center where they regularly play whatever they want on the third shift (including WoW and numerous RPGs). And i'm sure we can recall when the original Quake was at its height and took up residence in cubicles as often as solitaire.

      Anyway, basically, i agree with you: it's just a buzzword used in the industry, not a clearly defined market.

    2. Re:Meaning of Casual Games by duncangough · · Score: 1

      "Easy to learn, difficult to master".

      That's the official Casual Games definition. It's not applicable to gaming casually, to blowing off steam on the Xbox360 or to playing old-school classics using MAME. Casual Gamers are a very tighly defined bunch and Casual Games are almost exclusively aimed at Windows downloaded, try-before-you-buy, 2D pick-up-and-go style games.

      Personally, I find actually 'looking at' what consititues a Casual Gamer makes it easier to define them as a bunch.

      --
      Suttree, a weblog about casual games development
  5. 116 Page White Paper?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aren't White Papers supposed to be around 10 pages long, by definition?

  6. Casual Games definition by Dubane · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In a lot of ways you are right. Casual Games is an extremely hard to define term. We took a shot at it again this year, but the reality is that I don't think we'll ever see a full and complete defition of casual games. Some people like to define them by their player-base (ie Soccer Moms), but that's flawed because there's many other types of people playing casual games. Even if you expand the definition to people that play in short bursts of time it isn't right, because you have some extremely hardcore casual game players who will go for many hours at a time.

    On some levels even games like WoW have aspects that are extremely casual. It's very easy to get into, they do a great job of holding your hand, and you can with some success play the game in relatively short play sessions (though you can't get to level 60!)

    In the end, the definition we are using I think is the most appropriate one we have, but as we point out in the paper, it's still pretty flawed. Anytime you have this nebulous of a definition there's going to be edge cases, and things that possibly fit, and others that don't. It actually took several years before we even found a name for this aspect of the game industry, and in the end it's one that most people aren't happy with, but don't have a better suggestion.

  7. Argh! by Flyboy+Connor · · Score: 1

    I am on page 20 of 116, and already my eyes are watering from the spelling and style errors, the triviality, the blah-blah, the self-importance, the silly distinctions, and the senseless charts. I mean, who the hell shows a half-page pie-chart of the hours spent on gaming per week, with the whole pie representing 24 hours? That is just meaningless.

    1. Re:Argh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's easy to perceive a text or a chart as meaningless when you don't understand the meaning. the pie doesn't chart hours spent on gaming per week and it doesn't represent 24 hours. it rather charts hours spent on on-line-gaming per week as a percentage of gaming per week, and the latter value happens to be approximately 22 (for females) or 24 (for males) hours.

    2. Re:Argh! by Flyboy+Connor · · Score: 1

      Ah well, I went through the whole document and almost all of the charts are senseless. I mean, who uses a line graph when there is no sequence? Who uses a spider-web graph when there IS a sequence (without loopback)? I can't say I read all of the texts, but I read quite a few, and my general impression is "much ado about nothing". The sad thing is that the few wise words which are undoubtly in there (which wiki hasn't got those?) are embedded in a big pile of self-promotion and people trying to sound important without saying anything substantive. This attitude is typical for the IGDA and the main reason why I never joined up.